Integrated weed and biofertilizer management strategies for sustainable barley production

Introduction

In global cereal cultivation, barley is one of the most important crops for food, feed, and brewing purposes, and in India, it plays a crucial role, especially for the smallholders and for input-efficient cultivation on the marginal lands. The production of barley is essential for food security and the income of farmers in rural areas, but is increasingly threatened by poor soil quality, climate risks, and high input costs. Traditional use of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides has led to higher yields but with drawbacks of soil health deterioration, herbicide resistance, environmental pollution, and high production costs, which pose a risk of long-term sustainability (Hasan et al., 2021; Al-Shammary et al., 2024) [21,3] . Among biotic constraints, weeds are the most serious factors that compete with the crop for water, nutrients, light, and space and cause significant losses in yields if they are not properly managed (Hasan et al., 2021; Gao & Su, 2024) [21,19] . Inappropriate weed control, poor or only chemical control, can alter weed flora, induce weed biotype selection, and impact the beneficial flora, and fertility amendments can inadvertently favour weed control if not properly integrated with integrated weed management (IWM) (Little et al., 2021) [28] . Weeds also have a significant impact on the nutrient uptake, thereby affecting nutrient dynamics of the crop-soil system, which decreases the efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer use and offsets the advantage of nutrient inputs (Little et al., 2021; Gao & Su, 2024) [28,19] . Biofertilizers and associated biostimulants can provide a complementary solution for nutrient management in a sustainable way. Different organic inputs, such as plant growthpromoting microbes, vermicompost, and other microbial inputs, can help increase nutrient availability, enhance soil structure and microbial diversity, improve nutrient use efficiency, and strengthen stress and pest tolerance, which will support more sustainable crop production systems (Sande et al., 2024; Shahwar et al., 2023) [38,41] . Organic and biological resources used in combination with lower mineral fertilizations can result in better yield, soil health, and environmental outcomes than mineral sources alone (Sande et al., 2024; Al-Shammary et al., 2024) [3,38] . Integrated weed management and nutrient management (biofertilizer) approaches are required to combine optimal chemical fertilizer and herbicide use with weed management in order to address the dual problems of weed pressure and minimize reliance on chemical fertilizers and herbicides. These can help barley to outcompete weeds, increase nutrient cycling, and produce yield without compromising the long-term soil and environmental quality (Hasan et al., 2021; Shahwar et al., 2023) [21,41] . Labor costs have also been increasing, and the availability of other agricultural inputs is limited, forcing farmers to increasingly rely on herbicides to control weeds. However, indiscriminate and unwarranted overuse of herbicides has resulted in changes in weed flora and the development of herbicide-resistant weed species. Thus, the development and deployment of new herbicide mixtures that have different modes of action are required for effective and sustainable weed control (Das et al., 2026) [12] .

Barley Production and Sustainability Challenges

Barley is an important cereal crop globally, and is essential for animal feed and malting, as well as in some areas, for food. Climate change, land degradation, and the use of agrochemicals pose threats to its sustainability as they are putting pressure on stable yields and long-term soil health (Capasso et al., 2021; Karunarathne et al., 2023) [9,24] . Intensification and breeding have led to improved yields of barley, particularly in mechanised systems, but also led to loss of genetic diversity, which has made it less resilient to harsh and variable environmental conditions (Capasso et al., 2021; Visioni et al., 2023) [9,50] . Traditional landraces and wild relatives tend to have higher performance under stress conditions compared to modern cultivars with high-yielding potential, with landraces reported to produce up to 20% more than improved cultivars under stressful conditions (Capasso et al., 2021) [9] . In places where water and other inputs are insufficient, barley is still a significant crop, with some areas using it as their sole cereal (Visioni et al., 2023; Karunarathne et al., 2023) [50,24] . Abiotic stresses like salinity, cold, waterlogging, drought, and heat are already limiting production of barley in major producing regions and are increasingly affecting the crop's production (Capasso et al., 2021; Karunarathne et al., 2023) [9,24] . These stresses are likely to increase with climate change, impacting barley supplies and applications, including malting, but with a focus on basic feed and food applications (Capasso et al., 2021; Karunarathne et al., 2023) [9,24] . Meanwhile, biotic interactions, such as with mycorrhizal fungi, can also increase the availability of nutrients and resistance to stress, and wild relatives and landraces can be a source of alleles to increase resilience to these stresses (Capasso et al., 2021) [9] . Soils are also eroded and are being overfertilised with large amounts of agrochemicals, which compromises sustainability. Pesticide usage reviews reveal that soils are a significant store of pesticide residues, can remain in the environment for years, are re-emitted to air and water, and can negatively affect soil quality, biodiversity, and sustainability (Tudi et al., 2021) [49] . Degradation products can impact microbial community, decomposition of organic matter, and nutrient availability, which may affect long-term productivity and environmental and human health risks (Tudi et al., 2021) [49] . This equilibrium between yield advancement and a diminished reliance on agrochemicals while simultaneously preserving barley's genetic diversity is, thus, very crucial to sustainable barley production (Capasso et al., 2021; Visioni et al., 2023) [9,50] .

Weed Flora and Weed Dynamics in Barley Fields

Barley crop-weed principles are generally observed in the weed flora and dynamics of barley fields. Weeds impact yield and grain quality primarily by competing for light, water, and nutrients, and the extent of damage is highly dependent on the time when weeds emerge and the type of weed (grass vs broadleaf) and management strategy (intensive vs light) (Gao & Su, 2024; Little et al., 2021) [19,28] . Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), crabgrasses (Digitaria spp., Eleusine indica), and other grasses with similar growth form, height, and N-use to the crop pose an important challenge as a major grassy weed in barley and other cereals, particularly in dense stands and under high N (Little et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2022) [28,44] . Broadleaf weeds often found in cereal and legume cropping systems, like Amaranthus retroflexus, Chenopodium album, Portulaca oleracea, Convolvulus arvensis, and Cyperus sedges, are at risk of becoming problem weeds when broadleaf control is insufficient and may also harbor pests and diseases (Singh et al., 2022; Negewo et al., 2023) [44,35] . This flora is likely to change further under climate change, in favour of species that are highly plastic and grow quickly (Malhi et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2023) [26, 32] . Many of the problem species have a peak emergence early in the season (barnyardgrass, lambsquarters, ragweed) or emergence that lasts long during the season (redroot pigweed, chickweed), and others have a midseason (C. rosea) or late season emergence (C. arvense) (Brown et al., 2022) [7] . Weed communities can also emerge in fields following a predictable pattern, based on the crop rotation history, leading to emergence times becoming somewhat predictable (Brown et al., 2022; Scavo & Mauromicale, 2021; Blank et al., 2023) [6,7,40] . In cereals, the most severe competition is likely to occur when the weeds grow in synchrony with or shortly after the crop, and the critical period of weed control is a few weeks after sowing of the crop, beyond which weed control is likely to result in large loss of yields, often double digits (Gao & Su, 2024; Sharma & Rayamajhi, 2022; Singh et al., 2022) [19,43,44] . In field crop crops uncontrolled weeds cause yield losses of around 30-40%, and up to 80% in case of severe infestation and result in penalties in grain quality due to reduced kernel size, weed seeds in grain, moisture and nutrient depletion (Gao & Su, 2024 [19,23,43,44] (Table 1). [35,44] Seasonal emergence patterns

Many key species peak early; some mid/late or with extended emergence, shaping the timing of control and rotation planning (Brown et [19,44]

Effect of Weeds on Growth and Yield of Barley

In barley, the growth and yield are strongly influenced by the occurrence of weeds, which compete with the crop for water, nutrients, and other resources, and change the crop's environment seasonally. They affect not only tillering and biomass production, but also grain yield, harvest index, and the profitability of the farm. Competition for nutrients and moisture is an inherent component of weed growth, and often the demand for nutrients and the root system is greater than that of barley, which may limit the amount of nutrients and soil water available for barley uptake (Little et al., 2021; Malhi et al., 2021) [28,32] .

Nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium can stimulate weed growth and height under fertilization, to the extent or more than the crop, which can reduce the effectiveness of fertilization and may even result in yield loss due to increased weed competition (Little et al., 2021) [28] . Weeds are also a competitor for light and space; taller or faster-growing species will shade barley, reducing its amount of photosynthesis and dry matter accumulation. Weeds that emerge before or are taller than the crop are particularly good at intercepting light and taking over canopy space (Little et al., 2021) [28] (Figure 1). In early growth, this competition has a negative effect on tillering and biomass production due to resource competition, which limits the number of productive tillers and the shoot weight produced. In weed-crop studies, weed biomass is often negatively correlated with crop yield and is used as a proxy for weed competition (Little et al., 2021; Malhi et al., 2021) [28,32] . Additionally, climate change (e.g., increased CO₂, temperature changes) may exacerbate the crop-weed competition in cereal crops and negatively impact crop growth (Tudi et al., 2021; Malhi et al., 2021) [32,49] . There is a reduction in tiller number, plant height, and biomass, which results in lower grain yield and harvest index, as fewer spikes are formed and more assimilates are used for competitive survival than for grain filling (Little et al., 2021; Malhi et al., 2021) [28,32] . Uncontrolled weeds can result in yield losses of approximately 33% for most major field crops, and losses from weed infestations are estimated to exceed tens of billions of dollars globally every year, both due to yield loss and high weed-control costs (Gao & Su, 2024; Eschen et al., 2021) [16,19] .

Conventional Weed Management Practices in Barley

Traditional management in barley and other herbaceous field crops involves both manual/mechanical and cultural and chemical methods, but there is increasing awareness of overdependence on herbicides, the evolution of herbicide resistance, and environmental risks (Gao & Su, 2024; Ghatrehsamani et al., 2023) [19,20] . Recent strategies increasingly focus on the combination of these tactics instead of relying on any one tactic (Gao & Su, 2024; Ghatrehsamani et al., 2023) [19,20] . The control of weeds has to be done within the initial 30 to 40days of sowing, as the weeds pose the greatest threat to production in the early stages of crop growth, as they compete the most in the initial stages. The management of weeds in rice may take three methods: chemical, mechanical, and cultural (Das and Sarkar, 2026) [13] .

Manual and mechanical weed control involves hand weeding, hoeing, inter-row cultivation, and various mechanical implements. The methods include tillage, cutting, and burrowing to achieve a high removal rate of weeds and do not leave any chemical residues on crops (Gao & Su, 2024) [19] . They are, however, labour-intensive, can damage crops, and intensive tillage can lead to soil compaction and affect the structure and development of roots (Gao & Su, 2024) [19] .

Cultural practices are considered "indirect" weed control and play an important role in IWM. These involve crop rotation, planting competitive cultivars, increasing planting density, cover crops and mulches, planting dates, row spacing, and strategic placement of fertilizer to favour the crop as opposed to weeds (Ghatrehsamani et al., 2023) [20] . These methods can also help to manage weed emergence, lower weed seedbank inputs, and potentially decrease the requirement for herbicide applications when properly designed and executed (Gao & Su, 2024;

Ghatrehsamani et al., 2023) [19,20] . Herbicide use is still the most common chemical control approach in herbaceous crops. Many herbicides that have different modes of action have been developed since the introduction of 2,4-D, which has significantly reduced the need for manual weeding (Gao & Su, 2024) [19] . Although herbicides are highly effective and convenient to use, high amounts and continuous use have resulted in the emergence of herbicideresistant weeds and significant environmental pollution, such as soil and water pollution and human and animal health hazards (Ghatrehsamani et al., 2023; Gao & Su, 2024) [19,20] . Given that resistance can develop rapidly with the use of sole herbicide-based management, and that such control can also have ecological impacts, the reviews strongly support diverse and integrated management strategies that combine mechanical, cultural, biological, and carefully managed chemical practices to maintain an effective and sustainable weed control system in barley systems and beyond (Gao & Su, 2024; Ghatrehsamani et al., 2023) [19,20] .

Biofertilizers and Their Role in Barley Production

Biofertilizers are microbial inoculants added to the plant, soil, or seed to increase nutrient supply or availability in the plant rhizosphere or interior, thereby enhancing plant growth. They are highlighted as low-cost, eco-friendly tools that aid in the reduction of reliance on synthetic NPK fertilizers, increase soil fertility, and sustain high yields under stress conditions (Zuluaga et al., 2024; Mahmud et al., 2021) [31,54] . Their role in barley production is related to improving N use efficiency, root establishment, stress tolerance, and sustainable low-input systems (Figure 2). [37,41] . PSB and phosphate-solubilizing fungi promote the release of organic acids and phosphatases, which break down insoluble mineral and organic P into orthophosphate, which is available for uptake by plants and thus compensates for the low availability of P commonly found in soils, limiting crop production (Timofeeva et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2024) [46,18] . Potassium-solubilizing bacteria (KSB) mobilize K minerals and make them soluble, leading to an increase in K supply and consequently enhancing the water relations and stress tolerance of plants (Zuluaga et al., 2024; Mahmud et al., 2021) [31,54] . AMF can significantly increase P absorption in P-deficient soils when combined with PSB and silicon (Etesami et al., 2021) [17] , as they form symbiotic associations with roots, which increase the absorbing surface through the development of hyphae and will improve the uptake of P and micronutrients. Broad PGPR groups (Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Herbaspirillum) can be used as multifunctional biofertilizers, with many strains having the ability to fix N, to mobilize P and K, to chelate Fe with siderophores, and to produce phytohormones, which all contribute to nutrient uptake, root architecture, and resistance to abiotic stresses (Timofeeva et al., 2023; Zuluaga et al., 2024) [47,54] . Biological nitrogen fixation, solubilization/mineralization of P and K through organic acids and enzymes, siderophore-mediated iron chelation, better micronutrient uptake, and indirect effects like better soil structure, microbial diversity, and induced resistance all contribute to the nutrient mobilization and growth promotion effects in the crop ( [47,31,41,54] . The use of compatible biofertilizers along with reduced mineral fertilization is emphasized as a key strategy for maintaining or boosting crop production (including cereals) while reducing input costs and environmental impacts (Table 2 [47,54,37] . [41,37] Phosphate-solubilizing microbes (PSB/PSF) Solubilize inorganic P via organic acids; mineralize organic P via phosphatases, phytases.

Bacteria (e.g., Bacillus, Pseudomonas); fungi (Penicillium, Aspergillus, etc.) [31,54] Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Extend root absorptive area; enhance P and micronutrient uptake, especially in low-P soils.

AMF genera form root symbioses (Etesami et al., 2021) [17] PGPR consortia (multitrait)

Combine N fixation, P/K solubilization, siderophores, and phytohormones to promote growth and stress tolerance.

Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Herbaspirillum, etc.

(Timofeeva et al., 2023; Zuluaga et al., 2024) [47,54]

Influence of Biofertilizers on Soil Health

In general, microbial inoculants and bio-organic fertilizers, which are categorized as biofertilizers, have a positive effect on soil health by modifying microbial community, nutrient dynamics, and soil organic matter, contributing to more sustainable management than chemical fertilizers alone. This works primarily by increasing the activity of the soil organisms, improving nutrient cycling, and a gradual improvement of the physical soil properties. Use of biofertilizers or organicmicrobial inputs enhances the microbial activity and diversity of soils due to their ability to provide carbon substrates and beneficial microbes, thereby improving vital ecosystem services like decomposition of soil biomass, transformation of soil nutrients, reduction of pathogen populations, and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (Xing et al., 2025; Samantaray et al., 2024) [37,52] . The use of bio-organic fertilizers with plant growthpromoting microbes and their interaction with the native soil microbiota enhances soil enzymatic activity, nutrient cycling, and rhizosphere health, thereby minimizing reliance on synthetic inputs and fostering long-term soil biological function (Samantaray et al., 2024) [37] . The use of microbial inoculants can improve soil fertility and nutrient cycling by promoting various microbial processes such as nitrogen fixation, phosphorus solubilization, and potassium mobilization, while their combined application with mineral fertilizers can stabilize microbial communities, boost enzyme activities (e.g., β glucosidase, urease), and accelerate organic matter decomposition and nutrient turnover (Samantaray et al., 2024; Xing et al., 2025) [37,52] . This balanced fertilization increases the availability and retention of nutrients for plants, enabling them to more effectively absorb the nutrients and reducing losses through leaching and gaseous emissions (Xing et al., 2025) [52] . Soil organic matter builds up with repeated organic-microbial inputs, leading to better aggregation, porosity, and water-holding capacity. Microorganisms promote the formation of aggregates by breaking down the residues and exuding binding substances to produce a stronger, looser, and well-aerated structure, which is beneficial to root growth and the rehabilitation of degraded soils (Xing et al., 2025) [52] . Biofertilizers and bio-organic amendments are integrated into soil health and management strategies, aiming to boost microbial processes, fertility, organic matter, and soil structure, and minimize the use of synthetic fertilizers and pollution (Samantaray et al., 2024; Xing et al., 2025) [37,52] .

Interaction Between Weed Management and Biofertilizers

Weed management and biofertilizer interactions focus on the impact of weed management on soil microbial communities and the impact of soil microbial communities on weed management, weed competitiveness, and the effectiveness of integrated management. Conventional weed control using herbicides has been shown to have a negative effect on non-target soil microorganisms and biodiversity, leading to interest in approaches that allow for maintenance or enhancement of beneficial microbiomes and control weeds (Little et al., 2021) [28] . Using biofertilizers, such as PGPR, mycorrhizae, and microbial composts, is promoted as a way to improve soil health, nutrient cycling, and plant resilience, which indirectly influences weed-crop interactions (Dzvene & Chiduza, 2024; Gao & Su, 2024) [14,19] . Integrated weed management systems, which involve a combination of organic amendments, reduced chemical usage, and diverse plantings, can lead to more complex microbial communities and more stable plant-soil dynamics, while weed management systems that rely on fewer plants and/or fewer nutrients discommodate plant-soil interactions and simplify microbial communities (Wang et al., 2024; Al-Shammary et al., 2024) [3,51] . Microbial inoculants have been reviewed, and it has been observed that they improve plant growth by means of N fixation, P and K solubilization, production of siderophores and phytohormones, and induced resistance, which can boost plant competitiveness against weeds without being used as a herbicide (Samantaray et al., 2024; Gao & Su, 2024) [19,37] . Biofertilizers also promote beneficial microbes that play a role in suppressing diseases and pests, often in a push-pull or other agroecological approach, and can fit into integrated pest/weed management plans, including non-chemical weed management (Dzvene & Chiduza, 2024; Alkharabsheh et al., 2021) [1,14] . When combined with other practices like organic matter additions, mulches, and diversified rotations, there is a synergistic effect where soil structure, microbial activity, and competitiveness of crops are improved, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides can be reduced, and productivity and ecosystem services are maintained (Dzvene & Chiduza, 2024; Al-Shammary et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024) [14,3,11] (Figure 3). The diagram depicts the relationship between weed management practices and soil microbial communities in agriculture. Chemical, mechanical, and biological weed control techniques have the potential to impact the diversity and role of beneficial microbes, including bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes, and biofertilizer inoculants can increase crop vigour and help in integrated weed control to facilitate sustainable crop production.

Integrated Weed and Biofertilizer Management Strategies

Integrated weed and biofertilizer management is a strategy to achieve high yield without relying on herbicides and synthetic fertilizers. Recent reviews highlight the need to integrate cultural practices, microbial inoculants, and precision tools into a system, as opposed to looking at fertility and weed control in isolation (Sande et al., 2024; Gao & Su, 2024) [19,38] . Weed suppression, condition soil for better health, and promote beneficial microbes through cultural practices including optimized tillage, crop rotation, mulching, and living or dead cover crops. Mulches and leaf residues decrease weed emergence, erosion, and nutrient loss and improve soil organic matter and microbial activity (Sande et al., 2024; Gao & Su, 2024) [19,38] . Integrated management of living mulches demonstrated that management of the mulch vigor (either mechanically or chemically) results in the suppression of weeds, enhancement of resource-use efficiency, and desirable survival of cash crops (Bhaskar et al., 2021) [5] . Crop rotation and intercropping can also help to reduce the weed pressure and . Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and other microbes boost uptake of nutrients (N, P, K, and micronutrients), root growth, and stress tolerance and enable the reduction in the application of mineral fertilizers without compromising yield (Shahwar et al., 2023; Zuluaga et al., 2024) [41,54] . The use of integrated nutrient management systems (INM) (i.e., mineral fertilizers, organic amendments, and biofertilizers) generally increases soil biological activity and crop performance in comparison with using mineral fertilizers alone (sole synthetic fertilizers -SSF) (Sande et al., 2024) [38] . In microbial weed management, microbial products that also serve as biocontrol agents or bioherbicides, such as allelopathic or pathogen-based products, can be used, which can decrease the use of synthetic herbicides and increase the range of weed control options (Shahwar et [41,15,22,40] . This integration is further optimized with site-specific and precision techniques such as variable-rate fertilizer placement and site-specific weed management using sensors and machine vision, promoting efficient and environmentally responsible systems (Gao & Su, 2024) [19] (Table 3). [38,40,5,25] Herbicides [41,54,38] Living mulches + precision management Long-term weed suppression, improved soil health, managed crop-mulch competition (Sande et al., 2024; Bhaskar et al., 2021) [38,5] 10. Effect on Growth, Yield, and Nutrient Uptake of Barley Biofertilizers affect the growth and yield of barley primarily through the ability to release growth-promoting substances, enhance nutrient availability (N, P, K, and micronutrients), and increase the stress tolerance of the plants. While most of the information provided is from cereals in general (maize, wheat, rice, barley groups), the mechanisms and responses outlined are of direct relevance to the barley crop as a nutrient-demanding grain crop (Shahwar et al., 2023; Allouzi et al., 2022) [41,2] . Microbial inoculants like plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) can improve early root growth, nutrient uptake, and the balance of hormones, resulting in quicker emergence, stronger seedlings, and improved stand establishment during germination and crop establishment. Nitrogen-fixing, phosphorussolubilising, and production of phytohormones such as auxins and gibberellins are consistently reported to improve early growth, thus resulting in increased crop productivity during later stages of growth (Shahwar et al., 2023) [41] . During the crop development, biofertilizers are believed to provide the plants with better water and soil condition, increase plant height, plant tiller number and plant biomass through various direct and indirect mechanisms: biological nitrogen fixation, solubilization of P and K, stimulation of the acquisition of micronutrients by siderophores and expansion of root system and photosynthesis (Allouzi et al., 2022; Shahwar et al., 2023) [41,2] . Microbial and organic amendments proved to be able to improve vegetative growth and total dry matter in production as the total mineral fertilizer was reduced when using them compared to the unfertilized and only mineral fertilizer control plants, according to reviews (Allouzi et al., 2022) [2] . These enhancements result in better grain and straw production in cereals, with many studies showing that biofertilizer or vermicompost-biofertilizermineral fertilizer combinations led to significant increases in grain yield, kernel weight, and grain nutrient content (Shahwar et al., 2023; Allouzi et al., 2022) [41,2] . The use of integrated nutrient management with the addition of microbial inoculants can increase nutrient uptake and nutrient use efficiency due to the beneficial effects of microbial inoculants in the soil, which boost its biological activity, decrease losses, or synchronize nutrient delivery according to the crop needs (Allouzi et al., 2022) [2] . Increased availability of N and P uptake and micronutrients from biofertilizers also increases the quality of grain, such as protein and mineral contents, thus resulting in healthier and more nutritious cereal grains and reduced use of synthetic fertilizers (Shahwar et al., 2023; Allouzi et al., 2022) [41, 2] .

Economic and Environmental Benefits:

The use of integrated approaches in agriculture, including integrated farming systems (IFS), has gained popularity for its economic and environmental advantages. These systems bring together agriculture, livestock, horticulture, and other elements within the same farm to generate positive interactions that increase the productivity, profitability, and sustainability of the farm. IFS models have been proven to improve the productivity and profitability of smallholder and marginal farmers by making the best use of resources and recycling farm waste on the farm. It not only increases income and employment but also ensures nutritional security by diversifying the outputs such as cereals, vegetables, milk, and meat, which provide an additional nutritional benefit (Bhagat et al., 2024) [4] . Integrated approaches have a number of key economic benefits, including cost-effectiveness. IFS helps to minimize the use of external inputs like chemical fertilizers and herbicides by eliminating the need to buy them by reusing farm waste, for instance, the use of crop residues for animal feed, or of manure as fertilizer. That results in reduced input expenses for farmers while at the same time, farmers do not lose their yields or have them regress. Diversification inherent in IFS also helps them to limit the effect of crop failures caused by pests, diseases, or climate extremes on income and helps to buffer against fluctuations in the market. IFS also provides diversity, which is important because it limits the impact of crop failure due to pests, diseases, or extreme weather on income and helps buffer against market fluctuations (Bhagat et al., 2024) [4] . Furthermore, by combining various management strategies like crop rotation, conservation tillage, applying organic amendments, and adjusting the soil microbiome under certain conditions, the productivity of integrated management can boost yields by 15-30% relative to conventional monocultures, and the costs of production will eventually decline (Liang et al.,

. In an environmental context, integrated systems help to greatly minimize the need for chemical fertilizers and herbicides. Nutrient runoff and contamination of the environment are reduced by the use of organic manures, composts, cover crops, and biological pest control. Conservation tillage and residue retention have positive effects on soil structure, soil fertility, and erosion. Overall, these practices help improve soil health by boosting soil organic matter and fostering soil microbial diversity (Liang et al., 2025) [27] . Some other biodiversity benefits of integrated systems include the provision of habitat for beneficial organisms. Integrated approaches play a crucial role in carbon sequestration and climate resilience, one of the most significant ecological advantages. Agroforestry (planting of trees with crops), integration of perennial forage, mulching, and reduced tillage are options for biomass and soil carbon sequestration. Net carbon sequestration (or negative greenhouse gas emissions) has been reported in well-designed IFS models as a result of carbon sequestration from higher biomass production and improved soil carbon storage (Bhagat et al., 2024) [4] . On a global level, combining several sustainable practices can sequester billions of tons of CO₂ per year and decrease soil erosion by billions of tons per year (Liang et al., 2025) [27] . Such climate mitigation benefits are important to achieve the international sustainability targets. Synthetic agrochemicals create fewer pollution hazards, which further improves environmental safety. Integrated systems help to foster ecosystem services like natural enemy control for pest management, nutrient cycling, water holding, and better farm microclimate. These strategies mimic natural processes in varied ecosystems and help establish resilience to climate variability and extreme events. To conclude, integrated agriculture practice is an all-inclusive solution that will not only help farmers make a profit but also help them manage their initiatives for long-term ecological benefits. These minimize the use of chemical inputs while minimizing reliance on monocrop production methods, diversifying the resource base, and enhancing yields, profitability, soil health, biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and climate resistance (Bhagat et al., 2024; Liang et al., 2025) [4,27] .

Recent Advances and Emerging Technologies

The use of nanotechnology, biological inputs, and digital tools is now becoming more common in barley production due to recent developments. The idea of nano-biofertilizers is to increase nutrient-use efficiency and stress tolerance, whereas the use of artificial intelligence for sensing and precision machinery is aimed at targeting weeds more selectively, thereby providing support to climate-smart, resource-efficient systems (Sharma et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2025) [42,34] . Nano biofertilizers integrate biofertilizers with nanoparticles (metal/organic) to formulate smart fertilizers that boost nutrient availability, plant development, and stress tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses (Sharma et al., 2022) [42] . They can be formulated to slowly or slowly and steadily release nutrients and can decrease the environmental impacts of traditional fertilizers by increasing fertilizer use efficiency and decreasing the amount of fertilizer needed (Sharma et al., 2022) [42] . They are recommended as a key element of smart farming but have been scarcely tested on farms and in the environment (Sharma et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2025) [42,34] . Precision weed management has gained in importance, and digital solutions like machine vision, robotics, and smart sprayers, which allow the identification of plants and weeds and target herbicide or mechanical control for weed management only, are being more widely used. Optical and hyperspectral data are used in AI-driven systems with deep learning, support vector machines, and other models to identify weeds and direct specific interventions to manage them, reducing chemical usage and enhancing sustainability (Miller et al., 2025) [34] . Weed detection and precision management in general are key elements, where drones and other remotely sensed platforms, especially with the addition of artificial intelligence, play a central role. Combined with a high spatial resolution, a UAV with an RGB, multispectral, or hyperspectral sensor in the payload can create maps of weed patches to allow for site-specific control and for the application of autonomous or robotic systems for intelligent mechanical weed control and spot spraying (Miller et al., 2025) [34] . Finally, across these innovations, a climate-smart integrated approach is observed where the three technologies -nanobiofertilizers, precision water-nutrient management, and AI-guided weed control -are combined to boost yield per unit input, decrease pollution, and create climate-smart resilience to stress caused by climate change (Sharma et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2025) [42,34] (Table 3). [34]

Challenges and Constraints

A challenge in integrated weed and biofertilizer management is due to biological complexity as well as socio-technical barriers. Despite the ability of microbial inoculants to improve nutrient use efficiency and reduce reliance on agrochemicals, their performance is inconsistent, they have short shelf lives, and adoption is low, which limits their impact on a large scale. These are particular concerns if biofertilizers are to be incorporated into integrated management systems. One of the major challenges is high variability in field performance. Biofertilizer products such as PGPR are effective in pots or greenhouses, but their effectiveness varies between farmers' fields due to several reasons: the relationship between them and their environment is complex and may vary among regions and countries; they interact with native microbiota and crop genotype, which can differ significantly; dose and application method can also differ, and efficacy can change depending on the climatic conditions (Zuluaga et al., 2024; Shahwar et al., 2023) [54,41] . Metaanalyses and reviews have found wide variations in yield responses (Zuluaga et al., 2024) [54] and also warned that there is a lack of standardized protocols for selection, formulation, and agronomic testing that makes results difficult to repeat and/or gives farmers less confidence in the results. This variation also makes weed and pest management more difficult to integrate, as there is a need for a consistent response to varying fertilizer and herbicide rates. Misconceptions about microbes as disease agents, lack of clarity regarding the economic evidence, poor communication between farmers, industry, researchers, and government, and a lack of clarity in the product markets are all hindering farmer awareness and adoption (Allouzi et al., 2022; Shahwar et al., 2023) [2,41] . Reviews indicate farmer education, participatory field trials, and improved extension should be used to develop farmer-specific inoculant strategies (Allouzi et al., 2022) [2] . Technical constraints: Technical constraints involve the poor quality of the product over time, temperature, and contamination, financial risks, and limited shelf life and storage sensitivity of live inoculants, which necessitate cold chains and suitable carriers and careful handling of the product (Shahwar et al., 2023; Sarker et al., 2021) [41,39] . Not only fertilizers but also pesticides and even herbicides may cause a problem because, with the change in soil pH, moisture, and chemical input, the survival or activity of inoculated microbes may be reduced (Shahwar et al., 2023) [41] . There are several significant research gaps, such as the need for long-term field trials across environments, for efficacy protocols to be standardized, to better understand plant-soil-microbe interactions in complex systems, or to establish regulatory and labeling procedures for microbial products (Zuluaga et al., 2024; Canfora et al., 2021) [8,54] . For integrated and reliable weed-biofertilizer management, these will be essential.

Future Research Directions

Research into integrated biofertilizer and weed/nutrient management should shift from mono-function single-strain biofertilizers toward multifunctional, system specific, biofertilizers systems that are reliable and perform under field conditions over the long-term while preserving soil health and productivity. The development of microbial associations with multiple functions is a key concern. Reviews on the synthetic and natural consortia highlight that compatible microbial consortia can provide more comprehensive and durable benefits compared to individual strains, such as the synergistic production of phytohormones, stress tolerance, biocontrol, P solubilization, and N fixation, and the design of microbial consortia is complex, while the risk of failure is high when antagonistic microbes are mixed (Timofeeva et al., 2023; Chaudhary et al., 2023) [47,10] . The bottom-up strategy to screen and co-cultivate candidate plant growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPMs) within a synthetic consortium, sometimes combined with non-microbial biostimulants, is suggested as a promising approach to obtain robust products based on biostimulants (Tabacchioni et al., 2021; Chaudhary et al., 2023) [10,45] . A second emphasis is on the development of consortia and strains that are compatible with other inputs and practices. Microbial consortia are regarded as important components of integrated nutrient management approaches, which incorporate organic matter amendment, biofertilization, and mineral fertilizers for resilient yields and less reliance on chemical inputs (Sande et al., 2024; Marzouk et al., 2024) [38,33] . Future research is encouraged to come up with formulations that are compatible with common farming practices, including types of herbicides and pesticides, and to test the formulations in various soils, climates, and crops to provide region-specific integrated management modules with established field performance (Timofeeva et al., 2023; Chaudhary et al., 2023) [47,10] . Long-term and systems-level studies are consistently identified as missing. The importance of having no decadal data on the impacts of integrated fertilization and microbial inputs on microbial networks, soil health, and yield stability is emphasized, as is the need for multi-year, multi-site trials comparing conventional, organic, conservation agriculture, and biofertilizer-based systems (Xing et al., 2025; Sabir et al., 2021) [52, 36] . These trials should specifically test the potential of conservation tillage, diversified rotations, and residue management, and test the use of biofertilizers, to examine integrated packages in terms of their long-term effects on soil biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and climate resilience (Liu et al., 2025; Xing et al., 2025) [29,52] . Lastly, the research agendas highlight the need for the integration of advanced tools (omics, metagenomics, modelling) into participatory, region-adapted system design so that microbial consortia and integrated modules are agronomically and economically viable to the farmer and adaptable to conservation agriculture and organic farming (Marzouk et al., 2024; Xing et al., 2025) [33,52] .

Conclusion

The use of integrated weed and biofertilizer management is a sustainable and eco-friendly management system that will be a means to increase the productivity of barley with low reliance on chemical inputs. When used together, effective weed control and beneficial microbial inoculants will enhance crop development, nutrient uptake, soil capacity, and resource-use efficiency. In barley, the use of an integrated approach is likely to reduce weed competition throughout the critical growth stages and enhance tillering, biomass, yield, and grain quality. At the same time, the use of biofertilizers like nitrogen-fixing bacteria, phosphatesolubilizing microorganisms, and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria improves the uptake of nutrients, increases root growth, and maintains soil microbial balance. These practices also help to minimize the amount of herbicide and fertilizer used, production costs, and environmental pollution. With shifting climatic conditions, soil health issues, and growing concerns about sustainable agriculture, the production of barley is becoming more critical. Integrated management strategies derive long-term benefits for soil productivity, conservation of biodiversity, climate resilience, and economic profit for farmers. Furthermore, the use of combined weed and biofertiliser management has the potential to be a key component of environmentally responsible and resource-efficient barley production systems. Sustainable barley production and global food security can be further consolidated in upcoming research by location-specific technologies, multi-functional microbial consortia, and precision-based integrated management practices.

References

1. Alkharabsheh H, Seleiman M, Battaglia M, Shami A, Jalal R, Alhammad B, et al. Biochar and Its Broad Impacts on Soil Quality and Fertility, Nutrient Leaching and Crop Productivity: A Review. Agronomy. 2021;11(5):993. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050993
2. Allouzi M, Allouzi S, Keng Z, Supramaniam C, Singh A, Chong S. Liquid biofertilizers as a sustainable solution for agriculture. Heliyon. 2022;8(12):e12609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12609
3. Al-Shammary A, Al-Shihmani L, Fernández-Gálvez J, Caballero-Calvo A. Optimizing sustainable agriculture: A comprehensive review of agronomic practices and their impacts on soil attributes. Journal of Environmental Management. 2024;364:121487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121487
4. Bhagat R, Walia S, Sharma K, Singh R, Singh G, Hossain A. The integrated farming system is an environmentally friendly and cost-effective approach to the sustainability of agri-food systems in the modern era of the changing climate: A comprehensive review. Food and Energy Security. 2024;13(3):e534. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.534
5. Bhaskar V, Westbrook A, Bellinder R, DiTommaso A. Integrated management of living mulches for weed control: A review. Weed Technology. 2021;35(5):856-868. https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2021.52
6. Blank L, Rozenberg G, Gafni R. Spatial and temporal aspects of weeds distribution within agricultural fields -A review. Crop Protection. 2023;172:106300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2023.106300
7. Brown B, Gallandt E, DiTommaso A, Salon P, Smith R, Ryan M, et al. Improving Weed Management Based on the Timing of Emergence Peaks: A Case Study of Problematic Weeds in Northeast USA. Frontiers in Agronomy. 2022;4:888664. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2022.888664
8. Canfora L, Costa C, Pallottino F, Mocali S. Trends in Soil Microbial Inoculants Research: A Science Mapping Approach to Unravel Strengths and Weaknesses of Their Application. Agriculture. 2021;11(2):158. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020158
9. Capasso G, Santini G, Petraretti M, Esposito S, Landi S. Wild and Traditional Barley Genomic Resources as a Tool for Abiotic Stress Tolerance and Biotic Relations. Agriculture. 2021;11(11):1102. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111102
10. Chaudhary P, Xu M, Ahamad L, Chaudhary A, Kumar G, Adeleke B, et al. Application of Synthetic Consortia for Improvement of Soil Fertility, Pollution Remediation, and Agricultural Productivity: A Review. Agronomy. 2023;13(3):0643. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030643
11. Chen Q, Song Y, An Y, Lu Y, Zhong G. Soil Microorganisms: Their Role in Enhancing Crop Nutrition and Health. Diversity. 2024;16(12):0734. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16120734
12. Das N, Reddy MS, Dambale AS, Singh A, Singh D, Prajapati V, et al. Integrated weed and nutrient management for enhancing growth, yield, and weed dynamics in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.): A review. Plant Archives. 2026;26(1):734-754.
13. Das N, Sarkar M. Weed management and nitrogen in enhancing productivity of direct seeded rice: A review. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2026;9(5):133-143. https://doi.org/10.33545/2618060x.2026.v9.i5b.5488
14. Dzvene A, Chiduza C. Application of Biofertilizers for Enhancing Beneficial Microbiomes in Push-Pull Cropping Systems: A Review. Bacteria. 2024;3(4):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria3040018
15. Elnahal A, El-Saadony M, Saad A, Desoky E, El-Tahan A, Rady M, et al. The use of microbial inoculants for biological control, plant growth promotion, and sustainable agriculture: A review. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 2022;162(4):759-792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-02102393-7
16. Eschen R, Beale T, Bonnin J, Constantine K, Duah S, Finch E, et al. Towards estimating the economic cost of invasive alien species to African crop and livestock production. CABI Agriculture and Bioscience. 2021;2(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-021-00038-7
17. Etesami H, Jeong B, Glick B. Contribution of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi, Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria, and Silicon to P Uptake by Plant. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2021;12:699618. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.699618
18. Fu S, Balasubramanian V, Chen C, Tran T, Muthuramalingam J, Chou J. The phosphate-solubisling fungi in sustainable agriculture: unleashing the potential of fungal biofertilisers for plant growth. Folia Microbiologica. 2024;69(5):697-712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-02401181-0
19. Gao W, Su W. Weed Management Methods for Herbaceous Field Crops: A Review. Agronomy. 2024;14(3):0486. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030486
20. Ghatrehsamani S, Jha G, Dutta W, Molaei F, Nazrul F, Fortin M, et al. Artificial Intelligence Tools and Techniques to Combat Herbicide Resistant Weeds-A Review. Sustainability. 2023;15(3):1843. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031843
21. Hasan M, Ahmad-Hamdani M, Rosli A, Hamdan H. Bioherbicides: An Eco-Friendly Tool for Sustainable Weed Management. Plants. 2021;10(6):1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10061212
22. Hernández-Fernández M, Cordero-Bueso G, Ruiz-Muñoz M, Cantoral J. Culturable Yeasts as Biofertilizers and Biopesticides for a Sustainable Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review. Plants. 2021;10(5):0822. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10050822
23. Karavidas I, Ntatsi G, Vougeleka V, Karkanis A, Ntanasi T, Saitanis C, et al. Agronomic Practices to Increase the Yield and Quality of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.): A Systematic Review. Agronomy. 2022;12(2):0271. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020271
24. Karunarathne S, Walker E, Sharma D, Li C, Han Y. Genetic resources and precise gene editing for targeted improvement of barley abiotic stress tolerance. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE B. 2023;24(12):1069-1092. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.b2200552
25. Khamare Y, Chen J, Marble S. Allelopathy and its application as a weed management tool: A review. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2022;13:1034649. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1034649
26. Kumar V, Kumari A, Price A, Bana R, Singh V, Bamboriya S. Impact of Futuristic Climate Variables on Weed Biology and Herbicidal Efficacy: A Review. Agronomy. 2023;13(2):0559. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020559
27. Liang X, Yu S, Ju Y, Wang Y, Yin D. Integrated Management Practices Foster Soil Health, Productivity, and Agroecosystem Resilience. Agronomy. 2025;15(8):1816. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081816
28. Little N, DiTommaso A, Westbrook A, Ketterings Q, Mohler C. Effects of Fertility Amendments on Weed Growth and Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Weed Science. 2021;69(2):132-146. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2021.1
29. Liu Y, Liang F, Yan S, Tu T, Shi Z, Pezzuolo A, et al. Optimizing Fertilization Strategies for Low-Carbon Agriculture: Balancing Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Soil Health, and Productivity. Results in Engineering. 2025;25:107094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.107094
30. Liu Y, Shi A, Chen Y, Xu Z, Liu Y, Yao Y, et al. Beneficial microorganisms: Regulating growth and defense for plant welfare. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2025;23(4):986-998. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.14554
31. Mahmud A, Upadhyay S, Srivastava A, Bhojiya A. Biofertilizers: A Nexus between soil fertility and crop productivity under abiotic stress. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability. 2021;3:100063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100063
32. Malhi G, Kaur M, Kaushik P. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Its Mitigation Strategies: A Review. Sustainability. 2021;13(3):1318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031318
33. Marzouk S, Kwaslema D, Omar M, Mohamed S. "Harnessing the power of soil microbes: Their dual impact in integrated nutrient management and mediating climate stress for sustainable rice crop production" A systematic review. Heliyon. 2025;11(1):e41158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41158
34. Miller T, Mikiciuk G, Durlik I, Mikiciuk M, Łobodzińska A, Śnieg M. The IoT and AI in Agriculture: The Time Is Now-A Systematic Review of Smart Sensing Technologies. Sensors. 2025;25(12):3583. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25123583
35. Negewo T, Dechassa N, Fufa A, Bidira T. Weed science research achievements on maize in Ethiopia: a review. F1000Research. 2023;12:608. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.135210.1
36. Sabir M, Shahzadi F, Ali F, Shakeela Q, Niaz Z, Ahmed S. Comparative Effect of Fertilization Practices on Soil Microbial Diversity and Activity: An Overview. Current Microbiology. 2021;78(10):3644-3655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-021-02634-2
37. Samantaray A, Chattaraj S, Mitra D, Ganguly A, Kumar R, Gaur A, et al. Advances in microbial based bio-inoculum for amelioration of soil health and sustainable crop production. Current Research in Microbial Sciences. 2024;7:100251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2024.100251
38. Sande T, Tindwa H, Alovisi A, Shitindi M, Semoka J. Enhancing sustainable crop production through integrated nutrient management: a focus on vermicompost, bioenriched rock phosphate, and inorganic fertilisers -a systematic review. Frontiers in Agronomy. 2024;6:1422876. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2024.1422876
39. Sarker A, Ansary M, Hossain M, Islam T. Prospect and Challenges for Sustainable Management of Climate Change-Associated Stresses to Soil and Plant Health by Beneficial Rhizobacteria. Stresses. 2021;1(4):213-232. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses1040015
40. Scavo A, Mauromicale G. Crop Allelopathy for Sustainable Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Knowing the Present with a View to the Future. Agronomy. 2021;11(11):2104. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112104
41. Shahwar D, Mushtaq Z, Mushtaq H, Alqarawi A, Park Y, Alshahrani T, et al. Role of microbial inoculants as bio fertilizers for improving crop productivity: A review. Heliyon. 2023;9(6):e16134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16134
42. Sharma B, Tiwari S, Kumawat K, Cardinale M. Nanobiofertilizers as bio-emerging strategies for sustainable agriculture development: Potentiality and their limitations. The Science of the Total Environment. 2023;860:160476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160476
43. Sharma N, Rayamajhi M. Different Aspects of Weed Management in Maize (Zea mays L.): A Brief Review. Advances in Agriculture. 2022;2022:7960175. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7960175
44. Singh M, Kukal M, Irmak S, Jhala A. Water Use Characteristics of Weeds: A Global Review, Best Practices, and Future Directions. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2022;12:794090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.794090
45. Tabacchioni S, Passato S, Ambrosino P, Huang L, Caldara M, Cantale C, et al. Identification of Beneficial Microbial Consortia and Bioactive Compounds with Potential as Plant Biostimulants for a Sustainable Agriculture. Microorganisms. 2021;9(2):0426. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9020426
46. Timofeeva A, Galyamova M, Sedykh S. Prospects for Using Phosphate-Solubilizing Microorganisms as Natural Fertilizers in Agriculture. Plants. 2022;11(16):2119. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11162119
47. Timofeeva A, Galyamova M, Sedykh S. Plant GrowthPromoting Soil Bacteria: Nitrogen Fixation, Phosphate Solubilization, Siderophore Production, and Other Biological Activities. Plants. 2023;12(24):4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12244074
48. Timofeeva A, Galyamova M, Sedykh S. Plant GrowthPromoting Bacteria of Soil: Designing of Consortia Beneficial for Crop Production. Microorganisms. 2023;11(12):2864. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11122864
49. Tudi M, Ruan H, Wang L, Lyu J, Sadler R, Connell D, et al. Agriculture Development, Pesticide Application and Its Impact on the Environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(3):1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031112
50. Visioni A, Basile B, Amri A, Sanchez-Garcia M, Corrado G. Advancing the Conservation and Utilization of Barley Genetic Resources: Insights into Germplasm Management and Breeding for Sustainable Agriculture. Plants. 2023;12(18):3186. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12183186
51. Wang X, Chi Y, Song S. Important soil microbiota's effects on plants and soils: a comprehensive 30-year systematic literature review. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024;15:1347745. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1347745
52. Xing Y, Wang X, Mustafa A. Exploring the link between soil health and crop productivity. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2025;289:117703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.117703
53. Xing Y, Xie Y, Wang X. Enhancing soil health through balanced fertilization: a pathway to sustainable agriculture and food security. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2025;16:1536524. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1536524
54. Zuluaga M, Fattorini R, Cesco S, Pii Y. Plant-microbe interactions in the rhizosphere for smarter and more sustainable crop fertilization: the case of PGPR-based biofertilizers. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024;15:1440978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1440978