Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria for Cannabis Production: Yield, Cannabinoid Profile and Disease Resistance

Article type: Brief Report

Keywords: cannabis, cannabinoids, plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria, powdery mildew, biological control

Authors: Dongmei Lyu, Rachel Backer, W. George Robinson, Donald L. Smith

Affiliations: Crop Physiology Laboratory, Department of Plant Science, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Ravenquest Biomed, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada

License: Copyright © 2019 Lyu, Backer, Robinson and Smith. CC BY 4.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Article links: DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01761  |  PubMed: 31456755  |  PMC: PMC6698789

Relevance: Relevant: mentioned in keywords or abstract

Full text: PDF (402 KB)

Introduction

Cannabis production is drawing widespread attention because it can be used as food, fiber, medicine, and a recreational drug (ref. Jiang et al., 2006; ref. Kostic et al., 2008). The specific application and value is largely based on the concentration and composition of cannabinoids in cannabis plants (ref. Sawler et al., 2015). The demand for cannabis is increasing as medical cannabis and cannabis production have been legalized in countries such as Colombia, Mexico, and Canada (ref. Schuermeyer et al., 2014).

In medical cannabis production, the female plant is more desirable than the male for production of cannabinoids, due to higher flower biomass and cannabinoid levels (ref. Potter, 2014). In commercial production, plants are propagated as cuttings from mother plants to produce genetically identical daughter plants to maintain population of desirable genotypes (ref. Potter, 2014). Studies have attempted to determine which elements of cultivation and genetics contribute to cannabis yield and cannabinoid levels/composition. Cannabis yield is influenced by light intensity and plant density (ref. Toonen et al., 2006; ref. Vanhove et al., 2012; ref. Backer et al., 2019). However, little research has been conducted regarding the response of yield and cannabinoid levels/composition to the application of plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), although research has already demonstrated the important role of PGPR on the production of many other crop species (ref. Mabood et al., 2014; ref. Smith et al., 2015). For example, the application of PGPR to plant roots can stimulate crop growth by providing mineral nutrition to plants. PGPR can also improve crop tolerance to abiotic stresses (e.g., drought and salinity) and biotic stress (e.g., plant pathogens) (ref. Yan et al., 2016; ref. Takishita et al., 2018).

Exploitation of PGPR from the phytomicrobiome (plant microbiome) will play an important role in industrial cannabis production, and there is a clear need to better understand the relationship between the phytomicrobiome and cannabis yield, cannabinoid levels/composition and disease resistance. This perspective summarizes knowledge about factors that contribute to cannabis yield and secondary metabolite biosynthesis. In addition, we examine the potential role of PGPR, with a focus on two widely prevalent genera (Pseudomonas and Bacillus), in achieving high yields, desirable cannabinoid profiles, and disease resistance in cannabis.

Strategies to Increase Cannabis Yield and Quality

To achieve optimal quality for medical use, indoor marijuana cultivation aims to maintain highly controlled growth conditions, with stable, high-quality lighting, and temperature and humidity control. Production conditions that influence marijuana yield and cannabinoid concentration include plant genotype and environmental conditions including temperature, water availability, and fertilizer application during the vegetative growth period, photoperiod, light type, and quality and the development stage of the plant (ref. Lydon et al., 1987; ref. Tipparat et al., 2012; ref. Marti et al., 2014; ref. Caplan et al., 2017). At a physiological level, plant growth regulators can also affect cannabinoid accumulation. For instance, application of gibberellic acid (GA₃) can increase or decrease the accumulation of Δ₉-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in cannabis leaves while abscisic acid (ABA) and cycocel increase THC content (ref. Mansouri et al., 2011; ref. Singh et al., 2011). The mechanism underlying these effects is not currently understood. One hypothesis is that the application of GA₃ contributes to an increase of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC), which subsequently increases ethylene levels in the plant. According to this theory, higher levels of ethylene result in increased THC and CBD contents (ref. Mansouri et al., 2011).

In contrast, industrial/fiber hemp is grown outdoors, with a view to maximum biomass and yield at minimum production cost. Growing conditions, such as temperature, moisture, soil, seeding density, and photoperiod determine the yield and quality of hemp (ref. Vogl et al., 2004; ref. Hoppner and Mange-Hartmann, 2007; ref. Townshend and Boleyn, 2008).

Plant-Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Cannabis Production

Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria are microbes associated with plant roots that promote plant growth by (1) providing enhanced mineral nutrition, (2) producing plant hormones or other molecules that stimulate plant growth and prime plant defenses against biotic and abiotic stresses, or (3) protecting plants against pathogens by affecting survival of pathogenic microorganisms (ref. Podile and Kishore, 2006; ref. Ortíz-Castro et al., 2009; ref. Bhattacharyya and Jha, 2012; ref. Nandal and hooda, 2013; ref. Vacheron et al., 2013; ref. Ahemad and Kibret, 2014; ref. Yan et al., 2016; ref. Rosier et al., 2018). PGPR are well-recognized as promising inputs for sustainable agricultural production (ref. Bhattacharyya and Jha, 2012; ref. Gupta et al., 2015; ref. Backer et al., 2018).

PGPR-associated yield increases in other crops have been studied extensively. Many investigations have shown that PGPR strains can stimulate the growth of plants, including rice (ref. Etesami et al., 2014), maize (ref. Akladious and Abbas, 2012; ref. Głodowska et al., 2016), soybean (ref. Jayasinghearachchi and Seneviratne, 2004; ref. Ramesh et al., 2014), and wheat (ref. Dilfuza and Zulfiya, 2009). These yield increases have been associated with increased germination percentage (ref. Gholami et al., 2011), seedling vigor (ref. Bharathi et al., 2004), root and shoot growth, and total biomass production (ref. van Loon et al., 1998).

Yield and Quality Enhancements Associated With Plant-Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria

In the case of cannabis production, there is a lack of data about the use of PGPR due to past legal restrictions on production of this crop. There are only two publications (ref. Conant et al., 2017; ref. Pagnani et al., 2018) that report data regarding the benefits of PGPR inoculation on growth and yield of marijuana and hemp. ref. Pagnani et al. (2018) showed that a consortium of PGPR (Azospirillum brasilense, Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus, Burkholderia ambifaria, and Herbaspirillum seropedicae) improved the growth and physiological status of hemp plants and increased secondary metabolite accumulation and antioxidant activity. ref. Conant et al. (2017) demonstrated that the microbial biostimulant product Mammoth P™ promoted hemp growth at the bloom stage but did not report effects on cannabinoid concentration. Previous studies have shown that PGPR inoculation alters secondary metabolite accumulation in other plant species (ref. Kim et al., 2011; ref. Vacheron et al., 2013; ref. Braga et al., 2016; ref. Mishra et al., 2018); this leads us to hypothesize that PGPR inoculation will alter cannabinoid levels/composition in cannabis. It is critical to determine the effect of PGPR on the yield of cannabis and on the biosynthesis and accumulation of cannabinoids, in particular, in plant tissues or organs at various growth stages.

Our laboratory has already illustrated that bacteria isolated from one plant species can trigger growth promotion and induce stress responses in other species, including crop plants (ref. Smith et al., 2015; ref. Fan et al., 2017; ref. Ricci et al., 2019), which suggest that known PGPR may stimulate growth in cannabis. Moreover, these effects can be induced by inoculating a bacterium or a consortium of bacteria onto plants (ref. Souza et al., 2015). We hypothesize that future research will demonstrate that PGPR-based inoculants can alter (1) cannabinoid accumulation, (2) increase flower yield for marijuana cultivars and seed and fiber yield for hemp cultivars, (3) protect against plant pathogens by production of antimicrobial compounds and priming of plant immune responses, and (4) reduce the impact of abiotic stresses associated with intensive indoor marijuana cultivation (e.g., salinity stress) and challenges associated with climate change, for outdoor hemp cultivation (e.g., drought, high temperatures, flooding).

Biological Control and Disease Resistance Associated With Plant-Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria

Currently, PGPR species of the genera Agrobacterium, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Delftia, Paenibacillus, Pantoea, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, and Serratia are used commercially as biocontrol agents (ref. Glick, 2012). Some of them are already used in the production of various plants, to inhibit diseases via a range of mechanisms (ref. Compant et al., 2005). For instance, Pseudomonas fluorescens controls downy mildew caused by Sclerospora graminicola of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) (ref. Raj et al., 2003) and Bacillus spp. can control bacterial leaf blight of rice caused by Xanthomonas oryzae (ref. Udayashankar et al., 2011). Some Pseudomonas and Bacillus species are used as biological control agents against pests and plant diseases of potato (ref. Hultberg et al., 2010) and sugar beet (ref. Bargabus et al., 2004).

PGPR can help control plant pathogens by (1) direct antagonism against potential pathogens (ref. Beneduzi et al., 2012), (2) competition for space and nutrients (ref. Kumari and Srivastava, 1999), and/or (3) activating induced systemic resistance (ISR) in plants, to prevent infection by specific pathogens (ref. Kloepper et al., 1980, ref. 2004; ref. van Loon et al., 1998; ref. Jetiyanon and Kloepper, 2002; ref. Van et al., 2009; ref. Mishra et al., 2010; ref. Egamberdieva et al., 2017). ISR is mediated by jasmonate (JA)- and ethylene (ET)-sensitive pathways (ref. van Loon et al., 1998; ref. Spoel and Dong, 2012). However, the ability of PGPR strains to elicit ISR appears to depend on the host/rhizobacterium combination (ref. Beneduzi et al., 2012). When successfully activated by PGPR, ISR can enhance the defense capacity of plants by priming for potentiated expression of defense genes (ref. Tjamos et al., 2005). It is clear that PGPR strains, inoculated onto plants, can increase the ability of plants to defend against specific pathogens by eliciting the production of endogenous plant hormones, such as IAA and GA₃. ref. Pieterse et al. (2000) found that following the induction of ISR, plants have an enhanced capacity to convert ACC to ethylene, which provides a greater potential to produce ethylene. However, ref. Beneduzi et al. (2012) found that ET- and JA-dependent plant responses can be triggered without a concomitant increase these phytohormones, working instead by enhancing sensitivity to these hormones. Therefore, future research should attempt to determine if the application of PGPR can control infection of cannabis plants by pathogens due to ISR activation via production of plant hormones and/or increased expression of defense-related genes.

Powdery Mildew Control in Indoor Cannabis Cultivation: An Example of Potential Plant-Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Application

Cannabis can be infected by a plethora of phytopathogens, leading to reduced plant productivity from the seedling to harvest stages (ref. McPartland, 1996; ref. Kusari et al., 2013). For example, Botrytis cinerea and Trichothecium roseum (ref. McPartland, 1996) are commonly found on marijuana plants, especially outdoors, and can seriously damage the plant by attacking leaves, flowers, stems and branches. Indoor-produced cannabis plants are threatened by Trichothecium roseum (ref. McPartland, 1991) and Golovinomyces sp. (ref. Thompson et al., 2017), which attack the leaves and flowers, causing pink rot and powdery mildew diseases, respectively. It is highly desirable to effectively address these threats, to prevent yield losses in cannabis production.

Powdery mildew is a severe fungal disease that damages leaves and buds at all growth stages, and is especially common in indoor cannabis production, due to high humidity levels. Powdery mildew infection causes leaves to senescence prematurely affecting photosynthetic rate and yield, and reducing flower bud quality (ref. McPartland, 1996; ref. McPartland and Cubeta, 1997). Powdery mildew spores destroy the cannabis resin leading to reductions in the medicinal value of marijuana plants (ref. McPartland, 1996). Thus, there is a significant need to develop effective methods to control powdery mildew in cannabis production.

Biological control of plant pathogens, including powdery mildew, provides several advantages over existing chemical control measures. To date, the application of chemical controls such as bicarbonates or refined horticultural oils, has been used to control powdery mildew in other crops (ref. Fernandez et al., 2006). However, these sprays may injure young seedlings, and may have deleterious effects on soil structure (ref. McPartland and Hillig, 2008). Bacillus subtilis has been shown to effectively control strawberry and cucurbit powdery mildew caused by Sphaerotheca macularis (ref. Lowe et al., 2012) and Podosphaera fusca (ref. García-Gutiérrez et al., 2013), respectively, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa can control pea powdery mildew when applied as a foliar spray (ref. Bahadur et al., 2007). These results suggest that inoculating cannabis with PGPR may assist in controlling powdery mildew, representing a substantial advantage over currently available chemical control methods. In addition, fungicide residues could be eliminated on plant parts destined for human consumption (buds for marijuana and seeds for hemp) if an effective biocontrol technology could be applied as a root drench, instead of as a foliar spray.

Examples of Widely Prevalent Phytomicrobiome Members: Pseudomonas and Bacillus for Growth Promotion and Disease Control in Cannabis

Pseudomonas

In general, Pseudomonas spp. show good colonization in numerous ecological niches including soil, water, and plant surfaces (ref. Parret et al., 2003; ref. Humphris et al., 2005; ref. Schreiter et al., 2018) and can inhibit the growth of plant pathogens and promote plant growth. Pseudomonas strains can promote plant growth by producing plant hormones such as IAA and ACC deaminase (ref. Khan et al., 2016) and function as biocontrol agents by producing various pathogen-deterrent compounds, including antibiotics, polysaccharides and siderophores (ref. Beneduzi et al., 2012; ref. Santoyo et al., 2012; ref. Souza et al., 2015). Pseudomonas can induce ISR and to date, experiments with Pseudomonas have concentrated on elucidating the molecular and physiological mechanisms that are the basis of ISR (ref. Kloepper et al., 2004). ref. Hultberg et al. (2010) demonstrated that strains of Pseudomonas can significantly reduce potato late blight disease caused by the oomycete Phytophthora infestans.

Bacillus

Bacillus spp. promote plant growth by (1) excreting cytokinins into the rhizosphere (ref. Arkhipova et al., 2005) and (2) stimulating the synthesis of phytohormones, such as IAA (ref. Shao et al., 2015) and GA₃ (ref. Bottini et al., 2004; ref. Idris et al., 2007). Bacillus spores act as biological control agents by inhibiting the growth of various pathogenic microbes (ref. Emmert and Handelsman, 1999; ref. Kumar et al., 2011). Studies have shown that the impact of Bacillus spp. varies among crop species and that the application of Bacillus can improve agronomic traits of crop plants and impart enhanced tolerance to some pathogens (ref. Choudhary, 2011; ref. Lyngwi and Joshi, 2013). Treatment with Bacillus spp. elicited ISR in most of the plant species evaluated and also altered secondary metabolite biosynthesis in plants; both effects contributed to protection against plant diseases (ref. Kloepper et al., 2004). In contrast to Pseudomonas, using Bacillus strains to trigger the ISR pathway in plants is dependent on the ethylene and jasmonate pathways (ref. Santoyo et al., 2012). To date, studies on Bacillus spp. as a biocontrol agents and elicitors of ISR have mainly focused on aspects of microbial ecology, the resilience of plants with activated ISR and direct plant growth promotion (ref. Kloepper et al., 2004).

Overall, previous research has shown that these two PGPR genera have strong influences on plant growth promotion through the production of various substances (Table 1; ref. Canbolat et al., 2006; ref. Rajkumar et al., 2006; ref. Wani et al., 2007; ref. Poonguzhali et al., 2008; ref. Rajkumar and Freitas, 2008; ref. Tank and Saraf, 2009; ref. Wani and Khan, 2010; ref. Ma et al., 2011; ref. Ahemad and Kibret, 2014), but their application remains virtually unexplored for cannabis production. Based on the work from our laboratory (ref. Fan et al., 2018; ref. Ricci et al., 2019), Pseudomonas and Bacillus are very common and often dominant bacteria associated with both cultivated and wild plants. Given the results of previous studies (Table 1), it would be very interesting to determine if any strains of these two extremely common PGPR strains have positive influences on cannabis yield and cannabinoid profiles. In addition, further studies should be conducted to investigate the mode-of-action of these two strains, to identify commonalities and unique mechanisms of growth promotion and biocontrol of plant pathogens.

Conclusions and Future Prospects

Cannabis is poised to become an important crop globally; its importance is increasing with the number of countries legalizing the use of cannabis for fiber production and medical applications. It is critical to investigate how to improve cannabis yields and alter cannabinoid concentration and composition. However, because cannabis use has been illegal in most of the world for the past century, there is a great shortage of reliable research data in this area.

The use of PGPR inoculants has contributed to improved yields for many other crops, as a result of nutrient mobilization, hormone production, disease control, and improved stress tolerance. Thus, study of the responses of cannabis to inoculation with PGPR could provide an efficient approach to improve cannabis yield and quality for medical use, and to do so in an environmentally sustainable way. PGPR also have the potential to provide an effective and acceptable strategy for control of key cannabis diseases, without the risks associated with pesticide residue. Overall, elements of the phytomicrobiome have the potential to increase the safety, yield and quality of cannabis.

Author Contributions

DL gathered literature and prepared the manuscript. RB, WR, and DS provided feedback and oversaw progression of the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Conflict of Interest Statement

WR is Chief Executive Officer of Ravenquest Biomed, Inc., a company that produces and sells cannabis products. DS conducts research in collaboration with this company, where the research is funded through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, which levers industrial funding.

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

References

1. M. Ahemad, M. Kibret. Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: current perspective.. J. King Saud Univ. Sci., 2014. [DOI]
2. S. A. Akladious, S. M. Abbas. Application of Trichoderma harziunum T22 as a biofertilizer supporting maize growth.. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 2012. [DOI]
3. T. Arkhipova, S. Veselov, A. Melentiev, E. Martynenko, G. Kudoyarova. Ability of bacterium Bacillus subtilis to produce cytokinins and to influence the growth and endogenous hormone content of lettuce plants.. Plant Soil, 2005. [DOI]
4. R. Backer, J. S. Rokem, G. Ilangumaran, J. Lamont, D. Praslickova, E. Ricci. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: context, mechanisms of action, and roadmap to commercialization of biostimulants for sustainable agriculture.. Front. Plant Sci., 2018. [DOI | PubMed]
5. R. Backer, T. Schwinghamer, P. Rosenbaum, V. McCarty, S. E. Bilodeau, D. Lyu. Closing the yield gap for cannabis: a meta-analysis of factors determining cannabis yield.. Front. Plant Sci., 2019. [DOI | PubMed]
6. A. Bahadur, U. Singh, B. Sarnia, D. Singh, K. Singh, A. Singh. Foliar application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria increases antifungal compounds in pea (Pisum sativum) against Erysiphe pisi.. Mycobiology, 2007. [DOI | PubMed]
7. R. Bargabus, N. Zidack, J. Sherwood, B. Jacobsen. Screening for the identification of potential biological control agents that induce systemic acquired resistance in sugar beet.. Biol. Control, 2004. [DOI]
8. A. Beneduzi, A. Ambrosini, L. M. P. Passaglia. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): their potential as antagonists and biocontrol agents.. Genet. Mol. Biol., 2012. [PubMed]
9. R. Bharathi, R. Vivekananthan, S. Harish, A. Ramanathan, R. Samiyappan. Rhizobacteria-based bio-formulations for the management of fruit rot infection in chillies.. Crop Prot., 2004. [DOI]
10. P. N. Bhattacharyya, D. K. Jha. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): emergence in agriculture.. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2012. [DOI | PubMed]
11. R. Bottini, F. Cassán, P. Piccoli. Gibberellin production by bacteria and its involvement in plant growth promotion and yield increase.. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2004. [DOI | PubMed]
12. R. M. Braga, M. N. Dourado, W. L. Araújo. Microbial interactions: ecology in a molecular perspective.. Braz. J. Microbiol., 2016. [DOI | PubMed]
13. M. Y. Canbolat, S. Bilen, R. Çakmakçı, F. Şahin, A. Aydın. Effect of plant growth-promoting bacteria and soil compaction on barley seedling growth, nutrient uptake, soil properties and rhizosphere microflora.. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 2006. [DOI]
14. D. Caplan, M. Dixon, Z. Youbin. Optimal rate of organic fertilizer during the vegetative-stage for cannabis grown in two coir-based substrates.. HortScience, 2017. [DOI]
15. D. Choudhary. Plant growth-promotion (PGP) activities and molecular characterization of rhizobacterial strains isolated from soybean (Glycine max L. Merril) plants against charcoal rot pathogen, Macrophomina phaseolina.. Biotechnol. Lett., 2011. [DOI | PubMed]
16. S. Compant, B. Duffy, J. Nowak, C. Clément, E. A. Barka. Use of plant growth-promoting bacteria for biocontrol of plant diseases: principles, mechanisms of action, and future prospects.. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 2005. [DOI | PubMed]
17. R. Conant, R. Walsh, M. Walsh, C. Bell, M. Wallenstein. Effects of a microbial biostimulant, Mammoth P™, on Cannabis sativa bud yield.. J. Hortic., 2017. [DOI]
18. E. Dilfuza, K. Zulfiya. Selection for root colonising bacteria stimulating wheat growth in saline soils.. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 2009. [DOI]
19. D. Egamberdieva, K. Davranov, S. Wirth, A. Hashem, E. A. Abd. Impact of soil salinity on the plant-growth-promoting and biological control abilities of root associated bacteria.. Saudi J. Biol. Sci., 2017. [DOI | PubMed]
20. E. A. Emmert, J. Handelsman. Biocontrol of plant disease: a (Gram-) positive perspective.. FEMS Microbiol. Lett., 1999. [PubMed]
21. H. Etesami, H. M. Hosseini, H. A. Alikhani. Bacterial biosynthesis of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-caboxylate (ACC) deaminase, a useful trait to elongation and endophytic colonization of the roots of rice under constant flooded conditions.. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants, 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
22. D. Fan, T. Schwinghamer, D. L. Smith. Isolation and diversity of culturable rhizobacteria associated with economically important crops and uncultivated plants in Québec, Canada.. Syst. Appl. Microbiol., 2018. [DOI | PubMed]
23. X. Fan, S. Zhang, X. Mo, Y. Li, Y. Fu, Z. Liu. Effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and N source on plant growth and N and P uptake by tomato grown on calcareous soils.. Pedosphere, 2017. [DOI]
24. D. E. Fernandez, E. Beers, J. Brunner, M. Doerr, J. Dunley. Horticultural mineral oil applications for apple powdery mildew and codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.).. Crop Prot., 2006. [DOI]
25. L. García-Gutiérrez, H. Zeriouh, D. Romero, J. Cubero, A. De Vicente, A. Pérez-García. The antagonistic strain Bacillus subtilis UMAF6639 also confers protection to melon plants against cucurbit powdery mildew by activation of jasmonate-and salicylic acid-dependent defence responses.. Microb. Biotechnol., 2013. [DOI | PubMed]
26. A. Gholami, S. Shahsavani, S. Nezarat. The effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on germination, seedling growth and yield of maize.. Proc. World. Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol., 2011
27. B. R. Glick. Plant growth-promoting bacteria: mechanisms and applications.. Scientifica, 2012. [DOI | PubMed]
28. M. Głodowska, B. Husk, T. Schwinghamer, D. Smith. Biochar is a growth-promoting alternative to peat moss for the inoculation of corn with a pseudomonad.. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 2016. [DOI]
29. G. Gupta, S. S. Parihar, N. K. Ahirwar, S. K. Snehi, V. Singh. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): current and future prospects for development of sustainable agriculture.. J. Microb. Biochem. Technol., 2015. [DOI]
30. F. Hoppner, U. Mange-Hartmann. Yield and quality of fibre and oil of fourteen hemp cultivars in Northern Germany at two harvest dates.. Landbauforsch. Volk., 2007
31. M. Hultberg, T. Bengtsson, E. Liljeroth. Late blight on potato is suppressed by the biosurfactant-producing strain Pseudomonas koreensis 2.74 and its biosurfactant.. BioControl, 2010. [DOI]
32. S. N. Humphris, A. G. Bengough, B. S. Griffiths, K. Kilham, S. Rodger, V. Stubbs. Root cap influences root colonisation by Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 on maize.. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol., 2005. [DOI | PubMed]
33. E. E. Idris, D. J. Iglesias, M. Talon, R. Borriss. Tryptophan-dependent production of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) affects level of plant growth promotion by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42.. Mol. Plant Microbe In., 2007. [DOI | PubMed]
34. H. Jayasinghearachchi, G. Seneviratne. A bradyrhizobial-Penicillium spp. biofilm with nitrogenase activity improves N2 fixing symbiosis of soybean.. Biol. Fert. Soil, 2004. [DOI]
35. K. Jetiyanon, J. W. Kloepper. Mixtures of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for induction of systemic resistance against multiple plant diseases.. Biol. Control, 2002. [DOI]
36. H. E. Jiang, X. Li, Y. X. Zhao, D. K. Ferguson, F. Hueber, S. Bera. A new insight into Cannabis sativa (Cannabaceae) utilization from 2500-year-old Yanghai Tombs, Xinjiang, China.. J. Ethnopharmacol., 2006. [DOI | PubMed]
37. A. L. Khan, B. A. Halo, A. Elyassi, S. Ali, K. Al-Hosni, J. Hussain. Indole acetic acid and ACC deaminase from endophytic bacteria improves the growth of Solanum lycopersicum.. Electron. J. Biotechnol., 2016. [DOI]
38. Y. C. Kim, J. Leveau, B. B. M. Gardener, E. A. Pierson, L. S. Pierson, C. M. Ryu. The multifactorial basis for plant health promotion by plant-associated bacteria.. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 2011. [DOI | PubMed]
39. J. W. Kloepper, C. M. Ryu, S. Zhang. Induced systemic resistance and promotion of plant growth by Bacillus spp.. Phytopathology, 2004. [DOI | PubMed]
40. J. W. Kloepper, M. N. Schroth, T. D. Miller. Effects of rhizosphere colonization by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on potato plant development and yield.. Phytopathology, 1980. [DOI]
41. M. Kostic, B. Pejic, P. Skundric. Quality of chemically modified hemp fibers.. Bioresour. Technol., 2008. [DOI | PubMed]
42. A. Kumar, A. Prakash, B. N. Johri. Bacillus as PGPR in crop ecosystem” in. Bacteria in agrobiology: Crop ecosystems. ed., 2011
43. V. Kumari, J. Srivastava. Molecular and biochemical aspects of rhizobacterial ecology with emphasis on biological control.. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 1999. [DOI]
44. P. Kusari, S. Kusari, M. Spiteller, O. Kayser. Endophytic fungi harbored in Cannabis sativa L.: diversity and potential as biocontrol agents against host plant-specific phytopathogens.. Fungal Divers., 2013. [DOI]
45. A. Lowe, S. M. Rafferty-McArdle, A. C. Cassells. Effects of AMF-and PGPR-root inoculation and a foliar chitosan spray in single and combined treatments on powdery mildew disease in strawberry.. Agric. Food Sci., 2012. [DOI]
46. J. Lydon, A. H. Teramura, C. B. Coffman. UV-B radiation effects on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two Cannabis sativa chemotypes.. Photochem. Photobiol., 1987. [PubMed]
47. N. A. Lyngwi, S. Joshi. Economically important Bacillus and related genera: a mini review” in. Biology of useful plants and microbes. ed., 2013
48. Y. Ma, M. Rajkumar, Y. Luo, H. Freitas. Inoculation of endophytic bacteria on host and non-host plants—effects on plant growth and Ni uptake.. J. Hazard. Mater., 2011. [DOI | PubMed]
49. F. Mabood, X. Zhou, D. L. Smith. Microbial signaling and plant growth promotion.. Can. J. Plant Sci., 2014. [DOI]
50. H. Mansouri, Z. Asrar, R. Amarowicz. The response of terpenoids to exogenous gibberellic acid in Cannabis sativa L. at vegetative stage.. Acta Physiol. Plant., 2011. [DOI]
51. G. Marti, S. Schnee, Y. Andrey, C. Simoes-Pires, P. A. Carrupt, J. L. Wolfender. Study of leaf metabolome modifications induced by UV-C radiations in representative Vitis, Cissus and Cannabis species by LC-MS based metabolomics and antioxidant assays.. Molecules, 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
52. J. McPartland. Common names for diseases of Cannabis sativa L.. Plant Dis., 1991
53. J. M. McPartland. A review of cannabis diseases.. J. Int. Hemp Assoc., 1996
54. J. M. McPartland, M. A. Cubeta. New species, combinations, host associations and location records of fungi associated with hemp (Cannabis sativa).. Mycol. Res., 1997. [DOI]
55. J. M. McPartland, K. W. Hillig. Differentiating powdery mildew from false powdery mildew.. J. Ind. Hemp, 2008. [DOI]
56. J. Mishra, T. Fatima, N. K. Arora. Role of secondary metabolites from plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in combating salinity stress” in. Plant microbiome: Stress response. eds., 2018
57. M. Mishra, U. Kumar, P. K. Mishra, V. Prakash. Efficiency of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for the enhancement of Cicer arietinum L. growth and germination under salinity.. Adv. Biol. Res., 2010
58. M. Nandal, R. Hooda. Plant growth promoting rhizobiacteria: a review article.. Int. J. Curr. Res., 2013
59. R. Ortíz-Castro, H. A. Contrerascornejo, L. Macíasrodríguez, J. Lópezbucio. The role of microbial signals in plant growth and development.. Plant Signal. Behav., 2009. [DOI | PubMed]
60. G. Pagnani, M. Pellegrini, A. Galieni, S. D’egidio, F. Matteucci, A. Ricci. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in Cannabis sativa ‘Finola’ cultivation: an alternative fertilization strategy to improve plant growth and quality characteristics.. Ind. Crop. Prod., 2018. [DOI]
61. A. H. Parret, G. Schoofs, P. Proost, M. R. De. Plant lectin-like bacteriocin from a rhizosphere-colonizing Pseudomonas isolate.. J. Bacteriol., 2003. [DOI | PubMed]
62. C. M. Pieterse, J. A. V. Pelt, J. Ton, S. Parchmann, M. J. Mueller, A. J. Buchala. Rhizobacteria-mediated induced systemic resistance (ISR) in Arabidopsis requires sensitivity to jasmonate and ethylene but is not accompanied by an increase in their production.. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol., 2000. [DOI]
63. A. R. Podile, G. K. Kishore. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria” in. Plant-associated bacteria. ed., 2006
64. S. Poonguzhali, M. Madhaiyan, T. Sa. Isolation and identification of phosphate solubilizing bacteria from Chinese cabbage and their effect on growth and phosphorus utilization of plants.. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2008. [PubMed]
65. D. J. Potter. A review of the cultivation and processing of cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) for production of prescription medicines in the UK.. Drug Test. Anal., 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
66. S. N. Raj, G. Chaluvaraju, K. Amruthesh, H. S. Shetty, M. Reddy, J. W. Kloepper. Induction of growth promotion and resistance against downy mildew on pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) by rhizobacteria.. Plant Dis., 2003. [DOI | PubMed]
67. M. Rajkumar, H. Freitas. Effects of inoculation of plant-growth promoting bacteria on Ni uptake by Indian mustard.. Bioresour. Technol., 2008. [DOI | PubMed]
68. M. Rajkumar, R. Nagendran, K. J. Lee, W. H. Lee, S. Z. Kim. Influence of plant growth promoting bacteria and Cr6+ on the growth of Indian mustard.. Chemosphere, 2006. [DOI | PubMed]
69. A. Ramesh, S. K. Sharma, M. P. Sharma, N. Yadav, O. P. Joshi. Inoculation of zinc solubilizing Bacillus aryabhattai strains for improved growth, mobilization and biofortification of zinc in soybean and wheat cultivated in Vertisols of central India.. Appl. Soil Ecol., 2014. [DOI]
70. E. Ricci, T. Schwinghamer, D. Fan, D. L. Smith, V. Gravel. Growth promotion of greenhouse tomatoes with Pseudomonas sp. and Bacillus sp. biofilms and planktonic cells.. Appl. Soil Ecol., 2019. [DOI]
71. A. Rosier, F. H. Medeiros, H. P. Bais. Defining plant growth promoting rhizobacteria molecular and biochemical networks in beneficial plant-microbe interactions.. Plant Soil, 2018. [DOI]
72. G. Santoyo, M. D. C. Orozco-Mosqueda, M. Govindappa. Mechanisms of biocontrol and plant growth-promoting activity in soil bacterial species of Bacillus and Pseudomonas: a review.. Biocontrol Sci. Tech., 2012. [DOI]
73. J. Sawler, J. M. Stout, K. M. Gardner, D. Hudson, J. Vidmar, L. Butler. The genetic structure of marijuana and hemp.. PLoS One, 2015. [DOI | PubMed]
74. S. Schreiter, D. Babin, K. Smalla, R. Grosch. Rhizosphere competence and biocontrol effect of Pseudomonas sp. RU47 independent from plant species and soil type at the field scale.. Front. Microbiol., 2018. [DOI | PubMed]
75. J. Schuermeyer, S. Salomonsen-Sautel, R. K. Price, S. Balan, C. Thurstone, S. J. Min. Temporal trends in marijuana attitudes, availability and use in Colorado compared to non-medical marijuana states: 2003-2011.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
76. J. Shao, Z. Xu, N. Zhang, Q. Shen, R. Zhang. Contribution of indole-3-acetic acid in the plant growth promotion by the rhizospheric strain Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQR9.. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 2015. [DOI]
77. R. K. Singh, S. A. Ali, P. Nath, V. A. Sane. Activation of ethylene-responsive p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase leads to increased tocopherol levels during ripening in mango.. J. Exp. Bot., 2011. [DOI | PubMed]
78. D. L. Smith, S. Subramanian, J. R. Lamont, M. Bywater-Ekegärd. Signaling in the phytomicrobiome: breadth and potential.. Front. Plant Sci., 2015. [DOI | PubMed]
79. R. D. Souza, A. Ambrosini, L. M. P. Passaglia. Plant growth-promoting bacteria as inoculants in agricultural soils.. Genet. Mol. Biol., 2015. [DOI | PubMed]
80. S. H. Spoel, X. Dong. How do plants achieve immunity? Defence without specialized immune cells.. Nat. Rev. Immunol., 2012. [DOI | PubMed]
81. Y. Takishita, J. B. Charron, D. L. Smith. Biocontrol rhizobacterium Pseudomonas sp. 23S induces systemic resistance in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) against bacterial canker Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis.. Front. Microbiol., 2018. [DOI | PubMed]
82. N. Tank, M. Saraf. Enhancement of plant growth and decontamination of nickel-spiked soil using PGPR.. J. Basic Microbiol., 2009. [DOI | PubMed]
83. G. Thompson, J. Tuscano, M. Dennis, A. Singapuri, S. Libertini, R. Gaudino. A microbiome assessment of medical marijuana.. Clin. Microbiol. Infect., 2017. [DOI | PubMed]
84. P. Tipparat, S. Natakankitkul, P. Chamnivikaipong, S. Chutiwat. Characteristics of cannabinoids composition of Cannabis plants grown in Northern Thailand and its forensic application.. Forensic Sci. Int., 2012. [DOI | PubMed]
85. S. E. Tjamos, E. Flemetakis, E. J. Paplomatas, P. Katinakis. Induction of resistance to Verticillium dahliae in Arabidopsis thaliana by the biocontrol agent K-165 and pathogenesis-related proteins gene expression.. Mol. Plant Microbe In., 2005. [DOI | PubMed]
86. M. Toonen, S. Ribot, J. Thissen. Yield of illicit indoor cannabis cultivation in the Netherlands.. J. Forensic Sci., 2006. [DOI | PubMed]
87. J. M. Townshend, J. M. Boleyn. Plant density effect on oil seed yield and quality of industrial hemp cv. Fasamo in Canterbury” in. Seed symposium: Seeds for futures. eds., 2008
88. A. Udayashankar, S. C. Nayaka, M. Reddy, C. Srinivas. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria mediate induced systemic resistance in rice against bacterial leaf blight caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae.. Biol. Control, 2011. [DOI]
89. J. Vacheron, G. Desbrosses, M. L. Bouffaud, B. Touraine, Y. Moënne-Loccoz, D. Muller. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and root system functioning.. Front. Plant Sci., 2013. [DOI | PubMed]
90. L. C. van Loon, P. A. Bakker, C. M. Pieterse. Systemic resistance induced by rhizosphere bacteria.. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol., 1998. [PubMed]
91. D. E. S. Van, S. C. Van Wees, C. M. Pieterse. Jasmonate signaling in plant interactions with resistance-inducing beneficial microbes.. Phytochemistry, 2009. [DOI]
92. W. Vanhove, T. Surmont, D. P. Van, R. B. De. Yield and turnover of illicit indoor cannabis (Cannabis spp.) plantations in Belgium.. Forensic Sci. Int., 2012. [DOI | PubMed]
93. C. R. Vogl, G. Lissek-Wxsolf, A. Surböck. Comparing hemp seed yields (Cannabis sativa L.) of an on-farm scientific field experiment to an on-farm agronomic evaluation under organic growing conditions in lower Austria.. J. Ind. Hemp, 2004. [DOI]
94. P. A. Wani, M. S. Khan. Bacillus species enhance growth parameters of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in chromium stressed soils.. Food Chem. Toxicol., 2010. [DOI | PubMed]
95. P. A. Wani, M. S. Khan, A. Zaidi. Synergistic effects of the inoculation with nitrogen-fixing and phosphate-solubilizing rhizobacteria on the performance of field-grown chickpea.. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci., 2007. [DOI]
96. H. X. Yan, L. Liu, L. Li, P. P. Zhang, W. H. Liang, H. T. Zhao. Research progress on agriculture of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria.. Heilongjiang Agric. Sci., 2016. [DOI]