Next Article in Journal
Prediction of Marine Thin Shale Gas Reservoir with Seismic Phase-Controlled Nonlinear Stochastic Inversion
Previous Article in Journal
A Cloud-Edge Computing Method for Integrated Electricity-Gas System Dispatch
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Breaking New Ground: Exploring the Promising Role of Solid-State Fermentation in Harnessing Natural Biostimulants for Sustainable Agriculture

by
Roberto Carlos Solano Porras
1,2,
Adriana Artola
1,
Raquel Barrena
1,
Golafarin Ghoreishi
1,
Cindy Ballardo Matos
2 and
Antoni Sánchez
1,*
1
Composting Research Group (GICOM), Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
2
Solid Waste Research Centre (CIRSO), National University of Central Peru, Huancayo 12006, Peru
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2023, 11(8), 2300; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11082300
Submission received: 8 June 2023 / Revised: 28 July 2023 / Accepted: 29 July 2023 / Published: 31 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Biological Processes and Systems)

Abstract

:
Agriculture has been experiencing a difficult situation because of limiting factors in its production processes. Natural biostimulants (NBs) have emerged as a novel alternative. This study reviews NBs produced through solid-state fermentation (SSF) from organic waste, focusing on processes and production methods. The aim is to highlight their potential for improving agricultural productivity and promoting sustainable agriculture. Through a literature review, the effects of NBs on crops were summarized, along with the challenges associated with their production and application. The importance of standardizing production processes, optimizing fermentation conditions, and assessing their effects on different crops is emphasized. Furthermore, future research areas are introduced, such as enhancing production efficiency and evaluating the effectiveness of SSF-produced NBs in different agricultural systems. In conclusion, SSF-produced NBs offer a promising alternative for sustainable agriculture, but further research and development are needed to maximize their efficacy and to enable large-scale implementation.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

One of the main challenges in agriculture is achieving global zero hunger [1]. Therefore, sustainable agriculture is a viable method to ensure food security. In this regard, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) envisions providing nutritious and accessible food for all while preserving natural resources to meet current and future needs. Sustainable agriculture also aims to benefit producers in terms of economic development [1]. In conventional agriculture, reducing the intensive use of agrochemicals is a significant challenge that negatively impacts soil health, water scarcity, and biodiversity [2]. In this context, natural biostimulants (NBs) have emerged as alternatives to sustainable agriculture. NBs are derived from products such as microorganisms, plant extracts, and seaweed extracts and can be classified into three main groups based on their source and content: humic substances (HS), hormone-containing products (HCP), and amino-acid-containing products (AACP). HCP, such as seaweed extracts, contain various active substances for plant growth, including auxins, cytokinins, and their derivatives [3]. These products contain biologically active compounds that stimulate plant physiological processes and promote growth, development, and resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses [4,5,6,7]. NBs offer significant advantages because they are derived from natural sources, such as waste materials, plant extracts, and microorganisms [8,9], making them more environmentally sustainable than chemical products based on synthetic compounds. Furthermore, NBs are generally safer for the environment and human health than chemical products, which can be harmful [10]. NBs also have the potential to promote beneficial interactions with soil microorganisms, unlike chemical products that lack this capacity [11]. Additionally, NBs can serve as an easier alternative to chemicals in order to comply with regulations and restrictions in many countries [6,12,13]. Given these issues, NBs present themselves as a promising alternative in agriculture.
Various production methods exist, including solid-state fermentation (SSF), a technology conducted in the absence or near absence of free water, allowing the use of solid materials as substrates for enhanced biotransformation. SSF has been reported as a promising eco-technology for the production of bio-based products, and studies have demonstrated the successful pilot-scale production of NBs using plant biomass as a support and carbon source for different microorganisms. These production processes are performed under controlled conditions, including temperature, humidity, and airflow, to optimize NB synthesis [14,15]. Furthermore, the utilization of organic waste as a substrate in the SSF process has gained attention, primarily involving various solid biodegradable materials derived from agricultural and forestry byproducts and waste [16]. NBs obtained through SSF have shown biostimulant effects on crop development, including physical parameters such as germination, growth, stem length, leaf count, root dry weight, leaf area, biomass production, macronutrients, and micronutrients [17]. They have also demonstrated positive effects on root development in forest species [18]. Therefore, NBs produced through SSF represent an emerging alternative to the limitations of conventional biostimulants, including their negative impact on agricultural sustainability, the need to reduce the impact of waste on the environment, and the desire to limit the use of synthetic compounds in agriculture [19].
This review addresses the production of NBs through SSF using organic waste as a promising approach for sustainable agriculture. Furthermore, these NBs have the potential to enhance plant growth and development while reducing reliance on conventional chemical products. To achieve this, the existing literature was reviewed to assess the effectiveness and limitations of NB production through SSF.

2. Materials and Methods

Methodology

This review article involved the selection of scientific articles from the following scientific databases: SpringerLink (https://link.springer.com/, accessed on 25 May 2023), Science Direct (https://www.sciencedirect.com/, accessed on 25 May 2023), Wiley (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com, accessed on 25 May 2023), ProQuest (https://www.proquest.com/, accessed on 25 May 2023), Patent Inspiration (https://www.patentinspiration.com/, accessed on 25 May 2023), and Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com/, accessed on 25 May 2023). Boolean operators (AND and OR) were used to obtain more accurate results. The following keywords were used: “solid state fermentation and biostimulant”, “solid state fermentation and auxins”, “solid state fermentation and biostimulant name”. Literature from the past 30 years was included in the article review.
Articles were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: relevance of the publication to the topic and selected years. The following criteria were considered: type of NB, substrate, microorganisms, optimal conditions, and effects on crops. We aimed to address these research questions by collecting and analyzing relevant studies, considering the latest trends in NB production through SSF using organic waste.

3. Relevant Sections

3.1. Definition and Types of Biostimulants

NBs are derived from natural sources such as microorganisms, plant residues, and seaweed, among others [20]. These products contain biologically active compounds that stimulate plant physiological processes, promoting plant growth, development, and resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses [10]. However, biostimulants include a wide range of compounds, as highlighted by the European Biostimulants Industry Council (EBIC) and the Biological Products Industry Alliance (BPIA) [14]. The EBIC defines plant biostimulants as substances or microorganisms that stimulate natural processes to enhance nutrient uptake, efficiency, stress tolerance, and crop quality. They do not a have direct pesticidal action and are not regulated by pesticide laws. BPIA defines biostimulants as diverse materials that improve crop vigour, quality, yield, and tolerance to abiotic stresses by facilitating nutrient uptake, enhancing soil microorganism development, and stimulating root growth to increase water-use efficiency [12,13]. This growth is in line with an increase in scientific support for the use of biostimulants as agricultural inputs for various plant species [21].
Currently, there are various types of NBs, including those produced by SSF, which can serve as a starting point for future research (Table 1).

3.2. Advantages of Natural Biostimulants over Conventional Ones

In this regard, NBs obtained through SSF have emerged as an alternative to conventional biostimulants, primarily because of their positive impact on agricultural sustainability, reduced environmental waste, and limited use of synthetic compounds in agriculture [46].
NBs obtained by SSF from organic waste are gaining interest because of their numerous advantages over conventionally synthesized biostimulants [47]. This article reviews and compares the advantages of NBs in terms of effectiveness, safety, sustainability, and environmental benefits. Among these advantages, the following can be highlighted.

3.2.1. Sustainability and Environmental Impact

The importance of NBs as a sustainable option in agriculture lies in their renewable origin and lower environmental impact than chemical biostimulants [21].
Generally, the use of NBs has a positive environmental impact [19,48,49]. They can help to reduce or rationalize the amount of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides needed to grow plants [67,68,69]. For example, some NBs can have a positive effect on microbial communities in the soil and can be beneficial for agricultural practices [11]. In terms of environmental impact, NBs extracted from microorganisms are non-toxic and do not pollute the environment [70,71]. In addition, because they are obtained from natural sources, their production is more sustainable than that of chemical biostimulants.

3.2.2. Security

In contrast to the risks associated with the chemicals used in chemical biostimulants, NBs tend to be safer for both the environment and human health [72].

3.2.3. Broad Spectrum of Activity

NBs have a wide spectrum of activities, which implies multiple benefits for plants in terms of growth, nutrient absorption, stress resistance, flowering, and fruiting quality [20,73].

3.2.4. Positive Interactions

NBs promote beneficial interactions with soil microorganisms, improving soil health and favoring more balanced and productive agricultural systems [49,74].

3.2.5. Regulatory Compliance

NBs offer an easier option for complying with government regulations and restrictions on the use of chemicals in agriculture, which has become more relevant in many countries [6].

3.3. Production Processes of NBs by SSF

Thus, SSF is a promising method for NBs production. SSF produces a variety of bioactive products that promote plant growth, development, and responses to abiotic and biotic stress conditions [75,76]. In this chapter, the processes used to obtain natural biostimulants through SSF were explored, highlighting their importance and efficacy in sustainable agriculture.

3.3.1. Substrate Selection in NB Production by SSF

The appropriate choice of substrates is a crucial step in the production of NBs by SSF [77]. Substrates provide a source of nutrients, energy, and bioactive compounds for microorganisms during fermentation. [78]. The most commonly used substrates in SSF include agricultural residues, agro-industrial waste, food industry by-products, and lignocellulosic materials [16]. These substrates are rich in nutrients and can be degraded by microorganisms, allowing the production of beneficial metabolites [79].

3.3.2. Substrate Pretreatment

Pretreatment of substrates is necessary to improve their composition and nutrient availability. Pretreatment may involve steps such as crushing, grinding, sieving, pH adjustment, sterilization, and addition of nutritional agents [75,80,81]. These steps aim to optimize the conditions for microbial growth and production of desired metabolites [82]. Pretreatment can also facilitate the degradation of substrates and increase fermentation efficiency [83].

3.3.3. Microorganisms for NB Production by SSF and Inoculation

Microorganisms play a fundamental role in the production of NBs by SSF, as they are responsible for substrate degradation and synthesis of bioactive metabolites [84]. In this section, we will focus on the different microorganisms used in this process and their relevance to NB production.
Examples of microorganisms used in SSF for NB production include bacteria, fungi, and yeasts. Each type of microorganism possesses specific characteristics that can influence biostimulant production.
The inoculation of microorganisms is a crucial step in the production of NBs by SSF [18]. Beneficial microorganism strains such as bacteria, fungi, and yeast are selected for their ability to degrade substrates and produce bioactive metabolites. These microorganisms were pre-cultivated under optimal conditions and then inoculated into substrates to initiate SSF [78,84]. The choice of suitable microorganisms and their interactions during SSF influence the composition and final quality of the biostimulant [18].

3.3.4. Control of SSF Conditions

Control of SSF conditions is essential for obtaining high-quality biostimulants through SSF. Parameters such as the temperature, humidity, pH, C/N ratio, moisture content, and process duration must be monitored and adjusted accordingly. These conditions affect the growth and metabolism of microorganisms [15,18]. The precise control of SSF conditions ensures the optimization and quality of the biostimulant.
The production of natural biostimulants through SSF involves the selection of suitable substrates, pretreatment of substrates, inoculation of microorganisms, and control of SSF conditions. These processes are crucial for obtaining high-quality NBs that can promote plant growth.

3.3.5. SSF Bioreactors in NB Production

The use of SSF bioreactors has proven to be a promising technique for improving NB production. These systems allow for better control of fermentation conditions and higher efficiency in obtaining high-quality biostimulants [15].
SSF bioreactors can be designed to maintain optimal cultivation conditions, including temperature, humidity, aeration, and water content [85]. The appropriate selection of the bioreactor depends on various factors, such as the type of microorganism, substrate used, and desired production scale [86]. Common types of SSF bioreactors include fixed-bed, fluidized-bed, and packed-bed bioreactors [79]. The implementation of SSF bioreactors in NB production represents a significant improvement in the efficiency and quality of biostimulants, contributing to a more sustainable and productive agriculture [87,88]. Table 2 presents examples of substrates commonly used in the production of NBs by SSF, together with their characteristics and advantages, microorganism selection, production mode, and bioreactor type.

4. Methods of NB Production

In this section, the production methods used to obtain NBs through SSF are addressed. The type of biostimulant, microorganisms used in this process, and the optimal conditions of SSF for its production will be described.

4.1. Microorganisms Used in NB Production

In the production of NBs through SSF, various beneficial microorganisms play key roles in substrate degradation and the synthesis of metabolites. Examples of microorganisms used include bacteria, fungi, and yeast. Each type of microorganism possesses specific characteristics that can influence biostimulant production. See Table 2.

4.2. Characteristics of SSF for NB Production

SSF is used to produce natural biostimulants. In this process, microorganisms are cultivated on solid substrates, such as agricultural residues or by-products of the food industry. During fermentation, microorganisms secrete enzymes and bioactive metabolites that transform the compounds present in the substrate into forms that are readily assimilated by plants [18].
The biological activity determines the production of NBs and warrants particular attention in future research. Table 3 presents examples of substrate microorganisms used to obtain different natural biostimulants (NBs) through SSF.

4.3. Effect of the NBs on Crops

As detailed in previous chapters, NBs have a significant impact on crop growth, development, and yield. The following are examples of observed effects on different aspects of crop production, supported by scientific studies.

4.3.1. Improvement of Plant Growth and Development

The application of NBs promotes root growth, increases plant biomass, improves plant architecture, and enhances seed germination and seedling emergence. These effects are attributed to the presence of specific molecules in NBs, such as low molecular weight peptides, gibberellic acid (GA3), and indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) [116,117,118,119].
Table 4 summarizes the effects of NBs on crop growth and development.

4.3.2. Increased Resistance to Adverse Conditions

In addition to improving plant growth and development, NBs also enhance the resilience of crops against adverse conditions. It has been observed that certain molecules present in NBs, such as ABA and seaweed polysaccharides, contribute to increased tolerance to abiotic stress, enhanced disease and pest resistance, and protection against oxidative stress [125,126].
Table 5 summarizes some NBs and their effects on resistance to adverse conditions.

4.3.3. Effect of NBs on Improving Crop Quality

In this section, we will explore scientific studies that have investigated the influence of different NBs on improving the quality of various crops. Aspects such as nutritional content, physical appearance, shelf life, and resistance to stress will be addressed (Table 6). These findings provide a solid foundation for understanding the potential of NBs for enhancing crop quality and open new perspectives for their application in sustainable agriculture.

4.3.4. Optimization of Nutrient Use Efficiency

In this section, we focus on optimizing nutrient use efficiency in crops through the use of NBs. Nutrient use efficiency is a key factor in agricultural production as it directly influences the absorption, assimilation, and utilization of nutrients by plants. NBs have been demonstrated to be an effective tool for improving this efficiency and maximizing crop yield. Table 7 presents evidence of how NBs enhance nutrient use efficiency.

4.3.5. Effect NBs on Agricultural Productivity

NBs are a promising tool for enhancing crop efficiency and productivity as well as addressing current challenges in agriculture. In this section, examples of studies demonstrating the positive effects of natural biostimulants on agricultural productivity are presented, highlighting the results obtained in different crops and the NBs involved (Table 8).

4.4. Limitations and Challenges of NBs by SSF

Despite the benefits of NBs in sustainable agriculture, some limitations and challenges need to be considered. These aspects can affect their practical application and widespread adoption in agricultural production. Some of the main limitations and challenges of this study are as follows.

4.4.1. Standardization Issues in NB Production by SSF

In this section, we address some standardization issues that may arise in the process of NB production by SSF. Although SSF offers advantages in terms of cost, efficiency, and small-scale production, there are challenges that need to be addressed to achieve standardized and consistent production of high-quality biostimulants [223]. The following are some common limitations.
Substrate variability: the choice of substrate used in SSF can vary depending on the type of microorganism and production objective. However, the chemical composition and physical properties of substrates can vary, which could affect the quality of NBs.
Control of SSF conditions: SSF conditions, such as temperature, humidity, pH, and substrate/microorganism ratio, are crucial for the growth and activity of microorganisms. Without proper control of these conditions, there may be variations in the production of bioactive metabolites and enzymes [79], which can affect the quality and efficacy of NBs.
Scalability of production: the large-scale production of NBs by SSF can be challenging because of the need to maintain optimal fermentation conditions and ensure the quality of the final product. Scalability of production requires optimization of fermentation parameters, selection of suitable equipment, and design of efficient processes that meet quality standards and market demands [47].
Addressing these standardization issues in the production of NBs by SSF will require a combination of scientific research, development of new methodologies, collaboration between academia, industry, and regulatory bodies, and the adoption of good manufacturing practices. These efforts will contribute to ensuring the quality, consistency, and efficacy of NBs produced by SSF, thereby facilitating their reliable and sustainable application in agriculture.

4.4.2. Challenges in the Application of NBs from SSF in Sustainable Agriculture

In this chapter, we explore some difficulties that may arise in the application of NBs produced by SSF in sustainable agriculture. Although NBs offer numerous benefits for improving crop performance and quality, as shown in Table 7, there are still specific challenges related to their application in sustainable agricultural systems. The following are some possible difficulties.
Regulation and Standards: the lack of updated regulations in many countries regarding the use of NBs can hinder their application in sustainable agriculture, as evidenced by a critical analysis [224]. The lack of clear definitions and standards can create uncertainty regarding dosing and the frequency of application, which could hinder their widespread adoption.
Interaction with other inputs: the interaction of NBs with other inputs can be complex and may require adjustments in application practices to avoid possible negative interactions or decrease in product efficacy [225]. In sustainable agriculture, it is common to use multiple inputs such as organic fertilizers, biological pesticides, and beneficial microorganisms.
Adaptability to different crops and agronomic conditions: NBs can have different effects depending on crop type and agronomic conditions [20]. Some NBs may work more effectively on certain crops or at certain phenological stages, requiring a detailed understanding of their mode of action and proper adaptation to the specific conditions of each crop.
Farmer capacity building: the adoption of NBs in sustainable agriculture may require increased awareness and knowledge among farmers [226]. It is important to educate farmers about the benefits and proper use of NBs, as well as providing training and technical assistance to maximize their effectiveness on crops.
Overcoming these difficulties in the application of NBs produced by SSF in sustainable agriculture requires a comprehensive approach involving researchers, farmers, businesses, and the government. It is important to encourage the research and development of best practices, establish clear regulations, and promote training and awareness among key players in the agricultural supply chain.

4.4.3. Factors Limiting the Effectiveness of Natural Biostimulants Produced by SSF in Different Crops

The effectiveness of NBs produced by SSF can be influenced by various factors in different crops. Some of these factors include the genetic variability of crop varieties, environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity, and nutrient availability in the soil. Additionally, NBs produced by SSF interact with other agricultural inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides. NBs are not a universal solution and should be combined with good agricultural practices such as crop rotation and proper soil management, which can affect their effectiveness [169,227]. Further research is needed to better understand the response of different crops to NBs produced by SSF and to optimize SSF conditions, valorizing waste to maximize their benefits in sustainable agriculture.

5. Conclusions and Future Research Perspectives

5.1. Conclusions

In this section, we present our conclusions and future research perspectives regarding the production of NBs from SSF. In this review, we have analyzed the use of NBs in agriculture, their production by SSF, and their effects on crops. The main conclusions derived from this study are as follows:
NBs are a promising tool to improve crop development and performance. Their use can contribute to more sustainable agriculture by reducing reliance on synthetic chemicals.
SSF is an efficient technique for producing NBs from organic substrates. This method offers several advantages, such as the valorization of agricultural and agro-industrial waste.
NBs act through various bioactive molecules, such as auxins, cytokinins, alginic acids, humic acids, and other compounds. These molecules can modulate physiological and metabolic processes in plants, improving nutrient uptake, rooting, biotic and abiotic stress tolerance, and crop quality.
However, challenges and limitations still need to be addressed to maximize the effectiveness of NBs. These include standardization of production, optimization of dosages and application, adaptations to different crops and environmental conditions, and understanding interactions with other agricultural inputs.

5.2. Future Research Prospects

The following are future research perspectives. A multidisciplinary approach is required to advance the field of NBs from SSF. Some promising areas of research include the following.
Further studies are needed on the mechanisms of action of NBs at the molecular and cellular levels. This will help to better understand how they interact with plants and modulate specific physiological processes.
Research on the optimization of NB production processes produced by SSF. This involves improving the substrates, selecting efficient microorganisms, and optimizing SSF conditions to obtain high-quality and consistent products.
Investigation of the effectiveness of NBs in different agricultural systems and environmental conditions. This includes field and greenhouse studies that analyze the impact of biostimulants on various crops, regions, and agricultural practices.
Research on the interaction of NBs with other agricultural inputs, such as bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides is needed to optimize their combined use and minimize potential negative effects.
In conclusion, NBs produced by SSF have significant potential for improving agricultural productivity and promoting sustainable farming practices. However, further research, development, and innovation are needed to overcome these challenges and maximize their efficacy for different crops and environmental conditions. An integrated approach that combines scientific research, collaboration among different stakeholders, and the implementation of science-based agricultural practices is essential to fully harness the benefits of NBs in sustainable agriculture.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, formal analysis, R.C.S.P. and A.S.; methodology, A.A.; validation, A.A., R.B., C.B.M. and R.C.S.P.; investigation, R.B.; resources, C.B.M.; data curation, A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.; writing—review and editing, R.C.S.P.; visualization, G.G.; supervision, A.A. and A.S.; project administration, A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

R.C.S.P received a grant from the National Program of Scholarships and Educational Credit–PRONABEC–Perú, resolution 2512–2021-MINEDU-VMG-PRONABEC. This research was financially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación in the call Proyectos de I+D+i en líneas estratégicas 2022. Project FertiLab, (reference PLEC2022-009252).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to Seyed Alireza Vali for his support in improving the use of English in this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

Natural biostimulants (NBs)
Solid-state fermentation (SSF)
The European Biostimulants Industry Council (EBIC)
Humic substances (HS)
Hormone-containing products (HCP)
Amino-acid-containing products (AACP)
Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA)
Abscisic acid (ABA)

References

  1. 2.4.1 Agricultural Sustainability|Sustainable Development Goals|Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: https://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/indicators/241/en/ (accessed on 23 May 2023).
  2. Sumberg, J.; Giller, K.E. What Is ‘Conventional’ Agriculture? Glob. Food Secur. 2022, 32, 100617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kauffman, G.L.; Kneivel, D.P.; Watschke, T.L. Effects of a Biostimulant on the Heat Tolerance Associated with Photosynthetic Capacity, Membrane Thermostability, and Polyphenol Production of Perennial Ryegrass. Crop Sci. 2007, 47, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wong, W.S.; Tan, S.N.; Ge, L.; Chen, X.; Letham, D.S.; Yong, J.W.H. The Importance of Phytohormones and Microbes in Biostimulants: Mass Spectrometric Evidence and Their Positive Effects on Plant Growth. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1148, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Boivin, S.; Fonouni-Farde, C.; Frugier, F. How Auxin and Cytokinin Phytohormones Modulate Root Microbe Interactions. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. du Jardin, P. Plant Biostimulants: Definition, Concept, Main Categories and Regulation. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Sauer, M.; Robert, S.; Kleine-Vehn, J. Auxin: Simply Complicated. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 2565–2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Rady, M.M.; Desoky, E.-S.M.; Elrys, A.S.; Boghdady, M.S. Can Licorice Root Extract Be Used as an Effective Natural Biostimulant for Salt-Stressed Common Bean Plants? S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 121, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kurepin, L.V.; Zaman, M.; Pharis, R.P. Phytohormonal Basis for the Plant Growth Promoting Action of Naturally Occurring Biostimulators. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 1715–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Posmyk, M.M.; Szafrańska, K. Biostimulators: A New Trend towards Solving an Old Problem. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 748. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hellequin, E.; Monard, C.; Chorin, M.; Le bris, N.; Daburon, V.; Klarzynski, O.; Binet, F. Responses of Active Soil Microorganisms Facing to a Soil Biostimulant Input Compared to Plant Legacy Effects. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 13727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. EBIC—The European Biostimulants Industry Council. Available online: https://biostimulants.eu/ (accessed on 8 March 2022).
  13. Biological Products Industry Alliance|Advancing Knowledge About Biopesticides & Biostimulants. Available online: https://www.bpia.org/ (accessed on 23 April 2023).
  14. do Prado, D.Z.; Okino-Delgado, C.H.; Zanutto-Elgui, M.R.; da Silva, R.B.G.; Pereira, M.S.; Jahn, L.; Ludwig-Müller, J.; da Silva, M.R.; Velini, E.D.; Fleuri, L.F. Screening of Aspergillus, Bacillus and Trichoderma Strains and Influence of Substrates on Auxin and Phytases Production through Solid-State Fermentation. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2019, 19, 101165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ghoreishi, G.; Barrena, R.; Font, X. Using Green Waste as Substrate to Produce Biostimulant and Biopesticide Products through Solid-State Fermentation. Waste Manag. 2023, 159, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, H. Biotechnology Principles of Solid State Fermentation. Mod. Solid State Ferment. 2013, 23–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sanchez-Montesinos, B.; Dianez, F.; Moreno-Gavira, A.; Gea, F.J.; Santos, M. Role of Trichoderma Aggressivum f. Europaeumas Plant-Growth Promoter in Horticulture. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Do Prado, D.Z.; Oliveira, S.L.; Okino-Delgado, C.H.; Auer, S.; Ludwig-Müller, J.; da Silva, M.R.; da Costa Fernandes, C.J.; Carbonari, C.A.; Zambuzzi, W.F.; Fleuri, L.F. Aspergillus Flavipes as a Novel Biostimulant for Rooting-Enhancement of Eucalyptus. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 681–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Puglia, D.; Pezzolla, D.; Gigliotti, G.; Torre, L.; Bartucca, M.L.; Del Buono, D. The Opportunity of Valorizing Agricultural Waste, Through Its Conversion into Biostimulants, Biofertilizers, and Biopolymers. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zulfiqar, F.; Casadesús, A.; Brockman, H.; Munné-Bosch, S. An Overview of Plant-Based Natural Biostimulants for Sustainable Horticulture with a Particular Focus on Moringa Leaf Extracts. Plant Sci. 2020, 295, 110194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Calvo, P.; Nelson, L.; Kloepper, J.W. Agricultural Uses of Plant Biostimulants. Plant Soil 2014, 383, 3–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Yu, X.; Li, Y.; Cui, Y.; Liu, R.; Li, Y.; Chen, Q.; Gu, Y.; Zhao, K.; Xiang, Q.; Xu, K.; et al. An Indoleacetic Acid-Producing Ochrobactrum Sp. MGJ11 Counteracts Cadmium Effect on Soybean by Promoting Plant Growth. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 122, 987–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Karnwal, A.; Dohroo, A. Effect of Maize Root Exudates on Indole-3-Acetic Acid Production by Rice Endophytic Bacteria under Influence of L-Tryptophan. F1000Research 2018, 7, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Do, T.C.V.; Tran, D.T.; Le, T.G.; Nguyen, Q.T. Characterization of Endogenous Auxins and Gibberellins Produced by Chlorella sorokiniana TH01 under Phototrophic and Mixtrophic Cultivation Modes toward Applications in Microalgal Biorefinery and Crop Research. J. Chem. 2020, 2020, e4910621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ma, D.; Liu, B.; Ge, L.; Weng, Y.; Cao, X.; Liu, F.; Mao, P.; Ma, X. Identification and Characterization of Regulatory Pathways Involved in Early Flowering in the New Leaves of Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) by Transcriptome Analysis. BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rusmin, D.; Basmal, J.; Kusumawati, R.; Darwati, I. Improving the Growth of Clove Seedlings by the Application of Seaweed Waste as Organic Fertilizers. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 418, 012029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jain, P.; Farooq, B.; Lamba, S.; Koul, B. Foliar Spray of Moringa Oleifera Lam. Leaf Extracts (MLE) Enhances the Stevioside, Zeatin and Mineral Contents in Stevia Rebaudiana Betoni. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 132, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Basra, S.M.A.; Lovatt, C.J. Exogenous Applications of Moringa Leaf Extract and Cytokinins Improve Plant Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of Cherry Tomato. HortTechnology 2016, 26, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ravindran, B.; Wong, J.W.C.; Selvam, A.; Sekaran, G. Influence of Microbial Diversity and Plant Growth Hormones in Compost and Vermicompost from Fermented Tannery Waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 217, 200–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ravindran, B.; Contreras-Ramos, S.M.; Sekaran, G. Changes in Earthworm Gut Associated Enzymes and Microbial Diversity on the Treatment of Fermented Tannery Waste Using Epigeic Earthworm Eudrilus Eugeniae. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 74, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ali, H.M.; Khan, H.Z.; Afzal, I. Exogenous application of growth promoting substances improves growth, yield and quality of spring maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids under late sown conditions. Bull. Biol. Allied Sci. Res. 2017, 2017, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Qi, H. Method for Producing Abscisic Acid by Solid State Fermentation of Fungi 2013. Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/CN103409474A/en (accessed on 6 June 2023).
  33. Vandenberghe, L.P.S.; Pandey, A.; Carvalho, J.C.; Letti, L.A.J.; Woiciechowski, A.L.; Karp, S.G.; Thomaz-Soccol, V.; Martínez-Burgos, W.J.; Penha, R.O.; Herrmann, L.W.; et al. Solid-State Fermentation Technology and Innovation for the Production of Agricultural and Animal Feed Bioproducts. Syst. Microbiol. Biomanuf. 2021, 1, 142–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rodrigues, C.; Vandenberghe, L.P.D.S.; De Oliveira, J.; Soccol, C.R. New Perspectives of Gibberellic Acid Production: A Review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2012, 32, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yang, S.; Xie, J.; Hu, N.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Ye, X.; Liu, Z. Bioconversion of Gibberellin Fermentation Residue into Feed Supplement and Organic Fertilizer Employing Housefly (Musca domestica L.) Assisted by Corynebacterium variabile. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0110809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Camara, M.C.; Vandenberghe, L.P.S.; Rodrigues, C.; de Oliveira, J.; Faulds, C.; Bertrand, E.; Soccol, C.R. Current Advances in Gibberellic Acid (GA3) Production, Patented Technologies and Potential Applications. Planta 2018, 248, 1049–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Brückner, B.; Blechschmidt, D. The Gibberellin Fermentation. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 1991, 11, 163–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Maria, C.; Machado, M.; Soccol, C.R. Gibberellic Acid Production. In Current Developments in Solid-State Fermentation; Pandey, A., Soccol, C.R., Larroche, C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 277–301. ISBN 978-0-387-75213-6. [Google Scholar]
  39. Saeed, S.; Mehmood, T.; Irfan, M. Statistical Optimization of Cultural Parameters for the Optimized Production of Alginic Acid Using Apple (Malus Domestica) Peels through Solid-State Fermentation. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 2023, 13, 1269–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dos Santos Silva, M.C.; De Farias Silva, C.E.; dos Santos, L.M.; Medeiros, J.A.; Vieira, R.C.; de Souza Abud, A.K.; Almeida, R.M.R.G.; Tonholo, J. Alginate Lyase Produced by Filamentous Fungus Through Solid State Fermentation Using Sargassum from the Brazilian Coast. Waste Biomass Valor. 2022, 13, 2947–2962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wozniak, E.; Blaszczak, A.; Wiatrak, P.; Canady, M. Biostimulant Mode of Action; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rodríguez-Jasso, R.M.; Mussatto, S.I.; Sepúlveda, L.; Agrasar, A.T.; Pastrana, L.; Aguilar, C.N.; Teixeira, J.A. Fungal Fucoidanase Production by Solid-State Fermentation in a Rotating Drum Bioreactor Using Algal Biomass as Substrate. Food Bioprod. Process. 2013, 91, 587–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Bergé, J.P. Marine Biotechnology: An Overview of Leading Field. In Proceedings of the IXth ESMB Meeting, Nantes, France, 12–14 May 2002. [Google Scholar]
  44. Patel, J.S.; Selvaraj, V.; More, P.; Bahmani, R.; Borza, T.; Prithiviraj, B. A Plant Biostimulant from Ascophyllum Nodosum Potentiates Plant Growth Promotion and Stress Protection Activity of Pseudomonas Protegens CHA0. Plants 2023, 12, 1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zou, P.; Yang, X.; Yuan, Y.; Jing, C.; Cao, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, C.; Li, Y. Purification and Characterization of a Fucoidan from the Brown Algae Macrocystis Pyrifera and the Activity of Enhancing Salt-Stress Tolerance of Wheat Seedlings. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 180, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Baltazar, M.; Correia, S.; Guinan, K.J.; Sujeeth, N.; Bragança, R.; Gonçalves, B. Recent Advances in the Molecular Effects of Biostimulants in Plants: An Overview. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mattedi, A.; Sabbi, E.; Farda, B.; Djebaili, R.; Mitra, D.; Ercole, C.; Cacchio, P.; Del Gallo, M.; Pellegrini, M. Solid-State Fermentation: Applications and Future Perspectives for Biostimulant and Biopesticides Production. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y. Biostimulants in Horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tarafdar, J.C. Chapter 15—Biostimulants for Sustainable Crop Production. In New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Singh, H.B., Vaishnav, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 299–313. ISBN 978-0-323-85579-2. [Google Scholar]
  50. Solid-State Fermentation for Humic Acids Production by a Trichoderma Reesei Strain Using an Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch as the Substrate|SpringerLink. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12010-013-0668-2 (accessed on 27 May 2023).
  51. Zhang, Y.; Dou, S.; Hamza, B.; Ye, S.; Zhang, D. Mechanisms of Three Fungal Types on Humic-Like Substances Formation during Solid-State Fermentation of Corn Straw. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2020, 23, 970–976. [Google Scholar]
  52. Yang, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, L.; Shi, X.; Liu, X.; Ren, X.; Dou, S. Transformation of Corn Stalk Residue to Humus-like Substances during Solid-State Fermentation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Bettoni, M.M.; Mogor, Á.F.; Pauletti, V.; Goicoechea, N. Growth and Metabolism of Onion Seedlings as Affected by the Application of Humic Substances, Mycorrhizal Inoculation and Elevated CO2. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 180, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hölker, U.; Höfer, M. Solid Substrate Fermentation of Lignite by the Coal-Solubilizing Mould, Trichoderma Atroviride, in a New Type of Bioreactor. Biotechnol. Lett. 2002, 24, 1643–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Canellas, L.P.; Olivares, F.L.; Aguiar, N.O.; Jones, D.L.; Nebbioso, A.; Mazzei, P.; Piccolo, A. Humic and Fulvic Acids as Biostimulants in Horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Deswal, D.; Khasa, Y.P.; Kuhad, R.C. Optimization of Cellulase Production by a Brown Rot Fungus Fomitopsis Sp. RCK2010 under Solid State Fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 6065–6072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Sodhi, H.K.; Sharma, K.; Gupta, J.K.; Soni, S.K. Production of a Thermostable α-Amylase from Bacillus Sp. PS-7 by Solid State Fermentation and Its Synergistic Use in the Hydrolysis of Malt Starch for Alcohol Production. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lucini, L.; Rouphael, Y.; Cardarelli, M.; Canaguier, R.; Kumar, P.; Colla, G. The Effect of a Plant-Derived Biostimulant on Metabolic Profiling and Crop Performance of Lettuce Grown under Saline Conditions. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 182, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Asri, N.M.; Muhialdin, B.J.; Zarei, M.; Saari, N. Low Molecular Weight Peptides Generated from Palm Kernel Cake via Solid State Lacto-Fermentation Extend the Shelf Life of Bread. LWT 2020, 134, 110206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, W.; Wang, T. Effect of Solid-State Fermentation with Bacillus Subtilis Lwo on the Proteolysis and the Antioxidative Properties of Chickpeas. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 338, 108988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Cai, C.; Hua, Y.; Liu, H.; Dai, X. A New Approach to Recycling Cephalosporin Fermentation Residue into Plant Biostimulants. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 413, 125393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Prabhu, G.N.; Bindu, P. Optimization of Process Parameters for Siderophore Production Under Solid State Fermentation Using Polystyrene Beads as Inert Support. JSIR 2016, 75, 621–625. [Google Scholar]
  63. Le, H.; ZongHao, Y.; Can, C.; ChunYan, L.; Juan, L.; ZhongKe, S. Enhancing Iron Uptake and Alleviating Iron Toxicity in Wheat by Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria: Theories and Practices. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2020, 23, 190–196. [Google Scholar]
  64. Marschner, H.; Römheld, V.; Kissel, M. Different Strategies in Higher Plants in Mobilization and Uptake of Iron. J. Plant Nutr. 1986, 9, 695–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Stanley-Raja, V.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Chanthini, K.M.P.; Sivanesh, H.; Ramasubramanian, R.; Karthi, S.; Shyam-Sundar, N.; Vasantha-Srinivasan, P.; Kalaivani, K. Biological Activity of Chitosan Inducing Resistance Efficiency of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) after Treatment with Fungal Based Chitosan. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 20488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Nwe, N.; Chandrkrachang, S.; Stevens, W.F.; Maw, T.; Tan, T.K.; Khor, E.; Wong, S.M. Production of Fungal Chitosan by Solid State and Submerged Fermentation. Carbohydr. Polym. 2002, 49, 235–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G. Editorial: Biostimulants in Agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Lau, S.-E.; Teo, W.F.A.; Teoh, E.Y.; Tan, B.C. Microbiome Engineering and Plant Biostimulants for Sustainable Crop Improvement and Mitigation of Biotic and Abiotic Stresses. Discov. Food 2022, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ben Mrid, R.; Benmrid, B.; Hafsa, J.; Boukcim, H.; Sobeh, M.; Yasri, A. Secondary Metabolites as Biostimulant and Bioprotectant Agents: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 777, 146204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Caccavo, V.; Forlano, P.; Mang, S.M.; Fanti, P.; Nuzzaci, M.; Battaglia, D.; Trotta, V. Effects of Trichoderma Harzianum Strain T22 on the Arthropod Community Associated with Tomato Plants and on the Crop Performance in an Experimental Field. Insects 2022, 13, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ferrigo, D.; Raiola, A.; Rasera, R.; Causin, R. Trichoderma Harzianum Seed Treatment Controls Fusarium Verticillioides Colonization and Fumonisin Contamination in Maize under Field Conditions. Crop Prot. 2014, 65, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Xu, L.; Geelen, D. Developing Biostimulants from Agro-Food and Industrial By-Products. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Francesca, S.; Arena, C.; Mele, B.H.; Schettini, C.; Ambrosino, P.; Barone, A.; Rigano, M.M. The Use of a Plant-Based Biostimulant Improves Plant Performances and Fruit Quality in Tomato Plants Grown at Elevated Temperatures. Agronomy 2020, 10, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Nanda, S.; Kumar, G.; Hussain, S. Utilization of Seaweed-Based Biostimulants in Improving Plant and Soil Health: Current Updates and Future Prospective. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 12839–12852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. da Silva, L.C.A.; Honorato, T.L.; Cavalcante, R.S.; Franco, T.T.; Rodrigues, S. Effect of PH and Temperature on Enzyme Activity of Chitosanase Produced Under Solid Stated Fermentation by Trichoderma spp. Indian J. Microbiol. 2012, 52, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Akram, N.A.; Saleem, M.H.; Shafiq, S.; Naz, H.; Farid-ul-Haq, M.; Ali, B.; Shafiq, F.; Iqbal, M.; Jaremko, M.; Qureshi, K.A. Phytoextracts as Crop Biostimulants and Natural Protective Agents—A Critical Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Vassilev, N.; Vassileva, M.; Lopez, A.; Martos, V.; Reyes, A.; Maksimovic, I.; Eichler-Löbermann, B.; Malusà, E. Unexploited Potential of Some Biotechnological Techniques for Biofertilizer Production and Formulation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 4983–4996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chen, H. Modern Solid State Fermentation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Singhania, R.R.; Patel, A.K.; Soccol, C.R.; Pandey, A. Recent Advances in Solid-State Fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2009, 44, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Szabo, O.E.; Csiszar, E.; Koczka, B.; Kiss, K. Ultrasonically Assisted Single Stage and Multiple Extraction of Enzymes Produced by Aspergillus Oryzae on a Lignocellulosic Substrate with Solid-State Fermentation. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 75, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Yadav, J.S.; Tripathi, J.P. Optimization of Cultivation and Nutrition Conditions and Substrate Pretreatment for Solid-Substrate Fermentation of Wheat Straw ByCoriolus Versicolor. Folia Microbiol. 1991, 36, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Kunamneni, A.; Permaul, K.; Singh, S. Amylase Production in Solid State Fermentation by the Thermophilic Fungus Thermomyces Lanuginosus. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2005, 100, 168–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Elibol, M.; Moreira, A.R. Optimizing Some Factors Affecting Alkaline Protease Production by a Marine Bacterium Teredinobacter Turnirae under Solid Substrate Fermentation. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 1951–1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Alias, C.; Bulgari, D.; Gobbi, E. It Works! Organic-Waste-Assisted Trichoderma Spp. Solid-State Fermentation on Agricultural Digestate. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Raghavarao, K.S.M.S.; Ranganathan, T.V.; Karanth, N.G. Some Engineering Aspects of Solid-State Fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2003, 13, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. General Considerations about Solid-State Fermentation Processes|SpringerLink. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-75213-6_2 (accessed on 23 July 2023).
  87. Kamilova, F.; Okon, Y.; de Weert, S.; Hora, K. Commercialization of Microbes: Manufacturing, Inoculation, Best Practice for Objective Field Testing, and Registration. In Principles of Plant-Microbe Interactions: Microbes for Sustainable Agriculture; Lugtenberg, B., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 319–327. ISBN 978-3-319-08575-3. [Google Scholar]
  88. Kiruba, N.J.M.; Saeid, A. An Insight into Microbial Inoculants for Bioconversion of Waste Biomass into Sustainable “Bio-Organic” Fertilizers: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 13049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Chilakamarry, C.R.; Sakinah, A.M.M.; Zularisam, A.W.; Sirohi, R.; Khilji, I.A.; Ahmad, N.; Pandey, A. Advances in Solid-State Fermentation for Bioconversion of Agricultural Wastes to Value-Added Products: Opportunities and Challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 343, 126065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Weber, F.J.; Tramper, J.; Rinzema, A. A Simplified Material and Energy Balance Approach for Process Development and Scale-up of Coniothyrium Minitans Conidia Production by Solid-State Cultivation in a Packed-Bed Reactor. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1999, 65, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. de Oliveira, J.; Rodrigues, C.; Vandenberghe, L.P.S.; Câmara, M.C.; Libardi, N.; Soccol, C.R. Gibberellic Acid Production by Different Fermentation Systems Using Citric Pulp as Substrate/Support. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, e5191046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Bulgari, D.; Alias, C.; Peron, G.; Ribaudo, G.; Gianoncelli, A.; Savino, S.; Boureghda, H.; Bouznad, Z.; Monti, E.; Gobbi, E. Solid-State Fermentation of Trichoderma Spp.: A New Way to Valorize the Agricultural Digestate and Produce Value-Added Bioproducts. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 3994–4004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Oh, Y.-K.; Hwang, K.-R.; Kim, C.; Kim, J.R.; Lee, J.-S. Recent Developments and Key Barriers to Advanced Biofuels: A Short Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 257, 320–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Nitayapat, N.; Prakarnsombut, N.; Lee, S.J.; Boonsupthip, W. Bioconversion of Tangerine Residues by Solid-State Fermentation with Lentinus Polychrous and Drying the Final Products. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 63, 773–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Vassileva, M.; Malusá, E.; Eichler-Löbermann, B.; Vassilev, N. Aspegillus Terreus: From Soil to Industry and Back. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Dos Santos, V.Z.; Vieira, K.R.; Nass, P.P.; Zepka, L.Q.; Jacob-Lopes, E. Application of Microalgae Consortia/Cocultures in Wastewater Treatment. In Recent Advances in Microbial Degradation; Ahamed, M.I., Prasad, R., Eds.; Environmental and Microbial Biotechnology; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 131–154. ISBN 9789811605185. [Google Scholar]
  97. Tong, C.Y.; Honda, K.; Derek, C.J.C. A Review on Microalgal-Bacterial Co-Culture: The Multifaceted Role of Beneficial Bacteria towards Enhancement of Microalgal Metabolite Production. Environ. Res. 2023, 228, 115872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Berninger, T.; González López, Ó.; Bejarano, A.; Preininger, C.; Sessitsch, A. Maintenance and Assessment of Cell Viability in Formulation of Non-Sporulating Bacterial Inoculants. Microb. Biotechnol. 2018, 11, 277–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Malusá, E.; Sas-Paszt, L.; Ciesielska, J. Technologies for Beneficial Microorganisms Inocula Used as Biofertilizers. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, e491206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Fuess, L.T.; Lens, P.N.L.; Garcia, M.L.; Zaiat, M. Exploring Potentials for Bioresource and Bioenergy Recovery from Vinasse, the “New” Protagonist in Brazilian Sugarcane Biorefineries. Biomass 2022, 2, 374–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Vassileva, M.; Malusà, E.; Sas-Paszt, L.; Trzcinski, P.; Galvez, A.; Flor-Peregrin, E.; Shilev, S.; Canfora, L.; Mocali, S.; Vassilev, N. Fermentation Strategies to Improve Soil Bio-Inoculant Production and Quality. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Zheng, Z.; Shetty, K. Cranberry Processing Waste for Solid State Fungal Inoculant Production. Process Biochem. 1998, 33, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Pandey, A.; Soccol, C.R.; Mitchell, D. New Developments in Solid State Fermentation: I-Bioprocesses and Products. Process Biochem. 2000, 35, 1153–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Malik, T.; Rawat, S. Biotechnological Interventions for Production of Flavour and Fragrance Compounds. In Sustainable Bioeconomy: Pathways to Sustainable Development Goals; Venkatramanan, V., Shah, S., Prasad, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 131–170. ISBN 9789811573217. [Google Scholar]
  105. Hassan, G.; Shabbir, M.A.; Ahmad, F.; Pasha, I.; Aslam, N.; Ahmad, T.; Rehman, A.; Manzoor, M.F.; Inam-Ur-Raheem, M.; Aadil, R.M. Cereal Processing Waste, an Environmental Impact and Value Addition Perspectives: A Comprehensive Treatise. Food Chem. 2021, 363, 130352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Finkler, A.T.J.; Biz, A.; Pitol, L.O.; Medina, B.S.; Luithardt, H.; Luz, L.F.d.L.; Krieger, N.; Mitchell, D.A. Intermittent Agitation Contributes to Uniformity across the Bed during Pectinase Production by Aspergillus Niger Grown in Solid-State Fermentation in a Pilot-Scale Packed-Bed Bioreactor. Biochem. Eng. J. 2017, 121, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Berovic, M. Cultivation of Medicinal Mushroom Biomass by Solid-State Bioprocessing in Bioreactors. In Solid State Fermentation: Research and Industrial Applications; Steudler, S., Werner, A., Cheng, J.J., Eds.; Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 3–25. ISBN 978-3-030-23675-5. [Google Scholar]
  108. Khairy, M.F.A.; Mohamed, A.A.I.; Khlil, M.M.N. Development of bioreactor to enrich the protein of agricultural residues. Misr J. Agric. Eng. 2015, 32, 1625–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Werle, L.B. Obtention Gibberellic Acid by Solid State Ferment. Employing Brew. Residue Crude Rice Brand Substrates. Master’s Thesis, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  110. Monrroy, M.; García, J.R. Gibberellic Acid Production from Corn Cob Residues via Fermentation with Aspergillus niger. J. Chem. 2022, 2022, e1112941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Jain, B.M.; Badve, M.P. A Novel Process for Synthesis of Soybean Protein Hydrolysates and Study of Its Effectiveness as a Biostimulant and Emulsifier. Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 2022, 174, 108880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wei, X.; Sui, Z.; Guo, M.; Chen, S.; Zhang, Z.; Geng, J.; Xiao, J.; Huang, D. The Potential of Degrading Natural Chitinous Wastes to Oligosaccharides by Chitinolytic Enzymes from Two Talaromyces Sp. Isolated from Rotten Insects (Hermetia Illucens) under Solid State Fermentation. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2023, 54, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Volpi, M.P.C.; Corzo, I.J.M.; Bastos, R.G.; Santana, M.H.A. Production of Humic Acids by Solid-State Fermentation of Trichoderma Reesei in Raw Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch Fibers. 3 Biotech 2019, 9, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ghanavati, H.; Ramezanipour, N.; Jouzani, G.S.; Kowsari, M.; Valijanian, E.; Nikrad, M.; Mostajeran, F.; Tahmasbi, M. Submerged Fermentation as a Suitable Solution to Produce Humic and Fulvic Acids from Sugarcane Bagasse. Sci. Iran. 2022, 29, 3554–3569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Amadou, I.; Le, G.-W.; Shi, Y.-H.; Gbadamosi, O.S.; Kamara, M.T.; Jin, S. Optimized Lactobacillus Plantarum Lp6 Solid-State Fermentation and Proteolytic Hydrolysis Improve Some Nutritional Attributes of Soybean Protein Meal. J. Food Biochem. 2011, 35, 1686–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. López-Bucio, J.; Pelagio-Flores, R.; Herrera-Estrella, A. Trichoderma as Biostimulant: Exploiting the Multilevel Properties of a Plant Beneficial Fungus. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Kaya, C.; Ashraf, M.; Dikilitas, M.; Tuna, A.L. Alleviation of Salt Stress-Induced Adverse Effects on Maize Plants by Exogenous Application of Indoleacetic Acid (IAA) and Inorganic Nutrients—A Field Trial. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2013, 7, 249–254. [Google Scholar]
  118. Richards, D.E.; King, K.E.; Ait-ali, T.; Harberd, N.P. How gibberellin regulates plant growth and development: A Molecular Genetic Analysis of Gibberellin Signaling. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 2001, 52, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Brian, P.W. Effects of Gibberellins on Plant Growth and Development. Biol. Rev. 1959, 34, 37–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Soper, F.M.; Paungfoo-Lonhienne, C.; Brackin, R.; Rentsch, D.; Schmidt, S.; Robinson, N. Arabidopsis and Lobelia Anceps Access Small Peptides as a Nitrogen Source for Growth. Funct. Plant Biol. 2011, 38, 788–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Sheng, C.; Song, S.; Zhou, W.; Dossou, S.S.K.; Zhou, R.; Zhang, Y.; Li, D.; You, J.; Wang, L. Integrating Transcriptome and Phytohormones Analysis Provided Insights into Plant Height Development in Sesame. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2023, 198, 107695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Luo, L.; Xie, Y.; Yu, S.; Yang, J.; Chen, S.; Yuan, X.; Guo, T.; Wang, H.; Liu, Y.; Chen, C.; et al. The DnaJ Domain-Containing Heat-Shock Protein NAL11 Determines Plant Architecture by Mediating Gibberellin Homeostasis in Rice (Oryza sativa). New Phytol. 2023, 237, 2163–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Tsavkelova, E.A.; Cherdyntseva, T.A.; Klimova, S.Y.; Shestakov, A.I.; Botina, S.G.; Netrusov, A.I. Orchid-Associated Bacteria Produce Indole-3-Acetic Acid, Promote Seed Germination, and Increase Their Microbial Yield in Response to Exogenous Auxin. Arch. Microbiol. 2007, 188, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Egamberdieva, D. Alleviation of Salt Stress by Plant Growth Regulators and IAA Producing Bacteria in Wheat. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2009, 31, 861–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Florido Bacallao, M.; Bao Fundora, L. Tolerancia a Estrés Por Déficit Hídrico En Tomate (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Cultiv. Trop. 2014, 35, 70–88. [Google Scholar]
  126. Drobek, M.; Frąc, M.; Cybulska, J. Plant Biostimulants: Importance of the Quality and Yield of Horticultural Crops and the Improvement of Plant Tolerance to Abiotic Stress—A Review. Agronomy 2019, 9, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Luo, P.; Shen, Y.; Jin, S.; Huang, S.; Cheng, X.; Wang, Z.; Li, P.; Zhao, J.; Bao, M.; Ning, G. Overexpression of Rosa Rugosa Anthocyanidin Reductase Enhances Tobacco Tolerance to Abiotic Stress through Increased ROS Scavenging and Modulation of ABA Signaling. Plant Sci. 2016, 245, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Yazdani, M.; Croen, M.G.; Fish, T.L.; Thannhauser, T.W.; Ahner, B.A. Overexpression of Native ORANGE (OR) and OR Mutant Protein in Chlamydomonas Reinhardtii Enhances Carotenoid and ABA Accumulation and Increases Resistance to Abiotic Stress. Metab. Eng. 2021, 68, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Zhang, L.; Gao, M.; Hu, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, K.; Ashraf, M. Modulation Role of Abscisic Acid (ABA) on Growth, Water Relations and Glycinebetaine Metabolism in Two Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars under Drought Stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 3189–3202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  130. Mukherjee, A.; Patel, J.S. Seaweed Extract: Biostimulator of Plant Defense and Plant Productivity. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 17, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Berthon, J.-Y.; Michel, T.; Wauquier, A.; Joly, P.; Gerbore, J.; Filaire, E. Seaweed and microalgae as major actors of blue biotechnology to achieve plant stimulation and pest and pathogen biocontrol—A review of the latest advances and future prospects. J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 159, 523–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Kapur, B.; Sarıdaş, M.A.; Çeliktopuz, E.; Kafkas, E.; Kargı, S.P. Health and Taste Related Compounds in Strawberries under Various Irrigation Regimes and Bio-Stimulant Application. Food Chem. 2018, 263, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Jaulneau, V.; Lafitte, C.; Corio-Costet, M.-F.; Stadnik, M.J.; Salamagne, S.; Briand, X.; Esquerré-Tugayé, M.-T.; Dumas, B. An Ulva Armoricana Extract Protects Plants against Three Powdery Mildew Pathogens. Eur. J. Plant. Pathol. 2011, 131, 393–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Khaled, H.; Fawy, H.A. Effect of Different Levels of Humic Acids on the Nutrient Content, Plant Growth, and Soil Properties under Conditions of Salinity. Soil Water Res. 2011, 6, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Fagbenro, J.A.; Agboola, A.A. Effect of Different Levels of Humic Acid on the Growth and Nutrient Uptake of Teak Seedlings. J. Plant Nutr. 1993, 16, 1465–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Khan, R.U.; Khan, M.Z.; Khan, A.; Saba, S.; Hussain, F.; Jan, I.U. Effect of Humic Acid on Growth and Crop Nutrient Status of Wheat on Two Different Soils. J. Plant Nutr. 2018, 41, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Bayat, H.; Shafie, F.; Aminifard, M.H.; Daghighi, S. Comparative Effects of Humic and Fulvic Acids as Biostimulants on Growth, Antioxidant Activity and Nutrient Content of Yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.). Sci. Hortic. 2021, 279, 109912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Maach, M.; Boudouasar, K.; Akodad, M.; Skalli, A.; Moumen, A.; Baghour, M. Application of Biostimulants Improves Yield and Fruit Quality in Tomato. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2021, 27, 288–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Chanthini, K.M.-P.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Pavithra, G.-S.; Asahel, A.-S.; Malarvizhi, P.; Murugan, P.; Deva-Andrews, A.; Sivanesh, H.; Stanley-Raja, V.; Ramasubramanian, R.; et al. The Macroalgal Biostimulant Improves the Functional Quality of Tomato Fruits Produced from Plants Grown under Salt Stress. Agriculture 2023, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Graziani, G.; Ritieni, A.; Cirillo, A.; Cice, D.; Di Vaio, C. Effects of Biostimulants on Annurca Fruit Quality and Potential Nutraceutical Compounds at Harvest and during Storage. Plants 2020, 9, 775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zwack, P.J.; Rashotte, A.M. Cytokinin Inhibition of Leaf Senescence. Plant Signal. Behav. 2013, 8, e24737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  142. Chang, H.; Jones, M.L.; Banowetz, G.M.; Clark, D.G. Overproduction of Cytokinins in Petunia Flowers Transformed with PSAG12-IPT Delays Corolla Senescence and Decreases Sensitivity to Ethylene. Plant Physiol. 2003, 132, 2174–2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Lara, M.E.B.; Garcia, M.-C.G.; Fatima, T.; Ehneß, R.; Lee, T.K.; Proels, R.; Tanner, W.; Roitsch, T. Extracellular Invertase Is an Essential Component of Cytokinin-Mediated Delay of Senescence. Plant Cell 2004, 16, 1276–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Spinelli, F.; Fiori, G.; Noferini, M.; Sprocatti, M.; Costa, G. A Novel Type of Seaweed Extract as a Natural Alternative to the Use of Iron Chelates in Strawberry Production. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 125, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Kumari, R.; Kaur, I.; Bhatnagar, A.K. Enhancing Soil Health and Productivity of Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Using Sargassum Johnstonii Setchell & Gardner as a Soil Conditioner and Fertilizer. J. Appl. Phycol. 2013, 25, 1225–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Meng, C.; Gu, X.; Liang, H.; Wu, M.; Wu, Q.; Yang, L.; Li, Y.; Shen, P. Optimized Preparation and High-Efficient Application of Seaweed Fertilizer on Peanut. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 7, 100275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Matthews, S.; Ali, A.; Siddiqui, Y.; Supramaniam, C.V. Plant Bio-Stimulant: Prospective, Safe and Natural Resources. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 2570–2586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Zeljković, S.; Parađiković, N.; Maksimović, I.; Teklić, T.; Kojić, M.T. Growth and Nutrient Status of French Marigold (Tagetes patula L.) under Biostimulant Application. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2022, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Basavaraja, P.K.; Yogendra, N.D.; Zodape, S.T.; Prakash, R.; Ghosh, A. Effect of Seaweed Sap as Foliar Spray on Growth and Yield of Hybrid Maize. J. Plant Nutr. 2018, 41, 1851–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Pal, A.; Dwivedi, S.K.; Maurya, P.K.; Kanwar, P. Effect of Seaweed Saps on Growth, Yield, Nutrient Uptake and Economic Improvement of Maize (Sweet Corn). J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2015, 7, 970–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Ertani, A.; Francioso, O.; Tinti, A.; Schiavon, M.; Pizzeghello, D.; Nardi, S. Evaluation of Seaweed Extracts from Laminaria and Ascophyllum nodosum Spp. as Biostimulants in Zea mays L. Using a Combination of Chemical, Biochemical and Morphological Approaches. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Hu, M.; McClements, D.J.; Decker, E.A. Antioxidant Activity of a Proanthocyanidin-Rich Extract from Grape Seed in Whey Protein Isolate Stabilized Algae Oil-in-Water Emulsions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 5272–5276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Efecto Del Extracto de Células de Alga Verde Como Aerosol Foliar Sobre El Crecimiento Vegetativo, El Rendimiento y La Calidad de Las Bayas de Vides Superiores. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237566381_Effect_of_Green_Alga_Cells_Extract_as_Foliar_Spray_on_Vegetative_Growth_Yield_and_Berries_Quality_of_Superior_Grapevines (accessed on 3 June 2023).
  154. Arioli, T.; Mattner, S.W.; Hepworth, G.; McClintock, D.; McClinock, R. Effect of Seaweed Extract Application on Wine Grape Yield in Australia. J. Appl. Phycol. 2021, 33, 1883–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Jayaraman, J.J.J.; Ali, N. Use of Seaweed Extracts for Disease Management of Vegetable Crops. In Sustainable Crop Disease Management Using Natural Products; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015; pp. 160–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Murtic, S.; Oljaca, R.; Murtic, M.S.; Vranac, A.; Akagic, A.; Civic, H. Cherry Tomato Productivity as Influenced by Liquid Organic Fertilizer under Different Growth Conditions. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2018, 19, 503–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Demir, N.; Dural, B.; Yildirim, K. Effect of Seaweed Suspensions on Seed Germination of Tomato, Pepper and Aubergine. J. Biol. Sci. 2006, 6, 1130–1133. [Google Scholar]
  158. Yusuf, R.; Kristiansen, P.; Warwick, N. Effect of Two Seaweed Products and Equivalent Mineral Treatments on Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Growth. J. Agron. 2019, 18, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Di Mola, I.; Cozzolino, E.; Ottaiano, L.; Giordano, M.; Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G.; Mori, M. Effect of Vegetal- and Seaweed Extract-Based Biostimulants on Agronomical and Leaf Quality Traits of Plastic Tunnel-Grown Baby Lettuce under Four Regimes of Nitrogen Fertilization. Agronomy 2019, 9, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Nardelli, A.E.; Chiozzini, V.G.; Braga, E.S.; Chow, F. Integrated Multi-Trophic Farming System between the Green Seaweed Ulva Lactuca, Mussel, and Fish: A Production and Bioremediation Solution. J. Appl. Phycol. 2019, 31, 847–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Righini, H.; Roberti, R.; Baraldi, E. Use of Algae in Strawberry Management. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 30, 3551–3564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Abbas, M.; Anwar, J.; Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Iqbal Khan, R.; Saleem, M.; Rahi, A.A.; Danish, S.; Datta, R. Effect of Seaweed Extract on Productivity and Quality Attributes of Four Onion Cultivars. Horticulturae 2020, 6, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Almaroai, Y.A.; Eissa, M.A. Role of Marine Algae Extracts in Water Stress Resistance of Onion Under Semiarid Conditions. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 1092–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Prajapati, A.; Jain, S.; Chongtham, S.; Maheshwari, M.; Patel, C.; Patel, R.; Patel, C.; Singh, N.; Prajapati, A. Evaluation of Seaweed Extract on Growth and Yield of Potato. Environ. Ecol. 2016, 34, 605–608. [Google Scholar]
  165. Dziugieł, T.; Wadas, W. Possibility of Increasing Early Crop Potato Yield with Foliar Application of Seaweed Extracts and Humic Acids. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2020, 21, 300–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Manpuhro, N.; Dawson, J. Influence of Indole Acetic Acid (IAA) and Boron on Growth and Yield of Maize (Zea mays. L). Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2023, 35, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Hagaggi, N.S.A.; Mohamed, A.A.A. Enhancement of Zea mays (L.) Growth Performance Using Indole Acetic Acid Producing Endophyte Mixta Theicola Isolated from Solenostemma Argel (Hayne). S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 134, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Marag, P.S.; Suman, A. Growth Stage and Tissue Specific Colonization of Endophytic Bacteria Having Plant Growth Promoting Traits in Hybrid and Composite Maize (Zea mays L.). Microbiol. Res. 2018, 214, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Visconti, D.; Fiorentino, N.; Cozzolino, E.; Woo, S.L.; Fagnano, M.; Rouphael, Y. Can Trichoderma-Based Biostimulants Optimize N Use Efficiency and Stimulate Growth of Leafy Vegetables in Greenhouse Intensive Cropping Systems? Agronomy 2020, 10, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Kondhare, K.R.; Patil, A.B.; Giri, A.P. Auxin: An Emerging Regulator of Tuber and Storage Root Development. Plant Sci. 2021, 306, 110854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Romanov, G.A.; Aksenova, N.P.; Konstantinova, T.N.; Golyanovskaya, S.A.; Kossmann, J.; Willmitzer, L. Effect of Indole-3-Acetic Acid and Kinetin on Tuberisation Parameters of Different Cultivars and Transgenic Lines of Potato in Vitro. Plant Growth Regul. 2000, 32, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Ekin, Z. Integrated Use of Humic Acid and Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria to Ensure Higher Potato Productivity in Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  173. Hye, M.; Haque, M.; Karim, M. Influence of Growth Regulators and Their Time of Application on Yield of Onion. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2002, 5, 1021–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  174. Bista, D.; Sapkota, D.; Paudel, H.; Adhikari, G. Effect of Foliar Application of Growth Regulators on Growth and Yield of Onion (Allium cepa). Int. J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2022, 9, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Gupta, S.; Stirk, W.A.; Plačková, L.; Kulkarni, M.G.; Doležal, K.; Van Staden, J. Interactive Effects of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria and a Seaweed Extract on the Growth and Physiology of Allium cepa L. (Onion). J. Plant Physiol. 2021, 262, 153437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Mahdi, I.; Fahsi, N.; Hafidi, M.; Allaoui, A.; Biskri, L. Plant Growth Enhancement Using Rhizospheric Halotolerant Phosphate Solubilizing Bacterium Bacillus Licheniformis QA1 and Enterobacter Asburiae QF11 Isolated from Chenopodium Quinoa Willd. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Azarakhsh, M.R.; Bagherieh-Najjar, M.B.; Sadeghipour, H.R.; Raeisi, S. Improved Grain Yield by Phytohormones-Driven Suppression of Pod Abscission and Revitalization of Source-Sink Relationships in Soybean. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2022, 16, 467–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Hanaa, H.; Safaa, A. Foliar Application Foliar Application of IAA at Different Growth Stages and Their Influenced on Growth and Productivity of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum l.). J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1294, 092029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Çakmakçı, R.; Erat, M.; Erdoğan, Ü.; Dönmez, M.F. The Influence of Plant Growth–Promoting Rhizobacteria on Growth and Enzyme Activities in Wheat and Spinach Plants. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2007, 170, 288–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y.; Di Mattia, E.; El-Nakhel, C.; Cardarelli, M. Co-Inoculation of Glomus Intraradices and Trichoderma Atroviride Acts as a Biostimulant to Promote Growth, Yield and Nutrient Uptake of Vegetable Crops. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 1706–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Contreras-Cornejo, H.A.; Macías-Rodríguez, L.; Cortés-Penagos, C.; López-Bucio, J. Trichoderma Virens, a Plant Beneficial Fungus, Enhances Biomass Production and Promotes Lateral Root Growth through an Auxin-Dependent Mechanism in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2009, 149, 1579–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  182. Tandon, S.; Dubey, A. Effects of Biozyme (Ascophyllum nodosum) Biostimulant on Growth and Development of Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merill]. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2015, 46, 845–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Marathe, R.; Phatake, Y.; Shaikh, A.; Shinde, B.; Gajbhiye, M. Effect of IAA Produced by Pseudomonas Aeruginosa 6a (Bc4) on Seed Germination and Plant Growth of Glycin Max. J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2017, 5, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Susilowati, D.N.; Riyanti, E.I.; Setyowati, M.; Mulya, K. Indole-3-Acetic Acid Producing Bacteria and Its Application on the Growth of Rice. AIP Conf. Proc. 2018, 2002, 020016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, G.; Peng, Z.; Zhang, J. Enhancing Auxin Accumulation in Maize Root Tips Improves Root Growth and Dwarfs Plant Height. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2018, 16, 86–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Husen, A.; Iqbal, M.; Aref, I.M. Plant Growth and Foliar Characteristics of Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.) as Affected by Indole-Acetic Acid under Water-Sufficient and Water-Deficient Conditions. J. Environ. Biol. 2017, 38, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Hamidon, A.; Shah, R.M.; Razali, R.M.; Lob, S. Effect of different types and concentration of rooting hormones on momordica cochinensis (gac fruit) root vine cuttings. Malays. Appl. Biol. 2020, 49, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Sabir, A. Improvement of Grafting Efficiency in Hard Grafting Grape Berlandieri Hybrid Rootstocks by Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR). Sci. Hortic. 2013, 164, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Shahzad, K.; Siddiqi, E.H.; Ahmad, S.; Zeb, U.; Muhammad, I.; Khan, H.; Zhao, G.-F.; Li, Z.-H. Exogenous Application of Indole-3-Acetic Acid to Ameliorate Salt Induced Harmful Effects on Four Eggplants (Solanum melongena L.) Varieties. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 292, 110662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Lur, H.-S.; Setter, T.L. Endorsperm Development of Maize Defective Kernel (Dek) Mutants. Auxin and Cytokinin Levels. Ann. Bot. 1993, 72, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Rady, M.M.; Talaat, N.B.; Abdelhamid, M.T.; Shawky, B.T.; Desoky, E.-S.M. Maize (Zea mays L.) Grains Extract Mitigates the Deleterious Effects of Salt Stress on Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Growth and Physiology. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 94, 777–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Xiao, Y.; Liu, D.; Zhang, G.; Gao, S.; Liu, L.; Xu, F.; Che, R.; Wang, Y.; Tong, H.; Chu, C. Big Grain3, Encoding a Purine Permease, Regulates Grain Size via Modulating Cytokinin Transport in Rice. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2019, 61, 581–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  193. Yin, W.; Xiao, Y.; Niu, M.; Meng, W.; Li, L.; Zhang, X.; Liu, D.; Zhang, G.; Qian, Y.; Sun, Z.; et al. ARGONAUTE2 Enhances Grain Length and Salt Tolerance by Activating BIG GRAIN3 to Modulate Cytokinin Distribution in Rice. Plant Cell 2020, 32, 2292–2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Yang, D.; Li, Y.; Shi, Y.; Cui, Z.; Luo, Y.; Zheng, M.; Chen, J.; Li, Y.; Yin, Y.; Wang, Z. Exogenous Cytokinins Increase Grain Yield of Winter Wheat Cultivars by Improving Stay-Green Characteristics under Heat Stress. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Zaheer, M.S.; Raza, M.A.S.; Saleem, M.F.; Erinle, K.O.; Iqbal, R.; Ahmad, S. Effect of Rhizobacteria and Cytokinins Application on Wheat Growth and Yield under Normal vs Drought Conditions. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 2521–2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Liu, Y.; Liao, Y.; Liu, W. High Nitrogen Application Rate and Planting Density Reduce Wheat Grain Yield by Reducing Filling Rate of Inferior Grain in Middle Spikelets. Crop J. 2021, 9, 412–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Nagel, L.; Brewster, R.; Riedell, W.E.; Reese, R.N. Cytokinin Regulation of Flower and Pod Set in Soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Ann. Bot. 2001, 88, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  198. Kron, A.P.; Souza, G.M.; Ribeiro, R.V. Water Deficiency at Different Developmental Stages of Glycine max Can Improve Drought Tolerance. Bragantia 2008, 67, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  199. Mady, M.A. Effect of foliar application with salicylic acid and vitamin e on growth and productivity of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum, Mill.) Plant. J. Plant Prod. 2009, 34, 6715–6726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Caldiz, D.O. Seed Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Yield and Tuber Number Increase after Foliar Applications of Cytokinins and Gibberellic Acid under Field and Glasshouse Conditions. Plant Growth Regul 1996, 20, 185–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Pavlista, A.D. Growth Regulators Increased Yield of Atlantic Potato. Am. J. Potato Res 2011, 88, 479–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Carvajal-Millán, E.; Carvallo, T.; Orozco, J.A.; Martínez, M.A.; Tapia, I.; Guerrero, V.M.; Rascón-Chu, A.; Llamas, J.; Gardea, A.A. Polyphenol Oxidase Activity, Color Changes, and Dehydration in Table Grape Rachis during Development and Storage As Affected by N-(2-Chloro-4-Pyridyl)-N-Phenylurea. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 946–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Peppi, M.C.; Fidelibus, M.W. Effects of Forchlorfenuron and Abscisic Acid on the Quality of ‘Flame Seedless’ Grapes. HortScience 2008, 43, 173–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  204. Qiu, Y.; Guan, S.C.; Wen, C.; Li, P.; Gao, Z.; Chen, X. Auxin and Cytokinin Coordinate the Dormancy and Outgrowth of Axillary Bud in Strawberry Runner. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Dale, A.; Elfving, D.C.; Chandler, C.K. Benzyladenine and Gibberellic Acid Increase Runner Production in Dayneutral Strawberries. HortScience 1996, 31, 1190–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  206. Costa, G.; Corelli-Grappadelli, L.; Bucchi, F. Studies on apple fruit abscission and growth as affected by cytokinins. Acta Hortic. 2001, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Kumari, S.; Bakshi, P.; Sharma, A.; Wali, V.; Jasrotia, A.; Kour, S. Use of Plant Growth Regulators for Improving Fruit Production in Sub Tropical Crops. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 659–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Ferrer, C.; Martiz, J.; Saa, S.; Cautín, R. Increase in Final Fruit Size of Tangor (Citrus reticulata × C. sinensis) Cv W. Murcott by Application of Benzyladenine to Flowers. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 223, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Yousif, K.H. Application Method of Potassium Humate on Growth and Yield of Green Onion (Allium cepa L.). Sci. J. Univ. Zakho 2014, 2, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Forotaghe, Z.A.; Souri, M.K.; Jahromi, M.G.; Torkashvand, A.M. Influence of Humic Acid Application on Onion Growth Characteristics under Water Deficit Conditions. J. Plant Nutr. 2022, 45, 1030–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Kaya, C.; Akram, N.A.; Ashraf, M.; Sonmez, O. Exogenous Application of Humic Acid Mitigates Salinity Stress in Maize (Zea mays L.) Plants by Improving Some Key Physico-Biochemical Attributes. Cereal Res. Commun. 2018, 46, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  212. Shafi, M.I.; Adnan, M.; Fahad, S.; Wahid, F.; Khan, A.; Yue, Z.; Danish, S.; Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Brtnicky, M.; Datta, R. Application of Single Superphosphate with Humic Acid Improves the Growth, Yield and Phosphorus Uptake of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Calcareous Soil. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Lamlom, S.F.; Irshad, A.; Mosa, W.F.A. The Biological and Biochemical Composition of Wheat (Triticum aestivum) as Affected by the Bio and Organic Fertilizers. BMC Plant Biol. 2023, 23, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Mindari, W.; Sasongko, P.E.; Kusuma, Z.; Syekhfani; Aini, N. Efficiency of Various Sources and Doses of Humic Acid on Physical and Chemical Properties of Saline Soil and Growth and Yield of Rice. AIP Conf. Proc. 2018, 2019, 030001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Khedr, R.A.; Sorour, S.G.R.; Aboukhadrah, S.H.; El Shafey, N.M.; Elsalam, H.E.A.; El-Sharnouby, M.E.; El-Tahan, A.M. Alleviation of Salinity Stress Effects on Agro-Physiological Traits of Wheat by Auxin, Glycine Betaine, and Soil Additives. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 29, 534–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Suh, H.Y.; Yoo, K.S.; Suh, S.G. Effect of Foliar Application of Fulvic Acid on Plant Growth and Fruit Quality of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2014, 55, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Yildirim, E. Foliar and Soil Fertilization of Humic Acid Affect Productivity and Quality of Tomato. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B-Soil Plant Sci. 2007, 57, 182–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Hemida, K.A.; Eloufey, A.Z.A.; El-Yazal, M.A.S.; Rady, M.M. Integrated Effect of Potassium Humate and α-Tocopherol Applications on Soil Characteristics and Performance of Phaseolus vulgaris Plants Grown on a Saline Soil. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2017, 63, 1556–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Kandil, A.A.; Sharief, A.E.; Fathalla, F.H. Onion yield as affected by foliar application with amino and humic acids under nitrogen fertilizer levels. Crop Prod. 2013, 2, 62–72. [Google Scholar]
  220. Sruthi, B.E.S. Influence of organic manures on yield, quality and economics of aggregatum onion (Allium cepa. L. var. aggregatum). J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2019, 8, 1768–1770. [Google Scholar]
  221. Omar, M.; Ramadan, A. Response of Carrot (Daucus carota L.) to Foliar Application of Potassium Fertilizers and Some Soil Amendments under Clay Soil Conditions. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 2018, 9, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Raheem, S.M.; Al-Jaf, H.I.; Tofiq, G.K. Influence of Foliar and Soil Application of Humic Acid on Growth and Yield of Lettuce. Euphrates J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 10, 199–204. [Google Scholar]
  223. Srivastava, N.; Srivastava, M.; Ramteke, P.W.; Mishra, P.K. Chapter 23—Solid-State Fermentation Strategy for Microbial Metabolites Production: An Overview. In New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Gupta, V.K., Pandey, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 345–354. ISBN 978-0-444-63504-4. [Google Scholar]
  224. Kapoore, R.V.; Wood, E.E.; Llewellyn, C.A. Algae Biostimulants: A Critical Look at Microalgal Biostimulants for Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Biotechnol. Adv. 2021, 49, 107754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Ali, O.; Ramsubhag, A.; Jayaraman, J. Biostimulant Properties of Seaweed Extracts in Plants: Implications towards Sustainable Crop Production. Plants 2021, 10, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Malik, A.; Mor, V.S.; Tokas, J.; Punia, H.; Malik, S.; Malik, K.; Sangwan, S.; Tomar, S.; Singh, P.; Singh, N.; et al. Biostimulant-Treated Seedlings under Sustainable Agriculture: A Global Perspective Facing Climate Change. Agronomy 2021, 11, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Parvin, K.; Bardhan, K.; Nahar, K.; Anee, T.I.; Masud, A.A.C.; Fotopoulos, V. Biostimulants for the Regulation of Reactive Oxygen Species Metabolism in Plants under Abiotic Stress. Cells 2021, 10, 2537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Types of NBs, mode of action, and effects produced by SSF.
Table 1. Types of NBs, mode of action, and effects produced by SSF.
Natural ProductType of NBMolecules PresentAction ModeBiostimulant EffectSSF-Relevant OriginRefs.
Hormone-Containing Products (HCP)Auxins3-indoleacetic Acid (IAA)Promotes cell elongationStimulates cell elongation and rootingProduced by SSF[22,23]
Indole Propionic Acid (AIP)Promotes vegetative growth and cell divisionStimulates growth, flowering, and rooting in plantsNot produced by SSF[24,25]
CytokininsZeatinStimulates cell division and vegetative growthPromotes growth and development of plantsNot produced by SSF[26,27,28]
KinetinStimulates cell division and vegetative growthImproves the quality of the crops, increasing the size and weight of the fruitsProduced by SSF and vermicompost[29,30,31]
Abscisic Acid (ABA)ABARegulates stress responses and plant developmentImproves stress tolerance and fruit ripeningProduced by SSF[32,33]
GibberellinsGibberellin A3 (GA3)Stimulates growth and vigor in plantsInducts germination and floweringProduced by SSF[34,35,36]
Gibberellin A4 (GA4)Promotes plant growth and developmentStimulates germination, development of lateral shoots, and floweringProduced by SSF[37,38]
Seaweed Extract (AM) Alginic AcidsImproves nutrient absorption and stimulates enzyme activityIncreases growth and resistance to abiotic stressProduced by SSF[39,40,41]
AMFucoidanImproves the defense mechanisms of plants Increases resistance to abiotic stressProduced by SSF[42,43,44,45]
OligosaccharidesStimulates physiological responses in plantsImproves immune response and growthProduced by SSF[46,47,48,49]
Humic SubstancesHumic and Fulvic Acids (AHF)Humic AcidsImproves soil structure and nutrient availabilityStimulates root growth and nutrient absorptionProduced by SSF[50,51,52,53]
Humic AcidsStimulates plant growth and developmentImproves nutrient uptake and stress resistance.Produced by SSF[54,55]
Amino-Acid-Containing Products (AACP)Amino AcidsL-prolineRegulates plant stress and developmentEnhances stress tolerance and resistanceProduced by SSF[56,57,58]
PeptidesLow Molecular Weight PeptidesStimulates plant growth and developmentImproves plant nutrition and growth Produced by SSF[59,60,61]
Other NBsSiderophoresSiderophoresBinds to Fe and is solubilizedImproves absorption and mobilization of FeProduced by SSF[62,63,64]
Chitosan FungalChitosan FungalPromotes plant growth, cell division, increases enzyme activity, and improves nutrient transportPresents biostimulant activity in seed germinationProduced by SSF[65,66]
Table 2. Comparison of substrates, microorganism selection, production mode, and ioreactor type in NB production by SSF.
Table 2. Comparison of substrates, microorganism selection, production mode, and ioreactor type in NB production by SSF.
SubstrateCharacteristics and Advantages of SubstrateMicroorganism SelectionProduction ModeBioreactor TypeRefs.
Crop ResiduesAbundant local availability, nutrient source, and microorganism supportBacteria, Fungi Batch, Continuous, Fed-BatchFixed-Bed, Packed-Bed[89,90,91]
Agroindustrial WasteWaste valorization and reduced environmental impactFilamentous Fungi Batch, ContinuousFluidized-Bed, Packed-Bed[47,92]
Food ResiduesRich in nutrients and organic matter, avoids food wasteBacteria, Filamentous Fungi Batch, Fed-BatchFixed-Bed, Packed-Bed[37,93]
Plant ResiduesHigh content of bioactive compounds and phytohormonesBacteria, Filamentous Fungi Batch, ContinuousFluidized-Bed, Packed-Bed[94,95]
Algal BiomassRich in bioactive compounds and auxinsMicroalgaeBatch, Fed-BatchBubble-Column[96,97]
Wood ResiduesSustainable source with lignocellulosic contentFilamentous FungiFed-Batch, ContinuousFluidized-Bed, Packed-Bed[98,99]
Residual SludgeReduces waste volume and provides rich source of nutrientsBacteria, Filamentous FungiBatch, ContinuousPlug-
Flow, Packed-Bed
[100,101]
Fishery WasteUtilization of waste from the fishing industryFilamentous FungiBatch, ContinuousPacked-Bed[102,103]
Brewery WasteValorization of waste from brewing processesFilamentous Fungi ContinuousPacked-Bed[104,105]
Citrus WasteAbundant source of bioactive compounds and antioxidantsFilamentous Fungi Batch, Fed-BatchFixed-Bed, Packed-Bed[33,106]
Coffee ResiduesRich in bioactive compounds and promotes soil healthFilamentous FungiBatch, ContinuousPacked-Bed[107]
Rice HuskRich in organic matter and bioactive substancesFilamentous FungiFed-Batch, ContinuousPacked-Bed[108]
Table 3. Methods of NB production by SSF.
Table 3. Methods of NB production by SSF.
NBSubstrateMicroorganismPretreatmentOptimal SSF ConditionsEffect of NBs on
Crop
Refs.
TriturationpHSterilizationMoisture
%
Temperature °C
IAAPruning Waste
+ Grass
Trichoderma harzianum1 cm6.82 times7425 [15]
IAAYuca Bagasse
Soy Bran
Wheat Bran
Sorghum Dried Distiller’s Grains
Corn Dried Distiller’s Grains
Aspergillus flavipes
Aspergillus ustus
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus megaterium
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
Trichoderma atroviride
Trichoderma koningii
Trichoderma harzianum
0.5, 1.0 y >
1.0 mm
50Room TemperatureClon IPB2
Eucalyptus grandis
and Eucalyptus urophylla
Increasing Rooting
[14,18]
KinetinCow Dung + Leaf LitterSelenomonas ruminantium2–5 mm6.9 70–7525 ± 3 [29]
ABAMillet
Rice
Botrytis cinereaMillet and Rice 1 time 26.5–25.5 [32]
GA3Rice BranGibberella fujikuroi 50 °C65.95%28 ± 2 [109]
GA3Corn Cob ResiduesAspergillus niger 5.1 24% [110]
GA3Citric PulpFusarium moniliforme LPB03 +
Gibberella fujikuroi
5.5–5.8 7529 [91]
Alginic AcidsApple PeelsAzotobacter vinelandii, NRRL-146410.1 mm760 °C7037.5 [39]
Alginic AcidsSargassum MacroalgaeCunninghamella echinulate
Aspergillus niger
Penicillium oxalicum
7–8.51 time
121 °C
65–7528–30 [40]
FucoidaSeaweed Fucus VesiculosusAspergillus niger
Mucor sp
8030 [42]
OligosaccharidesSoybean Meal- Room TemperatureEffect on Germination[111]
Chitin OligosaccharidesPowder of Molting of MealwormsTalaromyces allahabadensis Hi-4
Talaromyces funiculosus
6 40 [112]
Humic AcidOil Palm Empty Fruit BunchTrichoderma reesei 6 64–7230 [50,113]
Fulvic AcidSugarcane BagasseTrichoderma Sp. 7020 [114]
L-prolineWheat Straw
Ice Straw
Wheat Bran
Corn Cob
Corn Stover
Fomitopsis sp. Small Pieces5.5 25–30 [56]
Low Molecular Weight Peptides
ChickpeasBacillus subtilis [60]
SiderophoresSoybean Protein MealLactobacillus plantarum 37 [115]
Chitosan FungalSweet PotatoGongronella butleri USDB 0201 28 [66]
Table 4. Effect of NBs on improving plant growth and development.
Table 4. Effect of NBs on improving plant growth and development.
CropNB TypeEffectScaleRefs.
Arabidopsis thalianaLow Molecular Weight PeptidesIncrease in plant biomassLaboratory[120]
SesameGA3Improvement of plant architectureLaboratory[121]
RiceGA3Improvement of plant architectureLaboratory[122]
Tomato
Pepper Seed
Arabidopsis
Orchid
IAAPromotion of seed germination and seedling emergenceGreenhouse
Laboratory
[17,123,124]
Table 5. Effect of NBs on resistance to adverse conditions.
Table 5. Effect of NBs on resistance to adverse conditions.
CropNB TypeEffectScaleRefs.
Orange
Tobacco
Corn
ABAAbiotic stress toleranceLaboratory [127,128,129]
Strawberry
Bean
Vine
Cucumber
Seaweed PolysaccharidesResistance to diseases and pestsField[130,131,132,133]
Table 6. Effect of NBs on enhancing resistance to adverse conditions.
Table 6. Effect of NBs on enhancing resistance to adverse conditions.
CropNB TypeEffectScaleRefs.
Gerbera
Tectona Grandis
Peas
Yarrow
Humic Acid Increased nutrient concentrationGreenhouse [134,135,136,137]
Tomato
Apple
Amino AcidsImproved organoleptic qualityGreenhouse [138,139,140]
Soy
Petunia Flowers
Lettuce
CytokininsDelayed tissue senescenceGreenhouse[141,142,143]
Table 7. Effect of NBs on optimal nutrient use.
Table 7. Effect of NBs on optimal nutrient use.
CropNB TypeEffectScaleRefs.
Tomato
Strawberries
Peanut
Alginic AcidsImprovement of nutrient availability in the soilGreenhouse[144,145,146]
French MarigoldOligosaccharidesReduced nutrient lossesGreenhouse [147,148]
Table 8. Effect of NBs on agricultural productivity.
Table 8. Effect of NBs on agricultural productivity.
CropNB TypeEffect of Productivity on CropsScaleRefs.
Corn Seaweed ExtractIncreases grain yield, crop residue, and improves nutritional qualityField[149,150,151]
Grapes Seaweed ExtractIncreases grape production, improves stress resistance, and increases polyphenol contentGreenhouse [152,153,154]
Tomato Seaweed ExtractIncreases fruit yield and qualityGreenhouse[155,156,157]
LettuceSeaweed ExtractHigher yield increase and increases shoot growthGreenhouse[158,159,160]
StrawberriesSeaweed ExtractImproves fruit quality and flavor, higher yieldGreenhouse[132,161]
Onion Seaweed ExtractIncreases bulb diameter and weightField[162,163]
PotatoSeaweed ExtractIncreases tuber yield and qualityField [164,165]
Corn IAAStimulates vegetative growth and increases grain productionGreenhouse[166,167,168]
LettuceIAA Increases biomassGreenhouse[169]
PotatoIAAPromotes tuber growth and improves yieldGreenhouse[170,171,172]
Onion IAAIncreases bulb size and enhances productionGreenhouse
Laboratory
[173,174,175]
QuinoaIAABoosts grain yield and improves qualityField [176,177]
WheatIAAStimulates plant growth and increases yieldField[178,179]
TomatoIAAImproves rooting, increases fruit production, and enhances antioxidant contentGreenhouse [180,181]
SoybeanIAAImproves root development and increases productionGreenhouse [182,183]
Rice IAA Promotes rooting and improves yieldField[184,185]
Broad BeansIAAStimulates vegetative growth and increases productionGreenhouse [183,186]
GrapesIAAEnhances root formation and increases yieldGreenhouse [187,188,189]
CornCytokinins Stimulates cell division and increases yieldGreenhouse [190,191]
RiceCytokinins Promotes grain growth and improves yieldGreenhouse[192,193]
WheatCytokinins Increases the number of grains per spike and improves productionField[194,195,196]
SoybeanCytokinins Improves vegetative growth and increases productionGreenhouse[197,198]
TomatoCytokinins Stimulates flower formation and increases yieldGreenhouse[28,199]
PotatoCytokinins Promotes tuber development and improves yieldField[200,201]
GrapesCytokinins Enhances cluster size and qualityGreenhouse[202,203]
StrawberryCytokinins Increases stolon formation and improves productionGreenhouse[204,205]
Strawberry Cytokinins Stimulates bud break and improves yieldGreenhouse[206]
CitrusCytokinins Increases fruit size and improves productionGreenhouse[207,208]
Onion Humic AcidsEnhances bulb yield, improves quality and disease resistanceGreenhouse[209,210]
Corn Humic AcidsImproves nutrient absorption and increases yieldGreenhouse[28,211]
Wheat Humic AcidsIncreases grain size and weightGreenhouse[212,213]
RiceHumic AcidsBoosts the number of spikes and improves productionGreenhouse[214,215]
TomatoHumic AcidsEnhances fruit quality and increases yieldGreenhouse[216,217]
Beans Humic AcidsImproves vegetative growth and increases productionField[218]
Onion Humic AcidsIncreases bulb size and qualityGreenhouse[219,220]
Carrot Humic AcidsPromotes root development and improves productionGreenhouse[221]
Lettuce Humic AcidsStimulates leaf growth and increases yieldGreenhouse[222]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Solano Porras, R.C.; Artola, A.; Barrena, R.; Ghoreishi, G.; Ballardo Matos, C.; Sánchez, A. Breaking New Ground: Exploring the Promising Role of Solid-State Fermentation in Harnessing Natural Biostimulants for Sustainable Agriculture. Processes 2023, 11, 2300. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11082300

AMA Style

Solano Porras RC, Artola A, Barrena R, Ghoreishi G, Ballardo Matos C, Sánchez A. Breaking New Ground: Exploring the Promising Role of Solid-State Fermentation in Harnessing Natural Biostimulants for Sustainable Agriculture. Processes. 2023; 11(8):2300. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11082300

Chicago/Turabian Style

Solano Porras, Roberto Carlos, Adriana Artola, Raquel Barrena, Golafarin Ghoreishi, Cindy Ballardo Matos, and Antoni Sánchez. 2023. "Breaking New Ground: Exploring the Promising Role of Solid-State Fermentation in Harnessing Natural Biostimulants for Sustainable Agriculture" Processes 11, no. 8: 2300. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11082300

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop