Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health

Nature Reviews Microbiology volume 18, pages 607–621 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

An Author Correction to this article was published on 23 November 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Healthy plants host diverse but taxonomically structured communities of microorganisms, the plant microbiota, that colonize every accessible plant tissue. Plant-associated microbiomes confer fitness advantages to the plant host, including growth promotion, nutrient uptake, stress tolerance and resistance to pathogens. In this Review, we explore how plant microbiome research has unravelled the complex network of genetic, biochemical, physical and metabolic interactions among the plant, the associated microbial communities and the environment. We also discuss how those interactions shape the assembly of plant-associated microbiomes and modulate their beneficial traits, such as nutrient acquisition and plant health, in addition to highlighting knowledge gaps and future directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: General structure of the bacterial and fungal communities from various plant-associated niches.
Fig. 2: Plant colonization and microbiome assembly.
Fig. 3: Beneficial effects of the plant-associated microbiome.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Vandenkoornhuyse, P., Quaiser, A., Duhamel, M., Le Van, A. & Dufresne, A. The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. New Phytol. 206, 1196–1206 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lundberg, D. S. et al. Defining the core Arabidopsis thaliana root microbiome. Nature 488, 86–90 (2012). This is one of the first studies to use high-throughput sequencing to profile the plant-associated microbiota, suggesting compartment-specific assembly of microbial communities.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Vorholt, J. A. Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 828–840 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peiffer, J. A. et al. Diversity and heritability of the maize rhizosphere microbiome under field conditions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6548–6553 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ofek-Lalzar, M. et al. Niche and host-associated functional signatures of the root surface microbiome. Nat. Commun. 5, 4950 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bulgarelli, D. et al. Structure and function of the bacterial root microbiota in wild and domesticated barley. Cell Host Microbe 17, 392–403 (2015). In this study, shotgun metagenome analysis was used to elucidate the microbial traits involved in the bacterium–bacteriophage, interbacterial and host–bacterium interactions that govern plant colonization.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Edwards, J. et al. Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiomes of rice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E911–E920 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Zarraonaindia, I. et al. The soil microbiome influences grapevine-associated microbiota. mBio 6, e02527–14 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Coleman-Derr, D. et al. Plant compartment and biogeography affect microbiome composition in cultivated and native Agave species. New Phytol. 209, 798–811 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. De Souza, R. S. C. et al. Unlocking the bacterial and fungal communities assemblages of sugarcane microbiome. Sci. Rep. 6, 28774 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Fonseca-García, C. et al. The cacti microbiome: interplay between habitat-filtering and host-specificity. Front. Microbiol. 7, 150 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Fitzpatrick, C. R. et al. Assembly and ecological function of the root microbiome across angiosperm plant species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E1157–E1165 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamonts, K. et al. Field study reveals core plant microbiota and relative importance of their drivers. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 124–140 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Niu, B., Paulson, J. N., Zheng, X. & Kolter, R. Simplified and representative bacterial community of maize roots. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E2450–E2459 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Xu, J. et al. The structure and function of the global citrus rhizosphere microbiome. Nat. Commun. 9, 4894 (2018). This study presents one of the most comprehensive investigations on the structure and functional features of the microbiome associated with a particular plant species, identifying the core microbiota and functions that are persistently present at a global scale.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bergelson, J., Mittelstrass, J. & Horton, M. W. Characterizing both bacteria and fungi improves understanding of the Arabidopsis root microbiome. Sci. Rep. 9, 24 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wagner, M. R. et al. Host genotype and age shape the leaf and root microbiomes of a wild perennial plant. Nat. Commun. 7, 12151 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Roman-Reyn, V. et al. The rice leaf microbiome has a conserved community structure controlled by complex host-microbe. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/615278 (2019).

  19. Cregger, M. A. et al. The Populus holobiont: dissecting the effects of plant niches and genotype on the microbiome. Microbiome 6, 31 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lemanceau, P., Blouin, M., Muller, D. & Moënne-Loccoz, Y. Let the core microbiota be functional. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 583–595 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mendes, R., Garbeva, P. & Raaijmakers, J. M. The rhizosphere microbiome: significance of plant beneficial, plant pathogenic, and human pathogenic microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 634–663 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leach, J. E., Triplett, L. R., Argueso, C. T. & Trivedi, P. Communication in the phytobiome. Cell 169, 587–596 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Levy, A. et al. Genomic features of bacterial adaptation to plants. Nat. Genet. 50, 138–150 (2018). In this study, comparative genomics is used to identify the genes involved in bacterial adaptation to plants, including genes associated with plant colonization, microorganism–microorganism competition and host–microorganism interactions.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Delmotte, N. et al. Community proteogenomics reveals insights into the physiology of phyllosphere bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 16428–16433 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu, Z. et al. A genome-wide screen identifies genes in rhizosphere-associated Pseudomonas required to evade plant defenses. mBio 9, e00433-–18 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cole, B. J. et al. Genome-wide identification of bacterial plant colonization genes. PLoS Biol. 15, e2002860 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Richardson, A. E. & Simpson, R. J. Soil microorganisms mediating phosphorus availability update on microbial phosphorus. Plant Physiol. 156, 989–996 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Pieterse, C. M. et al. Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 52, 347–375 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Trivedi, P., Trivedi, C., Grinyer, J., Anderson, I. C. & Singh, B. K. Harnessing host-vector microbiome for sustainable plant disease management of phloem-limited bacteria. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1423 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Backer, R. et al. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: context, mechanisms of action, and roadmap to commercialization of biostimulants for sustainable agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1473 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Gouda, S. et al. Revitalization of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for sustainable development in agriculture. Microbiol. Res. 206, 131–140 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mendes, R. et al. Deciphering the rhizosphere microbiome for disease-suppressive bacteria. Science 332, 1097–1100 (2011). This study identifies vital bacterial groups and functional traits that are involved in building disease-suppressive soils, thus demonstrating that selective enrichment of microbial groups in response to pathogen attack protects plants against infections.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Santhanam, R., Weinhold, A., Goldberg, J., Oh, Y. & Baldwin, I. T. Native root-associated bacteria rescue a plant from a sudden-wilt disease that emerged during continuous cropping. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5013–E5020 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Trivedi, P. et al. Keystone microbial taxa regulate the invasion of a fungal pathogen in agro-ecosystems. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 111, 10–14 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ravanbakhsh, M., Kowalchuk, G. A. & Jousset, A. Root-associated microorganisms reprogram plant life history along the growth–stress resistance tradeoff. ISME J. 13, 3093–3101 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Xue, C. et al. Manipulating the banana rhizosphere microbiome for biological control of Panama disease. Sci. Rep. 5, 11124 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Castrillo, G. et al. Root microbiota drive direct integration of phosphate stress and immunity. Nature 543, 513–518 (2017). In this study, a synthetic microbial community is used to define the molecular interactions that activate a microbiome-mediated response under nutrient-deficient conditions while repressing host immune output, allowing selective microbial colonization.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang, J. et al. NRT1.1B is associated with root microbiota composition and nitrogen use in field-grown rice. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 676–684 (2019). This study demonstrates that slight variation in single plant genes can result in differential recruitment and enrichment of selected microbial groups and functions that correlate with higher nitrogen use efficiency of indica than of japonica varieties of rice.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Durán, P. et al. Microbial interkingdom interactions in roots promote Arabidopsis survival. Cell 175, 973–983 (2018). This study demonstrates that biocontrol traits of root-associated bacteria modulate interkingdom interactions between bacterial and filamentous eukaryotic microorganisms, resulting in a balanced plant–microbiome interaction that favours plant growth and survival against root-derived fungi and/or oomycetes.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Carlström, C. I. et al. Synthetic microbiota reveal priority effects and keystone strains in the Arabidopsis phyllosphere. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1445–1454 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Maignien, L., DeForce, E. A., Chafee, M. E., Eren, A. M. & Simmons, S. L. Ecological succession and stochastic variation in the assembly of Arabidopsis thaliana phyllosphere communities. mBio 5, e00682-13 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Bai, Y. et al. Functional overlap of the Arabidopsis leaf and root microbiota. Nature 528, 364–369 (2015). This study demonstrates a significant overlap between bacterial isolates from plant environments and their representation in culture-independent surveys, suggesting that a substantial proportion of the plant-associated microbiota is culturable.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Edwards, J. A. et al. Compositional shifts in root-associated bacterial and archaeal microbiota track the plant life cycle in field-grown rice. PLoS Biol. 16, e2003862 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Morella, N. M. et al. Successive passaging of a plant-associated microbiome reveals robust habitat and host genotype-dependent selection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 1148–1159 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Moissl-Eichinger, C. et al. Archaea are interactive components of complex microbiomes. Trends Microbiol. 26, 70–85 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Taffner, J. et al. What is the role of Archaea in plants? New insights from the vegetation of alpine bogs. MSphere 3, e00122-–18 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Taffner, J., Cernava, T., Erlacher, A. & Berg, G. Novel insights into plant-associated archaea and their functioning in arugula (Eruca sativa Mill.). J. Adv. Res. 19, 39–48 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Pratama, A. A. & van Elsas, J. D. The ‘neglected’ soil virome — potential role and impact. Trends Microbiol. 26, 649–662 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Trubl, G. et al. Soil viruses are underexplored players in ecosystem carbon processing. mSystems 3, e00076-18 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Morella, N. M., Gomez, A. L., Wang, G., Leung, M. S. & Koskella, B. The impact of bacteriophages on phyllosphere bacterial abundance and composition. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2025–2038 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Castillo, J. D., Vivanco, J. M. & Manter, D. K. Bacterial microbiome and nematode occurrence in different potato agricultural soils. Microb. Ecol. 74, 888–900 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Elhady, A. et al. Microbiomes associated with infective stages of root-knot and lesion nematodes in soil. PLoS ONE 12, e0177145 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Treonis, A. M. et al. Characterization of soil nematode communities in three cropping systems through morphological and DNA metabarcoding approaches. Sci. Rep. 8, 2004 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Gao, Z., Karlsson, I., Geisen, S., Kowalchuk, G. & Jousset, A. Protists: puppet masters of the rhizosphere microbiome. Trends Plant Sci. 24, 165–176 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Larousse, M. & Galiana, E. Microbial partnerships of pathogenic oomycetes. PLoS Pathog. 13, e1006028 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Ploch, S. & Thines, M. Obligate biotrophic pathogens of the genus Albugo are widespread as asymptomatic endophytes in natural populations of Brassicaceae. Mol. Ecol. 20, 3692–3699 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Benhamou, N. et al. Pythium oligandrum: an example of opportunistic success. Microbiol 158, 2679–2694 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Sapp, M., Ploch, S., Fiore-Donno, A. M., Bonkowski, M. & Rose, L. E. Protists are an integral part of the Arabidopsis thaliana microbiome. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 30–43 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Astudillo-García, C. et al. Evaluating the core microbiota in complex communities: a systematic investigation. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 1450–1462 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Yeoh, Y. K. et al. Evolutionary conservation of a core root microbiome across plant phyla along a tropical soil chronosequence. Nat. Commun. 8, 215 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Garrido-Oter, R. et al. Modular traits of the rhizobiales root microbiota and their evolutionary relationship with symbiotic rhizobia. Cell Host Microbe 24, 155–167 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Agler, M. T. et al. Microbial hub taxa link host and abiotic factors to plant microbiome variation. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002352 (2016). This study demonstrates the presence of highly interconnected ‘hub species’ in microbial networks that act as mediators between a host and its associated microbiome.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Muller, E. E. et al. Using metabolic networks to resolve ecological properties of microbiomes. Curr. Opin. Sys. Biol. 8, 73–80 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Röttjers, L. & Faust, K. From hairballs to hypotheses — biological insights from microbial networks. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 42, 761–780 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Shade, A., Jacques, M. A. & Barret, M. Ecological patterns of seed microbiome diversity, transmission, and assembly. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 37, 15–22 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Gloria, T. C. et al. Functional microbial features driving community assembly during seed germination and emergence. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 902 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Wei, Z. et al. Initial soil microbiome composition and functioning predetermine future plant health. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw0759 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Tian, B. et al. Beneficial traits of bacterial endophytes belonging to the core communities of the tomato root microbiome. Agric. Ecosys. Env. 247, 149–156 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lau, J. A. & Lennon, J. T. Rapid responses of soil microorganisms improve plant fitness in novel environments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 109, 14058–14062 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Gehring, C. A., Sthultz, C. M., Flores-Rentería, L., Whipple, A. V. & Whitham, T. G. Tree genetics defines fungal partner communities that may confer drought tolerance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11169–11174 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Zhang, Y. et al. Huanglongbing impairs the rhizosphere-to-rhizoplane enrichment process of the citrus root-associated microbiome. Microbiome 5, 97 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Knief, C. et al. Metaproteogenomic analysis of microbial communities in the phyllosphere and rhizosphere of rice. ISME J. 6, 1378–1390 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Jiménez Bremont, J. F. et al. Physiological and molecular implications of plant polyamine metabolism during biotic interactions. Front. Plant Sci. 5, 95 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Busk, P. K. & Lange, L. Classification of fungal and bacterial lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases. BMC Genomics 16, 368 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Trivedi, P., Anderson, I. C. & Singh, B. K. Microbial modulators of soil carbon storage: integrating genomic and metabolic knowledge for global prediction. Trends Microbiol. 21, 641–651 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Jiang, X. et al. Impact of spatial organization on a novel auxotrophic interaction among soil microbes. ISME J. 12, 1443–1456 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Blair, P. M. et al. Exploration of the biosynthetic potential of the Populus microbiome. mSystems 3, e00045–18 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Sessitsch, A. et al. Functional characteristics of an endophyte community colonizing rice roots as revealed by metagenomic analysis. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 25, 28–36 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Han, G. Z. Origin and evolution of the plant immune system. New Phytol. 222, 70–83 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Eitas, T. K. & Dangl, J. L. NB-LRR proteins: pairs, pieces, perception, partners, and pathways. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 13, 472–477 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Hardoim, P. R. et al. The hidden world within plants: ecological and evolutionary considerations for defining functioning of microbial endophytes. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 79, 293–320 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. McCann, H. C. et al. Origin and evolution of the kiwifruit canker pandemic. Genome Biol. Evol. 9, 932–944 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Berendsen, R. L. et al. Disease-induced assemblage of a plant-beneficial bacterial consortium. ISME J. 12, 1496–1507 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Kwak, M. J. et al. Rhizosphere microbiome structure alters to enable wilt resistance in tomato. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 1100–1109 (2018). This study demonstrates that the disease resistance traits of plant varieties are conferred by selective assembly of a native microbiota to rescue a plant from fungal invasion.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Mendes, L. W., Raaijmakers, J. M., de Hollander, M., Mendes, R. & Tsai, S. M. Influence of resistance breeding in common bean on rhizosphere microbiome composition and function. ISME J. 12, 212–224 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Carrión, V. J. et al. Pathogen-induced activation of disease-suppressive functions in the endophytic root microbiome. Science 366, 606–612 (2019). This study demonstrates a microbiome-mediated, multitiered defence system against fungal pathogens, in which the first defence layer is formed by the rhizosphere microbiota; any subsequent attempt to colonize the plant root activates a second layer of defence through plant endophytes that produce antifungal compounds, including effectors, enzymes and antibiotics.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Helfrich, E. J. et al. Bipartite interactions, antibiotic production and biosynthetic potential of the Arabidopsis leaf microbiome. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 909–919 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Rutherford, S. T. & Bassler, B. L. Bacterial quorum sensing: its role in virulence and possibilities for its control. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2, a012427 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Hartmann, A. & Schikora, A. Plant responses to bacterial quorum sensing molecules. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 643 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Mousa, W. K. et al. Root-hair endophyte stacking in finger millet creates a physicochemical barrier to trap the fungal pathogen Fusarium graminearum. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16167 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Trivedi, P., Spann, T. & Wang, N. Isolation and characterization of beneficial bacteria associated with citrus roots in Florida. Microb. Ecol. 62, 324–336 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Chagas, F. O. et al. Chemical signaling involved in plant–microbe interactions. Chem. Soc. Rev. 47, 1652–1704 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Schmidt, R. et al. Fungal volatile compounds induce production of the secondary metabolite Sodorifen in Serratia plymuthica PRI-2C. Sci. Rep. 7, 862 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Korenblum, E. et al. Rhizosphere microbiome mediates systemic root metabolite exudation by root-to-root signaling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 3874–3883 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Russell, A. B., Peterson, S. B. & Mougous, J. D. Type VI secretion system effectors: poisons with a purpose. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 137–148 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Bernal, P., Llamas, M. A., Filloux, A. & Type, V. I. Secretion systems in plant-associated bacteria. Environ. Microbiol. 201, 15–72 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Speare, L. et al. Bacterial symbionts use a type VI secretion system to eliminate competitors in their natural host. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E8528–E8537 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Vorholt, J. A., Vogel, C., Carlström, C. I. & Mueller, D. B. Establishing causality: opportunities of synthetic communities for plant microbiome research. Cell Host Microbe 22, 142–155 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Cordovez, V., Dini-Andreote, F., Carrión, V. J. & Raaijmakers, J. M. Ecology and evolution of plant microbiomes. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 73, 69–88 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Hestrin, R., Hammer, E. C., Mueller, C. W. & Lehmann, J. Synergies between mycorrhizal fungi and soil microbial communities increase plant nitrogen acquisition. Commun. Biol. 2, 233 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Averill, C., Bhatnagar, J. M., Pearse, W. D. & Kivlin, S. N. Global imprint of mycorrhizal fungi on whole-plant nutrient economics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23163–23168 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Lu, T. et al. Rhizosphere microorganisms can influence the timing of plant flowering. Microbiome 6, 231 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Bodenhausen, K. et al. Petunia- and Arabidopsis-specific root microbiota responses to phosphate supplementation. Phytobiomes J. 3, 112–124 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Almario, J. et al. Root-associated fungal microbiota of nonmycorrhizal Arabis alpina and its contribution to plant phosphorus nutrition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E9403–E9412 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Hacquard, S. et al. Survival trade-offs in plant roots during colonization by closely related beneficial and pathogenic fungi. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–13 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Voges, M. J., Bai, Y., Schulze-Lefert, P. & Sattely, E. S. Plant-derived coumarins shape the composition of an Arabidopsis synthetic root microbiome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 12558–12565 (2019). This study demonstrates that the production of secondary metabolites produced by plants under stress conditions acts as a signalling mechanism to sculpt the rhizosphere microbiome.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Stringlis, I. A. et al. MYB72-dependent coumarin exudation shapes root microbiome assembly to promote plant health. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E5213–E5222 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Martínez-Medina, A., Van Wees, S. C. & Pieterse, C. M. Airborne signals from Trichoderma fungi stimulate iron uptake responses in roots resulting in priming of jasmonic acid-dependent defenses in shoots of Arabidopsis thaliana and Solanum lycopersicum. Plant Cell Env. 40, 2691–2705 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  109. Penton, C. R. et al. Fungal community structure in disease suppressive soils assessed by 28S LSU gene sequencing. PLoS ONE 9, e93893 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Cha, J. Y. et al. Microbial and biochemical basis of a Fusarium wilt-suppressive soil. ISME J. 10, 119–129 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Hol, W. G. et al. Non-random species loss in bacterial communities reduces antifungal volatile production. Ecology 96, 2042–2048 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Carrión, V. J. et al. Involvement of Burkholderiaceae and sulfurous volatiles in disease-suppressive soils. ISME J. 12, 2307–2321 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Chialva, M. et al. Native soils with their microbiotas elicit a state of alert in tomato plants. New Phytol. 220, 1296–1308 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Peralta, A. L., Sun, Y., McDaniel, M. D. & Lennon, J. T. Crop rotational diversity increases disease suppressive capacity of soil microbiomes. Ecosphere 9, e02235 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Kesten, C. et al. Pathogen-induced pH changes regulate the growth–defense balance of plants. EMBO J. 16, e101822550491 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  116. Yuan, J. et al. Root exudates drive the soil-borne legacy of aboveground pathogen infection. Microbiome 6, 56 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  117. Hu, L. et al. Root exudate metabolites drive plant-soil feedbacks on growth and defense by shaping the rhizosphere microbiota. Nat. Commun. 9, 2738 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Kong, H. G., Song, G. C. & Ryu, C. M. Inheritance of seed and rhizosphere microbial communities through plant–soil feedback and soil memory. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 11, 479–486 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Fitzpatrick, C. R., Mustafa, Z. & Viliunas, J. Soil microbes alter plant fitness under competition and drought. J. Evol. Biol. 32, 438–450 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Eida, A. A. et al. Desert plant bacteria reveal host influence and beneficial plant growth properties. PLoS ONE 13, e0208223 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Naylor, D. & Coleman-Derr, D. Drought stress and root-associated bacterial communities. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 2223 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Xu, L. et al. Drought delays development of the sorghum root microbiome and enriches for monoderm bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E4284–E4293 (2018). Using a multi-‘omics’ approach, this study demonstrates selective enrichment of monoderms (bacteria with a thick cell wall) that possess transporters connected with specialized metabolites produced by plants under drought stress.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Timm, C. M. et al. Abiotic stresses shift belowground Populus-associated bacteria toward a core stress microbiome. mSystems 3, e00070-17 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Wagner, M. R. et al. Natural soil microbes alter flowering phenology and the intensity of selection on flowering time in a wild Arabidopsis relative. Ecol. Lett. 17, 717–726 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Ravanbakhsh, M., Sasidharan, R., Voesenek, L. A., Kowalchuk, G. A. & Jousset, A. Microbial modulation of plant ethylene signaling: ecological and evolutionary consequences. Microbiome 6, 52 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Giauque, H., Connor, E. W. & Hawkes, C. V. Endophyte traits relevant to stress tolerance, resource use and habitat of origin predict effects on host plants. New Phytol. 221, 2239–2249 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Kudjordjie, E. N., Sapkota, R., Steffensen, S. K., Fomsgaard, I. S. & Nicolaisen, M. Maize synthesized benzoxazinoids affect the host associated microbiome. Microbiome 7, 59 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Zhalnina, K. et al. Dynamic root exudate chemistry and microbial substrate preferences drive patterns in rhizosphere microbial community assembly. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 470 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Huang, A. C. et al. A specialized metabolic network selectively modulates Arabidopsis root microbiota. Science 364, eaau6389 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. McCann, H. C., Nahal, H., Thakur, S. & Guttman, D. S. Identification of innate immunity elicitors using molecular signatures of natural selection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 4215–4220 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Hacquard, S., Spaepen, S., Garrido-Oter, R. & Schulze-Lefert, P. Interplay between innate immunity and the plant microbiota. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 55, 565–589 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Chen, H. et al. One-time nitrogen fertilization shifts switchgrass soil microbiomes within a context of larger spatial and temporal variation. PLoS ONE 14, e0211310 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Trivedi, P. et al. Soil aggregation and associated microbial communities modify the impact of agricultural management on carbon content. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 3070–3086 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Hartman, K. et al. Cropping practices manipulate abundance patterns of root and soil microbiome members paving the way to smart farming. Microbiome 6, 14 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Banerjee, S. et al. Agricultural intensification reduces microbial network complexity and the abundance of keystone taxa in roots. ISME J. 13, 1722–1736 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

P.T and J.E.L. were partially supported by funding from Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station; S.G.T. works at the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute and is supported by contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231; B.K.S. is supported by the Australian Research Council (DP170104634). T.S. is supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (2015R1A2A1A05001885).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Microbiome Network and Department of Agricultural Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Pankaj Trivedi & Jan E. Leach

  2. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Susannah G. Tringe

  3. Department of Environmental and Biological Chemistry, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea

    Tongmin Sa

  4. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith South, NSW, Australia

    Brajesh K. Singh

  5. Global Centre for Land Based Innovation, Western Sydney University, Penrith South, NSW, Australia

    Brajesh K. Singh

Authors
  1. Pankaj Trivedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan E. Leach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susannah G. Tringe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tongmin Sa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brajesh K. Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

P.T. researched data for the article. P.T., J.E.L., S.G.T., T.S. and B.K.S. contributed substantially to the discussion of the content. P.T., J.E.L., S.G.T., T.S. and B.K.S. wrote the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pankaj Trivedi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Glossary

Holobiont

A plant and the members of its associated microbiota considered as a single entity; this represents the ‘unit of selection’ at which plant–microbiome interactions have probably co-evolved in order to maintain host functionality and fitness over ecological and even evolutionary timescales.

Core microbiota

The group of microorganisms commonly found within a microbiota; recurrence of an association between microorganisms is used as the criterion to select the microorganisms that potentially provide critical functions within the habitat in which they are found.

Genome-wide association studies

(GWASs). A method to survey entire genomes of the genetic variants of many individuals for genetic polymorphisms, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, that are associated with a particular trait.

Multi-‘omics’

An approach (also known as integrative omics) to combine sets of different omic groups — such as the genome, proteome, transcriptome and metabolome — to study biological entities in a concerted way.

Microeukaryotes

Any microscopic eukaryotes, mainly protists, fungi, nematodes and small zooplankton.

Synthetic communities

(SynComs). Communities that comprise individually isolated microorganisms for controlled studies of microbial communities.

Rhizosphere

The region of soil in the vicinity of plant roots that is influenced by plant-derived nutrients and oxygen availability; it is not a region of definable size or shape, but instead consists of a gradient in chemical, biological and physical properties that change both radially and longitudinally along the root.

Endophytes

The microorganisms residing within plant tissues (the endosphere), such as leaves, roots or stems.

Phyllosphere

All the aboveground organs of plants, including the leaf, flower, stem and fruit.

Hub microorganisms

Microbial groups that are substantially more connected within a co-occurrence network than other groups on the basis of centrality measurements, such as degree, between-ness centrality and closeness centrality.

Keystone species

Highly connected microbial taxa that individually or in a guild show great explanatory power for network structure and functioning, irrespective of their abundance; not all hub species are keystone species, as a high number of direct correlations (a requirement for hubs) is not a requirement for keystone species.

Chemotaxis

Movement of organisms in response to a chemical stimulus in the direction of a higher concentration of beneficial substances or a lower concentration of toxins.

Plant exudates

Complex mixtures of soluble organic substances — which may contain sugars, amino acids, organic acids, enzymes and other substances — that are secreted by living plants, along with microbially modified products of these substances.

Biofilm

An assemblage of microbial cells that is irreversibly associated with a surface and is enclosed in a matrix of primarily polysaccharide material.

Carbohydrate-active enzymes

Enzymes involved in the biosynthesis, modification, binding and breakdown of carbohydrates.

Siderophores

Low-molecular-weight organic chelators with a very high and specific affinity for ferric iron, which scavenge iron from the environment and make the element available to microbial cells and/or a plant host.

Effector proteins

Proteins produced by plant-associated microorganisms that modify plant functioning in order to promote microbial colonization.

Quorum sensing

Population-density-dependent regulation of gene expression, mediated by the production of signal molecules called autoinducers.

Carotenoid

An organic pigment produced by plants, algae and several groups of bacteria and fungi.

Induced systemic resistance

(ISR). A physiological ‘state of enhanced defensive capacity’ of the entire plant against diverse pathogens and herbivores that is induced by local stimulation through beneficial microorganisms.

Phytobiome

Plants, their environment and all microorganisms and macroorganisms living in, on or around the plants.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trivedi, P., Leach, J.E., Tringe, S.G. et al. Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health. Nat Rev Microbiol 18, 607–621 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0412-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0412-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing