Biofertilizers are increasingly recognized for their potential to enhance sustainable agriculture; however, their effectiveness in crop production and their influence on soil microbial communities remain inadequately understood. This study investigated the effects of two commercial biofertilizers, including the mixed plant growth‐promoting microorganism (PGPM)‐based biofertilizer and the effective microorganism (EM)‐based biofertilizer, on okra ( Abelmoschus esculentus ) growth and the taxonomic and functional profiles of rhizospheric soil microbiota under acidic soil conditions. Soil samples were classified into four groups: (1) original soil prior to planting, (2) control soil with okra planting and no biofertilizer, (3) okra‐planted soil treated with the mixed PGPM‐based biofertilizer, and (4) okra‐planted soil treated with the EM‐based biofertilizer. Biofertilizer application significantly altered microbial community composition, increasing the number of unique genera, particularly in soils treated with the EM‐based biofertilizer. Nevertheless, core microbial phyla, including Acidobacteriota , Pseudomonadota , Chloroflexota , Actinomycetota , and Candidatus dormibacterota , remained dominant across treatments. Beta diversity analyses (PCoA and NMDS) revealed a clear separation between the original, control, and biofertilizer‐treated soils, with the first two principal coordinates explaining 80.87% of the total variance. Okra plants treated with the EM‐based biofertilizer exhibited significantly greater growth, with shoot and root dry weights increasing by 170.75% and 138.24%, respectively, compared to the control. Functional annotation via KEGG and EggNOG databases did not show notable enrichment in genes directly associated with plant growth promotion. However, a slight enrichment of polysaccharide lyase‐related genes was observed in both biofertilizer‐treated soils. Although KEGG level 3 analysis revealed unique functional genes in EM‐treated soil, these were not directly linked to known growth‐promoting microbes. Furthermore, the unique genera identified did not match those typically found in commercial biofertilizer formulations, despite the EM‐treated soil exhibiting the highest number of unique genera (259). These findings imply that the growth‐promoting effects of the EM‐based biofertilizer may arise from indirect mechanisms or synergistic microbial interactions, rather than the direct activity of inoculated strains. This study highlights the potential of EM‐based biofertilizers to improve crop performance in acidic soils and offers insights into their impact on rhizospheric microbial dynamics.
Kawicha et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: