# A "love match" score to compare root exudate attraction and feeding of the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria *Bacillus subtilis*, *Pseudomonas fluorescens*, and *Azospirillum brasilense*

Eulalie Fourneau, Mélissa Pannier, Wassila Riah, Emmanuelle Personeni, Annette Morvan-Bertrand, Josselin Bodilis, Barbara Pawlak

► To cite this version:

Eulalie Fourneau, Mélissa Pannier, Wassila Riah, Emmanuelle Personeni, Annette Morvan-Bertrand, et al.. A "love match" score to compare root exudate attraction and feeding of the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria *Bacillus subtilis*, *Pseudomonas fluorescens*, and *Azospirillum brasilense*. *Frontiers in Microbiology*, 2024, 15, 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1473099. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1473099](https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1473099). [hal-04843385](https://wwwHAL.fr/hal-04843385)

HAL Id: hal-04843385

https://normandie-univ.hal.science/hal-04843385v1

Submitted on 17 Dec 2024

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire **HAL**, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

OPEN ACCESS

EDITED BY

Martin Raspor,
University of Belgrade, Serbia

REVIEWED BY

Kailash Chand Kumawat,
Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture,
Technology and Sciences, India
Iva Atanasković,
University, of Belgrade, Serbia

*CORRESPONDENCE

Eulalie Fourneau

eulalie.fourneau1@univ-rouen.fr;

eulalie.fourneau@outlook.fr

RECEIVED 30 July 2024

ACCEPTED 30 August 2024

PUBLISHED 23 September 2024

CITATION

Fourneau E, Pannier M, Riah W, Personeni E,
Morvan-Bertrand A, Bodilis J and
Pawlak B (2024) A "love match" score to
compare root exudate attraction and feeding
of the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria
*Bacillus subtilis*, *Pseudomonas fluorescens*,
and *Azospirillum brasilense*.
Front. Microbiol. 15:1473099.
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1473099

COPYRIGHT

© 2024 Fourneau, Pannier, Riah, Personeni,
Morvan-Bertrand, Bodilis and Pawlak. This is
an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/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.

A "love match" score to compare
root exudate attraction and
feeding of the plant
growth-promoting rhizobacteria
*Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas
fluorescens, and Azospirillum
brasilense

Eulalie Fourneau¹*, Mélissa Pannier¹, Wassila Riah²,
Emmanuelle Personeni³, Annette Morvan-Bertrand³,
Josselin Bodilis¹ and Barbara Pawlak¹

¹Univ Rouen Normandie, Normandie Univ, GLYCOMEV UR 4358, SFR Normandie Végétal FED 4277, Rouen, France, ²UniLaSalle Rouen, UR AGHYLE, UP2018.C101, SFR Normandie Végétal FED 4277, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, ³Univ Caen Normandie, Normandie Univ, INRAE, UMR 950 EVA, SFR Normandie Végétal FED 4277, Caen, France

**Introduction:** The rhizosphere is the zone of soil surrounding plant roots that is directly influenced by root exudates released by the plant, which select soil microorganisms. The resulting rhizosphere microbiota plays a key role in plant health and development by enhancing its nutrition or immune response and protecting it from biotic or abiotic stresses. In particular, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are beneficial members of this microbiota that represent a great hope for agroecology, since they could be used as bioinoculants for sustainable crop production. Therefore, it is necessary to decipher the molecular dialog between roots and PGPR in order to promote the establishment of bioinoculants in the rhizosphere, which is required for their beneficial functions.

**Methods:** Here, the ability of root exudates from rapeseed (*Brassica napus*), pea (*Pisum sativum*), and ryegrass (*Lolium perenne*) to attract and feed three PGPR (*Bacillus subtilis*, *Pseudomonas fluorescens*, and *Azospirillum brasilense*) was measured and compared, as these responses are directly involved in the establishment of the rhizosphere microbiota.

**Results:** Our results showed that root exudates differentially attracted and fed the three PGPR. For all beneficial bacteria, rapeseed exudates were the most attractive and induced the fastest growth, while pea exudates allowed the highest biomass production. The performance of ryegrass exudates was generally lower, and variable responses were observed between bacteria. In addition, *P. fluorescens* and *A. brasilense* appeared to respond more efficiently to root exudates than *B. subtilis*. Finally, we proposed to evaluate the compatibility of each plant–PGPR couple by assigning them a “love match” score, which reflects the ability of root exudates to enhance bacterial rhizocompetence.

**Discussion:** Taken together, our results provide new insights into the specific selection of PGPR by the plant through their root exudates and may help to select the most effective exudates to promote bioinoculant establishment in the rhizosphere.
plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), root exudates, rhizosphere microbiota, chemotaxis, bacterial growth, *Bacillus subtilis*, *Pseudomonas fluorescens*, *Azospirillum brasilense*

# 1 Introduction

Climate change is affecting agroecosystems by increasing the frequency of extreme weather events like droughts, floods, or heatwaves, therefore leading to biotic and abiotic stresses for plants (George et al., 2024). Moreover, contemporary intensive farming systems use high levels of fertilizers, which have negative environmental and health consequences. In order to feed the growing human population, increased global crop production is needed (Foley et al., 2011; Oburger et al., 2022). These challenges require sustainable agroecosystems that could rely on alternative plant protection products such as biopesticides, bioprotectants, or biostimulants, which can be substances or microorganisms (Lankinen et al., 2024). In particular, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) would be good candidates as microbial inoculants for sustainable crop production due to their many beneficial effects (Shah et al., 2021). The rhizosphere, i.e., the soil zone surrounding plant roots, is a complex ecological niche that is directly influenced by rhizodeposits released by the roots which select soil microorganisms through specific interactions and signaling (Jacoby et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2020). Thus, by recruiting specific microorganisms, the plant assembles its rhizosphere microbiota, which plays an essential role in plant growth, health, and protection against biotic or abiotic stresses (Philippot et al., 2013; Qu et al., 2020; Thoms et al., 2021; Dlamini et al., 2022; Santoyo, 2022).

In particular, PGPR are beneficial members of the rhizosphere microbiota that can promote plant growth directly by enhancing nutrient availability through nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, potassium solubilization, and iron uptake, or by phytohormone regulation or production such as auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, abscisic acid, and ethylene (Tsukanova et al., 2017; Oleńska et al., 2020). PGPR can also act as biocontrol agents through antibiotic and lytic enzyme production, activation of plant induced systemic resistance (ISR), and competition for space and nutrients in the rhizosphere (Pathania et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2021). Among the many beneficial rhizobacteria identified, *Bacillus subtilis*, *Pseudomonas fluorescens*, and *Azospirillum brasilense* are well-known PGPR that are already used and commercialized as biofertilizer products (Basu et al., 2021). Indeed, *B. subtilis* can improve nutrient availability (N and P), modify plant growth hormone homeostasis, reduce both drought and salt stress, form biofilms, elicit ISR, degrade *quorum sensing* signals of some phytopathogens, and produce antimicrobial compounds such as lipopeptides (e.g., surfactin), exoenzymes, and volatile organic compounds (Blake et al., 2021). *P. fluorescens* can solubilize phosphate, trigger ISR, and produce phytohormones, hydrogen cyanide, antibiotics, and siderophores which chelate iron, therefore making it bioavailable for the plant and preventing its acquisition by phytopathogens (Meliani et al., 2017; David et al., 2018). Finally, *A. brasilense* can fix atmospheric nitrogen in a non-symbiotic process, synthesize several phytohormones, and increase tolerance to abiotic stresses like salinity or drought through osmolyte accumulation in plant cells and biotic stresses through ISR (Fukami et al., 2018).

While the microbiota acts on the plant, its roots release rhizodeposits, such as mucilage and root-associated cap-derived cells (AC-DCs) also known as border cells, which together form the root extracellular trap (RET), and they also include root debris and soluble root exudates (Jones et al., 2009; Driouich et al., 2021). Indeed, plants produce up to 200,000 metabolites, including those released by roots and AC-DCs in the rhizosphere which are estimated to represent approximately 5–20% of total photosynthetically fixed carbon (Huang et al., 2020; Sugiyama, 2019; Ma et al., 2022). In particular, root exudates, which are greatly involved in plant–microorganism interactions, can be defined as a complex and dynamic mixture of numerous low molecular weight compounds that are relatively water soluble and capable of diffusing into the soil, including primary metabolites such as sugars, amino acids, and organic acids, as well as secondary metabolites such as flavonoids or glucosinolates (Badri and Vivanco, 2009; Sasse et al., 2018; Sugiyama, 2019; Vives-Peris et al., 2020; McLaughlin et al., 2023). The amount and composition of root exudates, which are challenging to characterize, can vary during plant growth according to various factors such as physical factors like temperature, light intensity, CO₂, drought, or flood; chemical factors like soil nutrients or heavy metal stress; and biological factors like the plant's genotype and age, or the presence of herbivores, microorganisms, and other plants through allelopathy (Vives-Peris et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2022). Moreover, the chosen collection method (i.e., soil or hydroponic plant culture, sampling medium and duration, and sterility) quantitatively and qualitatively affects root exudates, and no standard method for collecting and analyzing exudates has been established so far (Oburger and Jones, 2018; Calabrese et al., 2023; McLaughlin et al., 2023).

Despite the challenge of characterizing root exudates, they have been shown to be particularly involved in regulating the rhizosphere microbiota assembly and its evolution over time (Ma et al., 2022). On the one hand, root exudates provide a rich source of organic carbon for rhizosphere microorganisms (Lei et al., 2023). These exudates have been shown to attract symbiotic microorganisms such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi or rhizobia with strigolactones or flavonoids, respectively (Oldroyd, 2013; Sasse et al., 2018). Other beneficial microorganisms can be attracted, such as PGPR, although their precise attractant signals are more delicate to identify (Hassan et al., 2019). On the other hand, plant roots can secrete antimicrobial compounds like proteins or secondary metabolites, as well as *quorum sensing* interference molecules that inhibit bacterial communication (Haichar et al., 2014; Tian et al., 2020).

Hence, in order to colonize the rhizosphere, soil microorganisms must be able to survive and establish themselves in this competitive environment, meaning they must feature rhizocompetence traits such as motility, ability to utilize root exudates as nutrients, and biofilm formation (Kaur et al., 2017; Santoyo et al., 2021). Among these behaviors, chemotaxis toward the roots through their exudates, and then root exudates degradation for bacterial growth are the first responses involved in the rhizosphere microbiota assembly. Chemotaxis is defined as the ability of motile bacteria to migrate toward an
attractant gradient or away from a repellent one. By modifying the balance between their runs and tumbles, bacteria can move toward environments that are favorable for growth and survival (Porter et al., 2011; Ping et al., 2013; Bi and Sourjik, 2018; Grognot and Taute, 2021). Most soil bacteria are motile and capable of chemotaxis (Scharf et al., 2016). By perceiving root exudates through chemoreceptors, rhizobacteria can move toward the root and accumulate, therefore initiating rhizosphere colonization (Allard-Massicotte et al., 2016; Feng et al., 2021). Next, some studies have shown that rhizobacteria are able to grow by degrading nutrients contained in root exudates that are bioavailable for their catabolism (Guyonnet et al., 2018; Zhalnina et al., 2018; Carreras et al., 2019; Dhungana et al., 2023).

The rhizocompetence traits described earlier are essential for applied bioinoculants such as PGPR to survive and compete with other microorganisms in the rhizosphere (Kaur et al., 2017). Indeed, bioinoculants may prove to be unsuccessful under field conditions compared to their performance in laboratory assays (Thilakarathna and Raizada, 2017; O'Callaghan et al., 2022; Salomon et al., 2022). This challenge requires a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in the rhizosphere colonization by microorganisms and their selection by the plant through root exudates, in order to improve bioinoculant formulation and establishment (Fasusi et al., 2021; Kaur and Vishnu, 2022; O'Callaghan et al., 2022; Hossain et al., 2023; Poppeliers et al., 2023).

In order to gain a better understanding of the relationships between PGPR and their host plants, we sought to identify specific bacterial responses depending on the root exudates of each plant species. Therefore, we studied the behavior of three PGPR strains, *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633, *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400, and *A. brasilense* Sp245, in response to root exudates from rapeseed (*Brassica napus*), pea (*Pisum sativum*), and ryegrass (*Lolium perenne*). These three plants were selected because they belong to different families (Brassicaceae, Fabaceae, and Poaceae) of agricultural interest, while the bacterial species are well-known PGPR commercialized as biofertilizers, and the chosen strains have been reported to exhibit plant growth-promoting properties (Gaballa et al., 1997; Bartolini et al., 2017; Méndez-Gómez et al., 2020; Planchon et al., 2021; Yadav et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021; Zou et al., 2024). The ability of each plant's exudates to attract and feed beneficial bacteria was measured and compared, and different responses were observed. Rapeseed exudates were the most attractive and induced the fastest growth, pea exudates allowed the highest biomass production, while ryegrass exudates were less efficient. Moreover, *P. fluorescens* and *A. brasilense* appeared to respond better to root exudates than *B. subtilis*. Finally, we proposed an evaluation of the performance of each plant–PGPR pair by assigning them a “love match” score. This scoring system may help to select efficient root exudates or co-cultivated plants that could be used in combination with a specific PGPR to enhance its rhizocompetence and thus its establishment in the rhizosphere microbiota.

# 2 Materials and methods

## 2.1 Bacterial strains and growth conditions

Bacterial strains *Bacillus subtilis* ATCC 6633, *Pseudomonas fluorescens* ATCC 17400, and *Azospirillum brasilense* Sp245 were grown on LB medium (10 g/L tryptone, 5 g/L yeast extract, and 5 g/L

NaCl) or on M9 minimal medium (3 g/L KH₂PO₄, 0.5 g/L NaCl, 6.78 g/L Na₂HPO₄, 1 g/L NH₄Cl, 2 mM MgSO₄, 0.1 mM CaCl₂, and 20 mM glucose) with stirring (120–140 rpm). For *A. brasilense*, M9 medium was modified from MMAB medium (Vanstockem et al., 1987) by replacing glucose with 2.5 g/L malate and adding 5 mg/L biotin and 2.5 mg/L FeSO₄. Carbon concentrations of all three media were measured by isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) using the PLATIN' platform (University of Caen Normandy). *B. subtilis* and *P. fluorescens* were grown at 30°C and *A. brasilense* at 25°C.

## 2.2 Plant material and growth conditions

Pea (*Pisum sativum* var. Astronaute) seeds were surface sterilized and sown on agar 1% as described by Calabrese et al. (2023). Germinated seeds were transferred to a hydroponic system with ¼ Hoagland nutrient solution (2.5 mM Ca(NO₃)₂·4H₂O, 1.25 mM KNO₃, 0.5 mM MgSO₄, 0.25 mM KH₂PO₄, 0.2 mM Fe-Na EDTA, 14 µM H₃BO₃, 5 µM MnSO₄, 3 µM ZnSO₄, 0.7 µM (NH₄)₆Mo₇O₂₄, 0.7 µM CuSO₄, 0.1 µM CoCl₂) in a phytotronic chamber (day/night cycle: 16 h, 23°C/8 h, 20°C) up to the 6–8 leaf stage. Rapeseed (*Brassica napus* var. Aviso) seeds were sown in perlite and were then transferred to a hydroponic system with ¼ Hoagland nutrient solution in a greenhouse (day/night cycle: 16 h, 20°C/8 h, 16°C) up to the 13-leaf stage. Ryegrass (*Lolium perenne* var. Delika) seeds were sown in perlite and were then transferred to a hydroponic system with nutrient solution (1 mM K₂SO₄, 1 mM NH₄NO₃, 0.4 mM KH₂PO₄, 0.15 mM K₂HPO₄, 3 mM CaCl₂, 0.5 mM MgSO₄, 0.2 mM Fe-Na EDTA, 14 µM H₃BO₃, 5 µM MnSO₄, 3 µM ZnSO₄, 0.7 µM (NH₄)₆Mo₇O₂₄, 0.7 µM CuSO₄, 0.1 µM CoCl₂) in a greenhouse (day/night cycle: 16 h, 20°C/8 h, 16°C) until the development of 4 tillers. All media were sterilized, but plants were not grown under sterile conditions. Plants were thus cultivated in the vegetative phase for approximately 5–6 weeks (before flowering). Several root exudate collection campaigns (numbered I to VII) were performed for the three plant species, each consisting of at least four biological replicates (numbered 1 to 6; Supplementary Table S1). One replicate corresponds to the root exudates of two plants.

## 2.3 Root exudate collection

Plant roots were rinsed briefly with sterile ultrapure water to remove the nutrient solution and then immersed in 500 mL of sterile ultrapure water for 1 h. For rapeseed and ryegrass, one plant was immersed in 500 mL, while for pea, two plants were immersed in the same volume. Water containing root exudates was collected in Falcon tubes and frozen at -20°C for storage and transport. The tubes were then thawed and centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 15 min to remove cells and debris. Supernatants were collected, frozen, and freeze-dried before being resuspended in sterile ultrapure water, thus being 60-fold more concentrated than the exudation water. These concentrated exudates will be further referred to as root exudate samples. Carbon and nitrogen concentrations of each root exudate sample were determined by IRMS using the PLATIN' platform (University of Caen Normandy; Supplementary Table S1).
## 2.4 Chemotaxis capillary assay

Capillary assays were adapted from Allard-Massicotte et al. (2016). Bacterial strains were grown on LB to an optical density at 580 nm (OD<sub>580</sub>) of approximately 1 (bacterial density N ≈ 6.10<sup>8</sup> CFU/mL) and were then washed in chemotaxis buffer (10 mM potassium phosphate buffer pH 7.0, 0.1 mM EDTA, 0.05% glycerol, 5 mM sodium-D<sub>2</sub>L-lactate, 0.14 mM CaCl<sub>2</sub>, 0.3 mM (NH<sub>4</sub>)<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> for *B. subtilis* or in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, Gibco™, pH 7.4) for *P. fluorescens* and *A. brasilense*. The OD<sub>580</sub> of the bacterial suspension was adjusted with buffer to 0.04 for *B. subtilis* (N ≈ 2.10<sup>7</sup> CFU/mL) and 0.02 for *P. fluorescens* and *A. brasilense* (N ≈ 1.10<sup>7</sup> CFU/mL). A total of 200 µL of the bacterial suspension was added to each well of a 96-well plate. Microcapillaries were filled with root exudates or with positive (10 mM L-alanine) or negative (buffer) control solutions in triplicate for each condition. The microcapillaries were then dipped in the bacterial suspensions for 45 min at 30°C for *B. subtilis* and *P. fluorescens* or 25°C for *A. brasilense*. After rinsing, the content of the capillary was emptied into a buffer and diluted in order to determine the number of bacteria that had migrated into the capillary by CFU counting on LB agar plates. The ratio of the mean number of bacteria in the exudate capillary to the mean number of bacteria in the negative control capillary was calculated for each experiment. We considered this ratio to indicate a positive chemotactic response if it was ≥3, and a negative response if it was <3. For each root exudate sample, the experiment was replicated at least two times, and the majority response was retained. Then, the minimum attractive concentration (MAC) was determined (see 3.2.1).

## 2.5 Bacterial growth monitoring

Bacterial strains were initially grown in 500 µL M9 medium in hemolysis tubes for 24-32h. Then, 1 µL of this pre-culture (N ≈ 1.10<sup>9</sup> CFU/mL) was used to inoculate new tubes containing 250 µL PBS 2X (16 g/L NaCl, 0.4 g/L KCl, 2.88 g/L Na<sub>2</sub>HPO<sub>4</sub>, 0.49 g/L KH<sub>2</sub>PO<sub>4</sub>, pH 7.4) supplemented with 250 µL of root exudates, 500 µLM9 (positive control), or 500 µL PBS only (negative control). Tubes were placed horizontally in the incubator to maximize agitation (120-140 rpm). Bacterial cultures were monitored for 24-40 h with regular enumeration on LB agar plates to calculate bacterial density (N) over time. The growth curves obtained were used to determine the generation time (G) and the bacteria production for each condition. Bacteria production was calculated as the ratio of the bacterial density produced (ΔN = N<sub>max</sub> - N<sub>0</sub>) to the carbon concentration of the root exudate sample or medium ([C]), thus reflecting the number of bacteria produced per gram of carbon present in the medium (ΔN/[C] in CFU/g of carbon). This ratio allows the normalization of media and root exudate concentrations for comparison.

## 2.6 Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed with RStudio software (v4.3.1; R Core Team, 2023). Non-parametric tests were chosen due to the few number of replicates. Comparisons between two conditions were performed using a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, while comparisons

between more than two conditions were performed using a Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by a Dunn post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction. Statistical significance was determined when the *p*-value or *p*-adjust was <0.05.

## 2.7 Love match score determination

To compare the bacterial responses to root exudates between plant and bacterial species, each physiological response of each plant-PGPR pair was assigned a score ranging from 0 to 4. This score reflects the effectiveness of the bacterial response (4: excellent response, 3: good response, 2: medium response, 1: poor response, 0: no response). For chemotaxis, 0 indicates no attraction; 1 is assigned if the median MAC ≥ 100 mg C/L; 2 if 100 < MAC ≤ 30 mg C/L; 3 if 30 < MAC ≤ 10 mg C/L; 4 if MAC < 10 mg C/L. When the variability is considerable (MACs ranging between more than 2×log<sub>10</sub>), the score is reduced by 1. For generation time, 0 indicates no growth; 1 is assigned if the mean G on root exudates is significantly higher than a reference medium; 2 if G is higher than M9 medium; 3 if G is similar to or lower than M9 medium; 4 if G is similar to or lower than LB medium. For bacteria production, 0 indicates no growth; 1 is assigned if the mean bacteria production on root exudates is significantly lower than a reference medium; 2 if it is similar to or lower than reference media; 3 if it is higher than reference media; 4 if it is significantly higher than a reference medium. For each plant-PGPR couple, a "love match" score was defined as the sum of these three physiological response scores. The love match score therefore reflects the compatibility of the plant-bacteria pair for rhizocompetence traits.

# 3 Results

## 3.1 Collection and quantification of root exudates

Rapeseed (*Brassica napus*), pea (*Pisum sativum*), and ryegrass (*Lolium perenne*) were cultivated in a phytotronic chamber or a greenhouse under hydroponic conditions, and their root exudates were collected as described in *Materials and methods*. Several collection campaigns were conducted, each providing at least four biological replicates to reflect the natural variability of samples collected within and between campaigns from the same plant (Supplementary Table S1). Indeed, this intra-species variability can affect bacterial responses and contribute to the difficulty of identifying statistically significant differences between plants.

Another technical limitation is the small amount of root exudates harvested. In fact, it was not possible to measure their dry weight. However, using the IRMS analyses, which allow isotopes to be quantified in a small volume (100 µL), we were able to determine the total carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) concentrations of each sample. In this study, we chose to normalize root exudate amounts with their C concentrations, assuming that they reflect the amount of organic molecules contained in the exudates. This allows us to compare bacterial responses between samples and plant species. In fact, it seems to be a reliable indicator for quantifying root exudates, as they are known to represent an important part of soil organic carbon (Dhungana et al., 2023; Lei et al., 2023).
The C and N concentrations of each sample showed differences between root exudates from the three plant species (Supplementary Table S1). In fact, root exudates had a mean C concentration of 590 mg/L for rapeseed, 48 mg/L for pea, and 370 mg/L for ryegrass, while the mean N concentration was 87 mg/L for rapeseed, 16 mg/L for pea, and 28 mg/L for ryegrass. In addition, C/N ratios were calculated for each of the samples and showed significant differences among the three plant species, with a low ratio for pea root exudates (3.3), an intermediate ratio for rapeseed exudates (6.9), and a high ratio for ryegrass exudates (13.4), with the highest variability (Figure 1). In this study, four to six root exudate samples were used for growth and chemotaxis assays, and their C and N concentrations as well as C/N ratios are presented in Table 1.

## 3.2 Chemotaxis responses to root exudates

### 3.2.1 Definition of the minimum attractive concentration

The chemotactic responses of *Bacillus subtilis* ATCC 6633, *Pseudomonas fluorescens* ATCC 17400, and *Azospirillum brasilense* Sp245 to root exudates from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass were studied. For each plant, six root exudate samples from at least three different collection campaigns were tested to account for their biological variability (Table 1, samples<sup>a</sup>). In order to quantify bacterial chemotaxis in response to root exudates, we defined a new indicator, the minimum attractive concentration (MAC), which corresponds to the lowest exudate concentration tested capable of attracting a given bacterium. Exudate MAC was determined by serial decimal dilutions of each sample, followed by a chemotaxis assay for each dilution until the chemotactic response was extinguished (Table 2). Thus, the MACs reflect both the attractiveness of the exudates and the sensitivity of the bacteria to them. Because MACs were determined from a set of discontinuous values separated by a factor of 10, their medians were examined rather than their means.

### 3.2.2 Root exudates differentially attract beneficial bacteria

*B. subtilis* ATCC 6633 presented a positive chemotactic response to all root exudate samples from rapeseed and pea. In contrast, four of the six ryegrass exudate samples did not induce any chemotactic response, whether concentrated or 10-fold diluted, making it impossible to determine their MACs (Table 2). Thus, we excluded ryegrass root exudates for statistical analyses because we considered that they were either of low attractiveness or that *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633 had little to no sensitivity to them. When comparing rapeseed and pea MACs, rapeseed root exudates had a significantly lower MAC (median = 6.25 mg C/L) than pea exudates (median = 55.5 mg C/L; Figure 2A). Together, these results show that *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633 is able to distinguish between different exudates, and is preferentially attracted to rapeseed exudates, then to pea exudates, and has little or no attraction to ryegrass exudates.

*P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400 presented a positive chemotactic response to all root exudate samples from the three plants tested. When the MACs of each plant species were determined and compared, no significant difference was observed, probably due to the high variability of MACs within root exudate samples from the same plant. Nevertheless, trends can be observed between the three plants, with increasing median MACs between rapeseed (median = 7.8 mg C/L), pea (median = 19.2 mg C/L), and ryegrass (median = 35.1 mg C/L; Figure 2B). These observations suggest that *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400 may be preferentially attracted to root exudates following the same pattern as *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633.

*A. brasilense* Sp245 also presented a positive chemotactic response to all root exudate samples from the three plants tested. No significant difference was observed between the three plant MACs. Moreover, *A. brasilense* Sp245 response to root exudates was more variable between samples from pea than from the two other plants, with MACs ranging from 0.09 to 61 mg C/L (Figure 2C). Interestingly, unlike the other two PGPR, no trend appears to be visible between the median MACs of root exudates from rapeseed (median = 3.3 mg C/L), pea (median = 3.2 mg C/L), and ryegrass

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1
C/N ratios of all root exudate samples from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass. Red crosses: means; \*p-value ≤0.05; \*\*p-value ≤0.001; \*\*\*p-value ≤0.0001.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Carbon and nitrogen concentrations and C/N ratios of root exudate samples from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass used to study bacterial responses.</caption><thead><tr><th>Plant</th><th>RE sample</th><th>[C] mg/L</th><th>[N] mg/L</th><th>C/N ratio</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Rapeseed</td><td>I-1<sup>b</sup></td><td>270</td><td>40</td><td>6.8</td></tr><tr><td>I-4<sup>b</sup></td><td>300</td><td>50</td><td>6.0</td></tr><tr><td>II-1<sup>a</sup></td><td>840</td><td>120</td><td>7.0</td></tr><tr><td>II-2<sup>a</sup></td><td>910</td><td>130</td><td>7.0</td></tr><tr><td>II-3<sup>b</sup></td><td>1,150</td><td>170</td><td>6.8</td></tr><tr><td>II-4<sup>b</sup></td><td>320</td><td>60</td><td>5.3</td></tr><tr><td>III-1<sup>a</sup></td><td>679</td><td>77</td><td>8.8</td></tr><tr><td>III-2<sup>a</sup></td><td>571</td><td>65</td><td>8.8</td></tr><tr><td>III-3<sup>b</sup></td><td>380</td><td>41</td><td>9.3</td></tr><tr><td>IV-1<sup>a</sup></td><td>721</td><td>108</td><td>6.7</td></tr><tr><td>IV-2<sup>a</sup></td><td>880</td><td>153</td><td>5.8</td></tr><tr><td>IV-3<sup>b</sup></td><td>691</td><td>119</td><td>5.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Pea</td><td>I-1<sup>a</sup></td><td>60</td><td>20</td><td>3.0</td></tr><tr><td>I-2<sup>a</sup></td><td>58</td><td>17</td><td>3.4</td></tr><tr><td>II-1<sup>a</sup></td><td>61</td><td>15</td><td>4.1</td></tr><tr><td>II-2<sup>a</sup></td><td>60</td><td>20</td><td>3.0</td></tr><tr><td>III-1<sup>b</sup></td><td>112</td><td>25</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>III-2<sup>a</sup></td><td>85</td><td>21</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>III-3<sup>a</sup></td><td>51</td><td>11</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td>V-1<sup>b</sup></td><td>33</td><td>15</td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><td>VI-1<sup>b</sup></td><td>49</td><td>13</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>VII-1<sup>b</sup></td><td>30</td><td>9</td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Ryegrass</td><td>I-1<sup>a</sup></td><td>320</td><td>20</td><td>16.0</td></tr><tr><td>I-3<sup>b</sup></td><td>380</td><td>20</td><td>19.0</td></tr><tr><td>I-4<sup>b</sup></td><td>310</td><td>30</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>II-1<sup>a</sup></td><td>292</td><td>25</td><td>11.7</td></tr><tr><td>II-2<sup>a</sup></td><td>339</td><td>31</td><td>10.9</td></tr><tr><td>II-3<sup>b</sup></td><td>361</td><td>32</td><td>11.3</td></tr><tr><td>III-1<sup>a</sup></td><td>363</td><td>24</td><td>15.1</td></tr><tr><td>III-2<sup>a</sup></td><td>137</td><td>22</td><td>6.2</td></tr><tr><td>III-3<sup>b</sup></td><td>539</td><td>29</td><td>18.6</td></tr><tr><td>IV-1<sup>a</sup></td><td>585</td><td>27</td><td>21.7</td></tr><tr><td>IV-4<sup>b</sup></td><td>482</td><td>39</td><td>12.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

RE, Root Exudate sample from collection campaign no I-VII and biological replicate no 1, 2, 3, 4; [C], Carbon concentration; [N], Nitrogen concentration.

(median = 2.3 mg C/L). This suggests that *A. brasilense* Sp245 is attracted with the same high efficiency (low MACs) by all tested root exudates regardless of the plant species from which they are obtained.

The chemotaxis results show that *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633 is preferentially attracted to rapeseed, then pea, and finally ryegrass root exudates, and that *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400 may have similar preferences, while *A. brasilense* Sp245 appears to be equally attracted

to root exudates from all three plants, although the variability between samples is considerable for pea exudates.

## 3.3 Bacterial growth on root exudates

### 3.3.1 Growth parameter determination

In order to assess the ability of PGPR to catabolize and utilize root exudates to produce biomass, it was necessary to develop a bacterial growth monitoring system adapted to small cultivation volumes due to the limited amount of harvested exudates. Therefore, bacteria were cultivated in 500 µL of medium in hemolysis tubes. Growth on a rich medium (LB) and a minimal medium (M9) were studied as controls. For each plant, four root exudate samples from four different collection campaigns were used for growth assays to reflect their biological variability (Table 1, samples<sup>b</sup>). To avoid osmotic shock and/or pH fluctuations during culture, root exudate samples were supplemented with PBS. Thus, the availability of essential macroelements in sufficient amounts for bacterial growth was tested.

Interestingly, we observed that *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633, *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400, and *A. brasilense* Sp245 could grow on all root exudate samples from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass, without other nutrients. This shows that root exudates can provide all the macroelements (C, N, S, P, K, Ca, Mg, and Fe) that are necessary for bacterial growth in a bioavailable form. To analyze bacterial growth, generation times and bacteria production were determined. The bacteria production was expressed as the number of bacteria produced per gram of carbon in the root exudate sample or reference medium. Reference media had a C concentration of 6.62 g/L for LB, 1.59 g/L for the M9 used for *B. subtilis* and *P. fluorescens*, and 1.04 g/L for the M9 used for *A. brasilense*.

### 3.3.2 Beneficial bacteria have different growth parameters depending on root exudates

For *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633, the mean generation time on the M9 medium (G=1.36 h) appeared longer than on the LB medium (G=0.88 h), consistent with their status as minimal and rich media, respectively. The generation time on pea root exudates (G=3.13 h) was significantly longer than on LB medium and on rapeseed exudates (G=1.06 h), which had the shortest generation times (Figure 3A). Regarding ryegrass exudates, an intermediate generation time was observed (G=1.26 h). The mean bacteria productions of *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633 obtained for LB (2.32 × 10<sup>11</sup> CFU/g of carbon) and M9 (2.29 × 10<sup>11</sup> CFU/g of carbon) media, as well as for rapeseed (1.73 × 10<sup>11</sup> CFU/g of carbon) and ryegrass (2.33 × 10<sup>11</sup> CFU/g of carbon) root exudates were similar (Figure 4A). In contrast, bacteria production tended to be higher for pea exudates (6.99 × 10<sup>11</sup> CFU/g of carbon), although no significant difference was observed. Thus, while pea root exudates induced the longest generation time, they also appeared to allow the highest bacteria production.

For *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400, the mean generation time on the M9 medium (G=1.99 h) appeared longer than on the LB medium (G=1.07 h), as for *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633. Moreover, trends can be observed between the mean generation times for the three plants, with a short generation time for rapeseed exudates (G=1.16 h), followed by an intermediate one for ryegrass exudates (G=1.77 h), and finally, a longer generation time for pea exudates (G=2.31 h; Figure 3B). Yet, no statistically significant difference was observed,

<footnote><sup>a</sup>sample used for chemotaxis assays.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>sample used for growth assays.</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 2 Chemotactic responses of *Bacillus subtilis* (*Bs*), *Pseudomonas fluorescens* (*Pf*), and *Azospirillum brasilense* (*Ab*) to root exudates from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="5">Rapeseed</th><th colspan="4">Pea</th><th colspan="4">Ryegrass</th></tr><tr><th>RE</th><th>[C]<br>mg/L</th><th>Bs</th><th>Pf</th><th>Ab</th><th>RE</th><th>[C]<br>mg/L</th><th>Bs</th><th>Pf</th><th>Ab</th><th>RE</th><th>[C]<br>mg/L</th><th>Bs</th><th>Pf</th><th>Ab</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">II-1</td><td>840</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">I-1</td><td>30*</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">I-1</td><td>320</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>84</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td><td>6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>32</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td></tr><tr><td>8.4</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>0.6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>3.2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>0.8</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>0.06</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>0.08</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">II-2</td><td>910</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">I-2</td><td>58</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">II-1</td><td>292</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>91</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td><td>5.8</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>29.2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>nd</td></tr><tr><td>9.1</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>0.6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2.9</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>nd</td></tr><tr><td>0.9</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>0.09</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.02</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">III-1</td><td>679</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">II-1</td><td>61</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">+</td><td>339</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>67.9</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td><td>6.1</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>33.9</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td></tr><tr><td>6.8</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>0.6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3.4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>0.7</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>0.07</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">III-2</td><td>571</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">II-2</td><td>60</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">III-1</td><td>363</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>57.1</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td><td>6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>36.3</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td></tr><tr><td>5.7</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>0.6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>3.6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>nd</td></tr><tr><td>0.6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.06</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>0.07</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.04</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">IV-1</td><td>721</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">III-2</td><td>85</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">III-2</td><td>137</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>72.1</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td><td>8.5</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>13.7</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td></tr><tr><td>7.2</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>0.9</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>1.4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>0.7</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.09</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>0.1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>0.09</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">IV-2</td><td>880</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">III-3</td><td>51</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td rowspan="5">IV-1</td><td>585</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td><td>5.1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>58.5</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>nd</td></tr><tr><td>8.8</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>5.9</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>0.9</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

RE, Root Exudate sample from collection campaign no I, II, III, IV and biological replicate no 1, 2, 3; [C], Carbon concentration; nd, not determined; *Sample I-1 of pea root exudates was initially concentrated 30-fold instead of 60-fold like all the other samples. Gray boxes correspond to the Minimum Attractive Concentration.

which may be explained by the variability between replicates. *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400 had similar mean bacteria productions after its growth on LB medium (5.49×10¹¹ CFU/g of carbon), M9 medium (2.37×10¹¹ CFU/g of carbon), and ryegrass exudates (5.89×10¹¹ CFU/g of carbon; Figure 4B). However, the bacteria production reached on pea root exudates was significantly higher (5.21×10¹² CFU/g of carbon) than on the M9 medium. Although not significant, bacteria production on rapeseed exudates appeared to be slightly higher (9.82×10¹¹ CFU/g of carbon) than on reference media or ryegrass exudates. These results suggest that *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400 had different generation times depending on root exudates, following the same pattern as *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633. Pea root exudates also allowed the highest bacteria production for *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400.

For *A. brasilense* Sp245, there seemed to be no difference between the mean generation times of the M9 medium (G=2.50 h) and the LB medium (G=2.48 h). These values are consistent with the results of Carreras et al. (2019). Trends can be observed for root exudates, with a shorter mean generation time when grown on rapeseed exudates (G=2.18 h) than on pea (G=3.67 h) and ryegrass exudates (G=3.33 h), although these differences were not significant (Figure 3C). This suggests that rapeseed exudates allowed the fastest growth of *A. brasilense* Sp245, while both pea and ryegrass exudates induced a longer generation time. The mean bacteria productions of *A. brasilense* Sp245 obtained on LB (9.33×10¹⁰ CFU/g of carbon) and M9 (4.76×10¹¹ CFU/g of carbon) media, as well as on rapeseed (3.80×10¹¹ CFU/g of carbon) and ryegrass (1.84×10¹¹ CFU/g of carbon) root exudates were relatively comparable (Figure 4C). In
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3</figcaption></figure>

Generation times of *Bacillus subtilis* (A), *Pseudomonas fluorescens* (B), and *Azospirillum brasilense* (C) during growth on rich (LB) or minimal (M9) media as well as on root exudates from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass. Red crosses: means; \*p-value ≤0.05; \*\*p-value ≤0.01.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

*brasilense* Sp245) were evaluated in response to root exudates harvested from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass.

First, chemotaxis to root exudates was studied, since it is the first behavior of beneficial bacteria involved in the rhizosphere microbiota assembly (Feng et al., 2021). Regarding plant species, these results show that root exudates from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass differentially attract beneficial bacteria depending on the plant species, which is consistent with their apparent diverse composition among genotypes (Herz et al., 2018; Vives-Peris et al., 2020). This plant-specific composition of root exudates could also be involved in rhizosphere signaling and may explain how plants shape their root microbiota and select specific microorganisms, especially PGPR (Jacoby et al., 2020; Upadhyay et al., 2022). Indeed, Vora et al. (2021) showed that root exudates from pigeon pea and maize, mono or co-cultivated, differentially attracted the PGPR strains *Enterobacter* sp. C1D, *Pseudomonas* sp. G22, and *Rhizobium* sp. IC3109, resulting in specific bacterial root colonization. Interestingly, we observed that rapeseed root exudates were highly attractive to all three PGPR, indicating the presence of abundant and/or strong chemoattractants. These could include specific organic acids such as malate, citrate, and fumarate, and sugars like fructose which have been identified in rapeseed root exudates and also described as chemoattractants for the PGPR strain *Bacillus amyloliquefaciens* SQR9 (Feng et al., 2018; Delamare et al., 2023).

Regarding bacterial species, our results indicate that *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633, *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400, and *A. brasilense* Sp245 are attracted with different efficiencies to root exudates from the same plant. In particular, *A. brasilense* is similarly attracted to root exudates from all three plants, which is consistent with a recent study reporting

that this PGPR is attracted to all exudate compounds from pea, tomato, and cucumber (Nisha et al., 2024). In addition, bacterial responses to ryegrass exudates range from a high level of attraction for *A. brasilense* Sp245 to no attraction at all for *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633. This could be explained by chemoattractants which only have an effect on *A. brasilense* Sp245 and *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400, or by specific repulsive compounds in ryegrass exudates that are only perceived by *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633. Indeed, Feng et al. (2018) reported that although the PGPR strain *B. amyloliquefaciens* SQR9 had a general positive chemotactic response to cucumber root exudates, some of their components, such as salicylic acid, were characterized as repellents. Therefore, we can hypothesize that such repellent compounds may be present in some or all of the ryegrass root exudate samples, but at varying concentrations among them.

Hence, the plant attracts specific microorganisms and promotes their rhizosphere colonization by releasing a particular root exudate profile (Allard-Massicotte et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2020; Saleh et al., 2020). To do so, it implies that bacteria are able to catabolize at least some of the molecules present in root exudates and use them as nutrients for growth. However, only a few studies have demonstrated this. Guyonnet et al. (2018) showed that plants can stimulate microbial activities through root exudation and modify the diversity of microorganisms involved in root exudate assimilation. Zhalnina et al. (2018) studied the substrate preferences of soil bacterial isolates growing on *Avena barbata* root exudates and identified an increased uptake of certain compounds, such as aromatic organic acids, by rhizosphere bacteria. Moreover, Carreras et al. (2019) showed that *A. brasilense* was able to utilize root exudates from three Sahelian woody species as carbon and nitrogen sources with different growth
A

Bacillus subtilis

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

C

Azospirillum brasilense

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

B

Pseudomonas fluorescens

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4</figcaption></figure>

Bacteria production of *Bacillus subtilis* (A), *Pseudomonas fluorescens* (B), and *Azospirillum brasilense* (C) after growth on rich (LB) or minimal (M9) media as well as on root exudates from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass (log scale). Red crosses: means; \*p-value ≤0.05; \*\*p-value ≤0.01.

parameters (G and bacteria production) among species, indicating a preference for the most drought-tolerant of the three plant species. Recently, Dhungana et al. (2023) observed that rhizosphere bacterial isolates from three distinct plant species grew differently in their root exudates, and not necessarily better in their host's exudates, but rather depending on the plant species.

To provide new insights on the particular differences induced by root exudates on the growth behavior of beneficial bacteria, *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633, *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400, and *A. brasilense* Sp245 were cultivated in rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass exudates and monitored by CFU counting. For all three PGPR, the fastest growth was obtained with rapeseed exudates, suggesting that they contain a rich amount of nutrients that are easy and fast to catabolize. These effective nutrients may be different for the three PGPR because they have different metabolisms. In contrast, slower growth was obtained with pea exudates, suggesting that they contain complex nutrients that are more difficult to catabolize and/or antimicrobial molecules. Indeed, pea root exudates are directly involved in plant protection against biotic stresses through proteins such as chitinases, glucanases, or arabinogalactan proteins, as well as phenolic compounds such as stilbenes, which are antimicrobial molecules (Makarova et al., 2007; Wen et al., 2007; Fortier et al., 2023). Moreover, legumes like pea are capable of producing specific metabolites such as soyasaponins, which can act as antibacterial agents (Seitz et al., 2023). Although rapeseed root exudates can also contain antimicrobials (Fang et al., 2016), pea exudates may therefore considerably affect bacterial growth through these compounds.

To complete growth analyses, the bacteria production was determined and expressed as the number of bacteria produced per gram of carbon contained in the culture medium. For the same

amount of carbon, pea root exudates allowed a higher bacteria production for *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633, *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400, and *A. brasilense* Sp245 compared to reference media and other exudates. This could be explained by the ability of the PGPR studied to efficiently transform the nutrients present in pea exudates into bacterial biomass and/or by the catabolism of low-carbon molecules that could be nitrogen-rich instead. In fact, we observed that pea exudates had the lowest C/N ratio of all root exudates, indicating an important release of nitrogen by pea roots. This is consistent with the literature describing high nitrogen rhizodeposition by legumes such as pea, through the exudation of ammonium, amino acids, or ureides, among others (Schmidtke, 2005; Wichern et al., 2008; Fustec et al., 2010).

These growth studies were delicate due to the limited amount of root exudates collected, but we were able to show that root exudates from three different plant species provided the three PGPR studied with all the macroelements required for cell growth. However, bacteria effectively discriminate between these complex molecular cocktails, as the rate and efficiency with which they utilize nutrients differ between plant species. Antimicrobial compounds can also interfere with their growth. Thus, the different composition of root exudates from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass has a direct and specific effect on the growth of PGPR, and consequently on their long-term establishment in the rhizosphere.

To compare PGPR responses to root exudates between plant and bacterial species, the love match score was defined and calculated for each plant-bacteria pair to reflect their compatibility for the three rhizocompetence traits studied. Interestingly, *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400 and *A. brasilense* Sp245 had higher love match scores than *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633. Although all three bacteria are well-known PGPR (Basu et al., 2021), it is important to mention that *A. brasilense* and *P. fluorescens*
<table><caption>TABLE 3 Love match scores between *Bacillus subtilis*, *Pseudomonas fluorescens*, *Azospirillum brasilense*, and root exudates from rapeseed, pea, or ryegrass based on chemotactic responses, generation times, and biomass production.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Rapeseed</th><th>Pea</th><th>Ryegrass</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Bacillus subtilis</td><td>Chemotactic response</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Generation time</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Biomass production</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Love match</strong></td><td><strong>10</strong></td><td><strong>6</strong></td><td><strong>5</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Pseudomonas fluorescens</td><td>Chemotactic response</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Generation time</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Biomass production</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Love match</strong></td><td><strong>11</strong></td><td><strong>9</strong></td><td><strong>7</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Azospirillum brasilense</td><td>Chemotactic response</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Generation time</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Biomass production</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Love match</strong></td><td><strong>11</strong></td><td><strong>9</strong></td><td><strong>8</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Each bacterial response was assigned a score from 0 to 4 according to its effectiveness. 4: excellent response, 3: good response, 2: medium response, 1: poor response, 0: no response. The love match score of each plant-bacteria couple is calculated as the sum of these three scores. Bold values: love match score (see 2.7).

are Gram-negative bacteria, while *B. subtilis* is a Gram-positive bacterium, which implies that they have different physiology and metabolism that could affect their response to root exudates. For plant species, rapeseed root exudates had the best love match scores. This may be explained by specific exudate components such as glucosinolates, which are characteristic of Brassicaceae species like rapeseed and have been shown to select microbial populations such as PGPR from soil (Bressan et al., 2009; Siebers et al., 2018). Moreover, the rapeseed rhizosphere has been shown to harbor phosphate-solubilizing bacteria with plant growth-promoting properties, thus reflecting the ability of rapeseed to attract and recruit these bacteria (Valetti et al., 2018). In contrast, ryegrass root exudates had the lowest love match scores. Although ryegrass exudates have been reported to recruit beneficial bacteria of the genus *Pseudomonas* under salt stress (Cao et al., 2024), the exact compounds responsible for this selection remain poorly described and may be less effective than those from other plant species.

In conclusion, the need for sustainable agroecosystems in the context of climate change is now undeniable (George et al., 2024). PGPR such as *B. subtilis*, *P. fluorescens*, and *A. brasilense* have been extensively described for their beneficial effects on crop production (Basu et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2021), while root exudates appear to be key to their recruitment and retention (Hassan et al., 2019; Jacoby et al., 2020). However, the particular mechanisms responsible for the specific selection of rhizosphere microorganisms by the plant remain unclear. In this study, we provided new insights into the efficiency with which *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633, *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400, and *A. brasilense* Sp245 respond to root exudates from rapeseed, pea, and ryegrass, and revealed important differences between the exudates of each plant involved in the first steps of rhizosphere colonization, i.e., chemotaxis and bacterial growth. *P. fluorescens* ATCC 17400 and *A. brasilense* Sp245 seemed to respond more efficiently to root exudates than *B. subtilis* ATCC 6633, while root exudates from rapeseed appeared to be more efficient in these interactions, followed by pea and lastly ryegrass. We also proposed to evaluate each plant-PGPR couple with a love match score, which rates the performance of root exudates in

enhancing bacterial rhizocompetence. The love match score represents a new indicator to identify efficient plant-PGPR combinations in the context of bioinoculant use and sustainable agriculture. This scoring system may thus be used to compare other plant-bacteria pairs, as well as be further developed and improved by adding more parameters. The love match score could include other rhizocompetence traits such as the ability to form biofilms, which is another important step for bacterial establishment in the microbiota (Santoyo et al., 2021).

In light of this study, further research will also help decipher the molecular mechanisms involved in the different physiological responses of bacteria, along with which particular compounds or molecular associations are responsible for this specificity, using transcriptomic and metabolomic studies such as mass spectrometry (Escolà Casas and Matamoros, 2021; Calabrese et al., 2023). Field studies will also allow us to validate our findings under realistic conditions (Manfredini et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022). This research will contribute to our understanding of the benefits of root exudates and how they can be exploited to develop rhizosphere engineering (Kumar and Dubey, 2020; Bano et al., 2021; Orozco-Mosqueda et al., 2022). Indeed, manipulating root exudate composition through plant genetic engineering or soaking seeds with exudates has been shown to shape the rhizosphere microbiota and improve colonization by beneficial bacteria such as *A. brasilense* (Barbosa et al., 2020; Kawasaki et al., 2021). Root exudates could thus be used directly or indirectly through intercropping systems as a tool to improve the functions of the rhizosphere microbiota (Preece and Peñuelas, 2020; Li et al., 2023). Therefore, knowing the efficacy of root exudates from a donor plant in attracting and feeding one or more PGPR is a major advantage in selecting which exudates to apply to a recipient plant or in optimizing appropriate plant combinations in intercropping systems in order to promote bioinoculant establishment in the rhizosphere.

## Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

## Author contributions

EF: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis. MP: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation. WR: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology. EP: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology. AM-B: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology. JB: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Conceptualization. BP: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

## Funding

The authors declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by the Universities of Rouen and Caen Normandie and the SFR Normandie Végétal FED 4277. The Normandie Council and the European Union supported the study through the research project BEER (Bactéries, Exsudats, Et
Rhizodépôts, 2019-2022). EF received a PhD grant (2021-2024) from the Doctoral School EDnBISE (École Doctorale normande de Biologie Intégrative Santé Environnement).

## Acknowledgments

The authors are most grateful to PLATIN' (PLATeau d'Isotopie de Normandie) core facility for all elemental and isotopic analyses used in this study.

## Conflict of interest

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

## References

Allard-Massicotte, R., Tessier, L., Lécuyer, F., Lakshmanan, V., Lucier, J.-F., Garneau, D., et al. (2016). *Bacillus subtilis* early colonization of *Arabidopsis thaliana* roots involves multiple chemotaxis receptors. *MBio* 7, e01664–e01616. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01664-16

Badri, D. V., and Vivanco, J. M. (2009). Regulation and function of root exudates. *Plant Cell Environ.* 32, 666–681. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01926.x

Bano, S., Wu, X., and Zhang, X. (2021). Towards sustainable agriculture: rhizosphere microbiome engineering. *Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.* 105, 7141–7160. doi: 10.1007/s00253-021-11555-w

Barbosa, M. S., Rodrigues, E. P., Stolf-Moreira, R., Tischer, C. A., and de Oliveira, A. L. M. (2020). Root exudate supplemented inoculant of *Azospirillum brasilense* ab-V5 is more effective in enhancing rhizosphere colonization and growth of maize. *Environ. Sustain.* 3, 187–197. doi: 10.1007/s42398-020-00103-3

Bartolini, S., Carrozza, G. P., Scalabrelli, G., and Toffanin, A. (2017). Effectiveness of *Azospirillum brasilense* Sp245 on young plants of *Vitis vinifera* L. *Open Life Sciences* 12, 365–372. doi: 10.1515/biol-2017-0042

Basu, A., Prasad, P., Das, S. N., Kalam, S., Sayyed, R. Z., Reddy, M. S., et al. (2021). Plant growth promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) as Green bioinoculants: recent developments, constraints, and prospects. *Sustain. For.* 13:1140. doi: 10.3390/su13031140

Bi, S., and Sourjik, V. (2018). Stimulus sensing and signal processing in bacterial chemotaxis. *Curr. Opin. Microbiol.* 45, 22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2018.02.002

Blake, C., Christensen, M. N., and Kovács, Á. T. (2021). Molecular aspects of plant growth promotion and protection by *Bacillus subtilis*. *MPMI* 34, 15–25. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-08-20-0225-CR

Bressan, M., Roncato, M.-A., Bellvert, F., Comte, G., Haichar, F. E. Z., Achouak, W., et al. (2009). Exogenous glucosinolate produced by *Arabidopsis thaliana* has an impact on microbes in the rhizosphere and plant roots. *ISME J.* 3, 1243–1257. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2009.68

Calabrese, V., Schmitz-Afonso, I., Riah-Anglet, W., Trinsoutrot-Gattin, I., Pawlak, B., and Afonso, C. (2023). Direct introduction MALDI FTICR MS based on dried droplet deposition applied to non-targeted metabolomics on *Pisum Sativum* root exudates. *Talanta* 253:123901. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2022.123901

Cao, Y.-H., Zhao, X.-W., Nie, G., Wang, Z.-Y., Song, X., Zhang, M.-X., et al. (2024). The salt-tolerance of perennial ryegrass is linked with root exudate profiles and microflora recruitment. *Sci. Total Environ.* 916:170205. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170205

Carreras, A., Bernard, S., Durambur, G., Gügi, B., Loutelier, C., Pawlak, B., et al. (2019). In vitro characterization of root extracellular trap and exudates of three Sahelian woody plant species. *Planta* 251:19. doi: 10.1007/s00425-019-03302-3

David, B. V., Chandrasehar, G., and Selvam, P. N. (2018). "*Pseudomonas fluorescens*: a plant-growth-promoting Rhizobacterium (PGPR) with potential role in biocontrol of pests of crops" in Crop Improvement Through Microbial Biotechnology. eds. R. Prasad, S. S. Gill and N. Tuteja (India: Elsevier), 221–243.

Delamare, J., Brunel-Muguet, S., Boukerb, A. M., Bressan, M., Dumas, L., Firmin, S., et al. (2023). Impact of PGPR inoculation on root morphological traits and root exudation in rapeseed and camelina: interactions with heat stress. *Physiol. Plant.* 175:e14058. doi: 10.1111/ppl.14058

Dhungana, I., Kantar, M. B., and Nguyen, N. H. (2023). Root exudate composition from different plant species influences the growth of rhizosphere bacteria. *Rhizosphere* 25:100645. doi: 10.1016/j.rhisph.2022.100645

## Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

## Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1473099/full#supplementary-material

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 1

Carbon and nitrogen concentrations and C/N ratios of all root exudate samples.

Dlamini, S. P., Akanmu, A. O., and Babalola, O. O. (2022). Rhizospheric microorganisms: the gateway to a sustainable plant health. *Front. Sustain. Food Syst.* 6:925802. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.925802

Driouich, A., Gaudry, A., Pawlak, B., and Moore, J. P. (2021). Root cap-derived cells and mucilage: a protective network at the root tip. *Protoplasma* 258, 1179–1185. doi: 10.1007/s00709-021-01660-y

Escolà Casas, M., and Matamoros, V. (2021). Analytical challenges and solutions for performing metabolomic analysis of root exudates. *Trends Environ. Analytical Chemistry* 31:e00130. doi: 10.1016/j.teac.2021.e00130

Fang, Y., Zhang, L., Jiao, Y., Liao, J., Luo, L., Ji, S., et al. (2016). Tobacco rotated with rapeseed for soil-borne Phytophthora pathogen biocontrol: mediated by rapeseed root exudates. *Front. Microbiol.* 7:894. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00894

Fasusi, O. A., Cruz, C., and Babalola, O. O. (2021). Agricultural sustainability: microbial biofertilizers in rhizosphere management. *Agriculture* 11:163. doi: 10.3390/agriculture11020163

Feng, H., Fu, R., Hou, X., Lv, Y., Zhang, N., Liu, Y., et al. (2021). Chemotaxis of beneficial Rhizobacteria to root exudates: the first step towards root-microbe rhizosphere interactions. *Int. J. Mol. Sci.* 22:6655. doi: 10.3390/ijms22136655

Feng, H., Zhang, N., Du, W., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Fu, R., et al. (2018). Identification of chemotaxis compounds in root exudates and their sensing chemoreceptors in plant-growth-promoting Rhizobacteria *Bacillus amyloliquefaciens* SQR9. *MPMI* 31, 995–1005. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-01-18-0003-R

Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. *Nature* 478, 337–342. doi: 10.1038/nature10452

Fortier, M., Lemaître, V., Gaudry, A., Pawlak, B., Driouich, A., Follet-Gueye, M.-L., et al. (2023). A fine-tuned defense at the pea root caps: involvement of border cells and arabinogalactan proteins against soilborne diseases. *Front. Plant Sci.* 14:1132132. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1132132

Fukami, J., Cerezini, P., and Hungria, M. (2018). Azospirillum: benefits that go far beyond biological nitrogen fixation. *AMB Express* 8:73. doi: 10.1186/s13568-018-0608-1

Fustec, J., Lesuffleur, F., Mahieu, S., and Cliquet, J.-B. (2010). Nitrogen rhizodeposition of legumes. *A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.* 30, 57–66. doi: 10.1051/agro/2009003

Gaballa, A., Abeysinghe, P. D., Urich, G., Matthijs, S., De Greve, H., Cornelis, P., et al. (1997). Trehalose induces antagonism towards *Pythium debaryanum* in *Pseudomonas fluorescens* ATCC 17400. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 63, 4340–4345. doi: 10.1128/aem.63.11.4340-4345.1997

George, T. S., Bulgarelli, D., Carminati, A., Chen, Y., Jones, D., Kuzyakov, Y., et al. (2024). Bottom-up perspective – the role of roots and rhizosphere in climate change adaptation and mitigation in agroecosystems. *Plant Soil* 500, 297–323. doi: 10.1007/s11104-024-06626-6

Grognot, M., and Taute, K. M. (2021). A multiscale 3D chemotaxis assay reveals bacterial navigation mechanisms. *Commun Biol* 4, 669–668. doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-02190-2

Guyonnet, J. P., Guillemet, M., Dubost, A., Simon, L., Ortet, P., Barakat, M., et al. (2018). Plant nutrient resource use strategies shape active rhizosphere microbiota through root exudation. *Front. Plant Sci.* 9:1662. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01662
Haichar, F. E. Z., Santaella, C., Heulin, T., and Achouak, W. (2014). Root exudates mediated interactions belowground. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 77, 69–80. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.06.017

Hassan, M. K., McInroy, J. A., and Kloepper, J. W. (2019). The interactions of Rhizodeposits with plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria in the rhizosphere: a review. *Agriculture* 9:142. doi: 10.3390/agriculture9070142

Herz, K., Dietz, S., Gorzolka, K., Haider, S., Jandt, U., Scheel, D., et al. (2018). Linking root exudates to functional plant traits. *PLoS One* 13:e0204128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204128

Hossain, M. A., Hossain, M. S., and Akter, M. (2023). Challenges faced by plant growth-promoting bacteria in field-level applications and suggestions to overcome the barriers. *Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.* 126:102029. doi: 10.1016/j.pmpp.2023.102029

Huang, J., Liu, W., Deng, M., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Yang, L., et al. (2020). Allocation and turnover of rhizodeposited carbon in different soil microbial groups. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 150:107973. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107973

Jacoby, R. P., Chen, L., Schwier, M., Koprivova, A., and Kopriva, S. (2020). Recent advances in the role of plant metabolites in shaping the root microbiome. *F1000Res* 9:151. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.21796.1

Jones, D. L., Nguyen, C., and Finlay, R. D. (2009). Carbon flow in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at the soil-root interface. *Plant Soil* 321, 5–33. doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-9925-0

Kaur, C., Selvakumar, G., and Ganeshamurthy, A. N. (2017). "Rhizocompetence of applied bioinoculants" in Plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecological perspectives: Volume 1: Fundamental mechanisms, methods and functions. eds. D. P. Singh, H. B. Singh and R. Prabha (Singapore: Springer), 501–511.

Kaur, J., and Vishnu, (2022). "Chapter 8 - bacterial inoculants for rhizosphere engineering: applications, current aspects, and challenges" in Rhizosphere engineering. eds. R. C. Dubey and P. Kumar (India: Academic Press), 129–150.

Kawasaki, A., Dennis, P. G., Forstner, C., Raghavendra, A. K. H., Mathesius, U., Richardson, A. E., et al. (2021). Manipulating exudate composition from root apices shapes the microbiome throughout the root system. *Plant Physiol.* 187, 2279–2295. doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiab337

Kumar, A., and Dubey, A. (2020). Rhizosphere microbiome: engineering bacterial competitiveness for enhancing crop production. *J. Adv. Res.* 24, 337–352. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2020.04.014

Lankinen, Å., Witzell, J., Aleklett, K., Furenhed, S., Karlsson Green, K., Latz, M., et al. (2024). Challenges and opportunities for increasing the use of low-risk plant protection products in sustainable production. *A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.* 44:21. doi: 10.1007/s13593-024-00957-5

Lei, X., Shen, Y., Zhao, J., Huang, J., Wang, H., Yu, Y., et al. (2023). Root exudates mediate the processes of soil organic carbon input and efflux. *Plan. Theory* 12:630. doi: 10.3390/plants12030630

Li, C., Stomph, T.-J., Makowski, D., Li, H., Zhang, C., Zhang, F., et al. (2023). The productive performance of intercropping. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.* 120:e2201886120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2201886120

Li, J., Van Gerrewey, T., and Geelen, D. (2022). A Meta-analysis of biostimulant yield effectiveness in field trials. *Front. Plant Sci.* 13:836702. doi: 10.3389/fplms.2022.836702

Liu, Y., Feng, H., Fu, R., Zhang, N., Du, W., Shen, Q., et al. (2020). Induced root-secreted d-galactose functions as a chemoattractant and enhances the biofilm formation of *Bacillus velezensis* SQR9 in an McpA-dependent manner. *Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.* 104, 785–797. doi: 10.1007/s00253-019-10265-8

Ma, W., Tang, S., Dengzeng, Z., Zhang, D., Zhang, T., and Ma, X. (2022). Root exudates contribute to belowground ecosystem hotspots: a review. *Front. Microbiol.* 13:937940. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.937940

Makarova, L. E., Latysheva, S. E., and Putilina, T. E. (2007). The effect of the phenolic compounds exuded by pea roots in darkness on the reproduction of Rhizobium. *Appl. Biochem. Microbiol.* 43, 429–434. doi: 10.1134/S0003683807040126

Manfredini, A., Malusà, E., Costa, C., Pallottino, F., Mocali, S., Pinzari, F., et al. (2021). Current methods, common practices, and perspectives in tracking and monitoring bioinoculants in soil. *Front. Microbiol.* 12:698491. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.698491

McLaughlin, S., Zhalnina, K., Kosina, S., Northen, T. R., and Sasse, J. (2023). The core metabolome and root exudation dynamics of three phylogenetically distinct plant species. *Nat. Commun.* 14:1649. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37164-x

Meliani, A., Bensoltane, A., Benidire, L., and Oufdou, K. (2017). Plant growth-promotion and IAA secretion with Pseudomonas fluorescens and *Pseudomonas putida*. *Res. Rev. J. Botanical Sci.* 6, 16–24.

Méndez-Gómez, M., Castro-Mercado, E., Peña-Uribe, C. A., Reyes-de la Cruz, H., López-Bucio, J., and García-Pineda, E. (2020). TARGET OF RAPAMYCIN signaling plays a role in *Arabidopsis* growth promotion by *Azospirillum brasilense* Sp245. *Plant Sci.* 293:110416. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2020.110416

Nisha, F. A., Tagoe, J. N. A., Pease, A. B., Horne, S. M., Ugrinov, A., Geddes, B. A., et al. (2024). Plant seedlings of peas, tomatoes, and cucumbers exude compounds that are needed for growth and chemoattraction of *Rhizobium leguminosarum* bv. Viciae 3841 and *Azospirillum brasilense* Sp7. *Can. J. Microbiol.* 70, 150–162. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2023-0217

O'Callaghan, M., Ballard, R. A., and Wright, D. (2022). Soil microbial inoculants for sustainable agriculture: limitations and opportunities. *Soil Use Manag.* 38, 1340–1369. doi: 10.1111/sum.12811

Oburger, E., and Jones, D. L. (2018). Sampling root exudates - Mission impossible? *Rhizosphere* 6, 116–133. doi: 10.1016/j.rhisph.2018.06.004

Oburger, E., Schmidt, H., and Staudinger, C. (2022). Harnessing belowground processes for sustainable intensification of agricultural systems. *Plant Soil* 478, 177–209. doi: 10.1007/s11104-022-05508-z

Oldroyd, G. E. D. (2013). Speak, friend, and enter: signalling systems that promote beneficial symbiotic associations in plants. *Nat. Rev. Microbiol.* 11, 252–263. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2990

Oleńska, E., Malek, W., Wójcik, M., Swiecicka, I., Thijs, S., and Vangronsveld, J. (2020). Beneficial features of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for improving plant growth and health in challenging conditions: a methodical review. *Sci. Total Environ.* 743:140682. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140682

Orozco-Mosqueda, M., Del, C., Fadiji, A. E., Babalola, O. O., Glick, B. R., and Santoyo, G. (2022). Rhizobiome engineering: unveiling complex rhizosphere interactions to enhance plant growth and health. *Microbiol. Res.* 263:127137. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2022.127137

Pathania, P., Rajta, A., Singh, P. C., and Bhatia, R. (2020). Role of plant growth-promoting bacteria in sustainable agriculture. *Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol.* 30:101842. doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2020.101842

Philippot, L., Raaijmakers, J. M., Lemanceau, P., and van der Putten, W. H. (2013). Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. *Nat. Rev. Microbiol.* 11, 789–799. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3109

Ping, L., Birkenbeil, J., and Monajembashi, S. (2013). Swimming behavior of the monotrichous bacterium *Pseudomonas fluorescens* SBW25. *FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.* 86, 36–44. doi: 10.1111/1574-6941.12076

Planchon, A., Durambur, G., Besnier, J.-B., Plasson, C., Gügi, B., Bernard, S., et al. (2021). Effect of a *Bacillus subtilis* strain on flax protection against fusarium oxysporum and its impact on the root and stem cell walls. *Plant Cell Environ.* 44, 304–322. doi: 10.1111/pce.13882

Poppeliers, S. W., Sánchez-Gil, J. J., and de Jonge, R. (2023). Microbes to support plant health: understanding bioinoculant success in complex conditions. *Curr. Opin. Microbiol.* 73:102286. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2023.102286

Porter, S. L., Wadhams, G. H., and Armitage, J. P. (2011). Signal processing in complex chemotaxis pathways. *Nat. Rev. Microbiol.* 9, 153–165. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2505

Preece, C., and Peñuelas, J. (2020). A return to the wild: root exudates and food security. *Trends Plant Sci.* 25, 14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2019.09.010

Qu, Q., Zhang, Z., Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M., Liu, W., Lu, T., Hu, B., et al. (2020). Rhizosphere microbiome assembly and its impact on plant growth. *J. Agric. Food Chem.* 68, 5024–5038. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c00073

Saleh, D., Sharma, M., Seguin, P., and Jabaji, S. (2020). Organic acids and root exudates of *Brachypodium distachyon*: effects on chemotaxis and biofilm formation of endophytic bacteria. *Can. J. Microbiol.* 66, 562–575. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2020-0041

R Core Team. (2023). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/

Salomon, M. J., Demarmels, R., Watts-Williams, S. J., McLaughlin, M. J., Kafle, A., Ketelsen, C., et al. (2022). Global evaluation of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants under greenhouse and field conditions. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 169:104225. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.104225

Santoyo, G. (2022). How plants recruit their microbiome? New insights into beneficial interactions. *J. Adv. Res.* 40, 45–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2021.11.020

Santoyo, G., Urtis-Flores, C. A., Loeza-Lara, P. D., Orozco-Mosqueda, M. D. C., and Glick, B. R. (2021). Rhizosphere colonization determinants by plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR). *Biology* 10:475. doi: 10.3390/biology10060475

Sasse, J., Martinioia, E., and Northen, T. (2018). Feed your friends: do Plant exudates shape the root microbiome? *Trends Plant Sci.* 23, 25–41. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.09.003

Scharf, B. E., Hynes, M. F., and Alexandre, G. M. (2016). Chemotaxis signaling systems in model beneficial plant-bacteria associations. *Plant Mol. Biol.* 90, 549–559. doi: 10.1007/s11103-016-0432-4

Schmidtke, K. (2005). How to calculate nitrogen rhizodeposition: a case study in estimating N rhizodeposition in the pea (*Pisum sativum* L.) and grasspea (*Lathyrus sativus* L.) using a continuous 15N labelling split-root technique. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 37, 1893–1897. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.02.024

Seitz, V. A., Chaparro, J. M., Schipanski, M. E., Wrighton, K. C., and Prenni, J. E. (2023). Cover crop cultivar, species, and functional diversity is reflected in variable root exudation composition. *J. Agric. Food Chem.* 71, 11373–11385. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.3c02912

Shah, A., Nazari, M., Antar, M., Msimbira, L. A., Naamala, J., Lyu, D., et al. (2021). PGPR in agriculture: a sustainable approach to increasing climate change resilience. *Front. Sustain. Food Syst.* 5:667546. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.667546
Sharma, I., Kashyap, S., and Agarwala, N. (2023). Biotic stress-induced changes in root exudation confer plant stress tolerance by altering rhizospheric microbial community. *Front. Plant Sci.* 14:1132824. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1132824

Siebers, M., Rohr, T., Ventura, M., Schütz, V., Thies, S., Kovacic, F., et al. (2018). Disruption of microbial community composition and identification of plant growth promoting microorganisms after exposure of soil to rapeseed-derived glucosinolates. *PLoS One* 13:e0200160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200160

Sugiyama, A. (2019). The soybean rhizosphere: metabolites, microbes, and beyond—a review. *J. Advan. Res., Special Issue on Plant Microbiome* 19, 67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2019.03.005

Thilakarathna, M. S., and Raizada, M. N. (2017). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of diverse rhizobia inoculants on soybean traits under field conditions. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 105, 177–196. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.11.022

Thoms, D., Liang, Y., and Haney, C. H. (2021). Maintaining symbiotic homeostasis: how do plants engage with beneficial microorganisms while at the same time restricting pathogens? *MPMI* 34, 462–469. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-11-20-0318-FI

Tian, T., Reverdy, A., She, Q., Sun, B., and Chai, Y. (2020). The role of rhizodeposits in shaping rhizomicrobiome. *Environ. Microbiol. Rep.* 12, 160–172. doi: 10.1111/1758-2229.12816

Tsukanova, K. A., Chebotar, V. K., Meyer, J. J. M., and Bibikova, T. N. (2017). Effect of plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria on plant hormone homeostasis. *S. Afr. J. Bot.* 113, 91–102. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2017.07.007

Upadhyay, S. K., Srivastava, A. K., Rajput, V. D., Chauhan, P. K., Bhojiya, A. A., Jain, D., et al. (2022). Root exudates: mechanistic insight of plant growth promoting Rhizobacteria for sustainable crop production. *Front. Microbiol.* 13:916488. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.916488

Valetti, L., Iriarte, L., and Fabra, A. (2018). Growth promotion of rapeseed (*Brassica napus*) associated with the inoculation of phosphate solubilizing bacteria. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 132, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.08.017

Vanstockem, M., Michiels, K., Vanderleyden, J., and Van Gool, A. P. (1987). Transposon mutagenesis of Azospirillum brasilense and *Azospirillum lipoferum*: physical analysis of Tn5 and Tn5-mob insertion mutants. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 53, 410–415. doi: 10.1128/aem.53.2.410-415.1987

Vives-Peris, V., de Ollas, C., Gómez-Cadenas, A., and Pérez-Clemente, R. M. (2020). Root exudates: from plant to rhizosphere and beyond. *Plant Cell Rep.* 39, 3–17. doi: 10.1007/s00299-019-02447-5

Vora, S. M., Joshi, P., Belwalkar, M., and Archana, G. (2021). Root exudates influence chemotaxis and colonization of diverse plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in the pigeon pea - maize intercropping system. *Rhizosphere* 18:100331. doi: 10.1016/j.rhisph.2021.100331

Wen, F., VanEtten, H. D., Tsaprailis, G., and Hawes, M. C. (2007). Extracellular proteins in pea root tip and border cell exudates. *Plant Physiol.* 143, 773–783. doi: 10.1104/pp.106.091637

Wichern, F., Eberhardt, E., Mayer, J., Joergensen, R. G., and Müller, T. (2008). Nitrogen rhizodeposition in agricultural crops: methods, estimates and future prospects. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 40, 30–48. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.08.010

Yadav, A., Saini, I., Kaushik, P., Ahmad Ansari, M., Rashid Khan, M., and Haq, N. (2021). Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and P-solubilizing Pseudomonas fluorescence (ATCC-17400) on morphological traits and mineral content of sesame. *Saudi J. Biolog. Sci.* 28, 2649–2654. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.03.024

Yu, C., Liu, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, M., Gu, Y., Ali, Q., et al. (2021). Mycosubtilin produced by *Bacillus subtilis* ATCC6633 inhibits growth and mycotoxin biosynthesis of fusarium graminearum and fusarium verticillioides. *Toxins* 13:791. doi: 10.3390/toxins13110791

Zhalnina, K., Louie, K. B., Hao, Z., Mansoori, N., da Rocha, U. N., Shi, S., et al. (2018). Dynamic root exudate chemistry and microbial substrate preferences drive patterns in rhizosphere microbial community assembly. *Nat. Microbiol.* 3, 470–480. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0129-3

Zou, M., Yu, K., Liu, H., Sheng, Q., and Zhang, Y. (2024). Effects of *Bacillus subtilis* on rose growth promotion and rhizosphere microbial community changes under saline-alkaline stress. *Agronomy* 14:730. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14040730