A growing body of evidence demonstrates the potential of various microbes to enhance plant productivity in cropping systems although their successful field application may be impaired by several biotic and abiotic constraints. In the present work, we aimed at developing multifunctional synthetic microbial consortia to be used in combination with suitable bioactive compounds for improving crop yield and quality. Plant growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPMs) with different functional attributes were identified by a bottom-up approach. A comprehensive literature survey on PGPMs associated with maize, wheat, potato and tomato, and on commercial formulations, was conducted by examining peer-reviewed scientific publications and results from relevant European projects. Metagenome fragment recruitments on genomes of potential PGPMs represented in databases were also performed to help identify plant growth-promoting (PGP) strains. Following evidence of their ability to coexist, isolated PGPMs were synthetically assembled into three different microbial consortia. Additionally, the effects of bioactive compounds on the growth of individually PGPMs were tested in starvation conditions. The different combination products based on microbial and non-microbial biostimulants (BS) appear worth considering for greenhouse and open field trials to select those potentially adoptable in sustainable agriculture.

In the European Union and worldwide there are a burgeoning markets for plant growth promoting microorganisms (PGPM) and other biological agents as soil improvers, bio-fertilizers, plant bio-stimulants, and biological control agents or bio-pesticides. Microbial agents have a major share in this development. The use of such products is often advertised with the promise of contributing to sustainable agricultural practices by increasing crop growth and yield and offering an alternative or substitute to decrease the dependency of agriculture on hazardeous agrochemicals. In contrast to registered microbial plant protection products, PGPM that are marketed in the EU as soil improvers or plant biostimulants, are not strictly required to have proven minimum efficacy levels under field conditions. Manufacturers only have to ensure that these products do not pose unacceptable risks to human, animal or plant health, safety or the environment. Uniform guidelines comparable to the EPPO - standards (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation) to test the efficacy in field trials are not available. This paper attempts to fill the gap. It proposes guidelines for PGPM field trial design and implementation, as well as recommendations for the type and scope of data collection and evaluation. Selected research papers from literature were evaluated to analyze, whether and to what extent the requirements are already met. The majority of the papers had a clear experimental design followed by proper data evaluation. Frequent deficiencies were the low number of tested environments and crop species, insufficient site and agronomic management description and missing data on soil humidity and temperature. Using the suggested standards is assumed to increase the expressive power of tested microbial products.

In East Africa, smallholder farmers produce rainfed lowland rice mainly in floodplains. Low nitrogen contents of the predominant Fluvisols and highly variable hydrological conditions result in low yields and large yield variations, and hence, result in high production risks for farmers. We investigated crop management strategies aimed at increasing yield and reducing yield variability. The field trials were carried out in the Kilombero floodplain near Ifakara in Tanzania, in three hydrological zones (potentially drought-prone fringe, favorable middle and submergence-prone center positions) over three years. The study compared farmers’ management practices (no field levelling and bunding, no fertilizer input), with the effect of bunding and levelling alone, or in combination with mineral N use at 0 (bunding), 60 (recommended rate) and 120 kg + 60 kg PK ha⁻¹ (attainable yield). Rice mean grain yields (averaged over the four treatments) were higher in the fringe (6.5 t ha⁻¹) and the middle (5.7 t ha⁻¹) than in the center positions (4.6 t ha⁻¹). Farmers’ practice resulted in lowest yield (3.0 t ha⁻¹) and highest yield variability, with an adjusted coefficient of variation (aCV) of up to 91% between fields, years and positions. Simple bunding of the plots and field levelling increased yields by 40% above farmers’ practice, particularly in the fringe and middle positions, while reducing yield variation (aCV of 36–61%). Mineral N application resulted in the highest yields (7.0 t ha⁻¹) and further reduced yield variation (aCV of 14–27%). However, only in bunded fields of the floodplain fringe rice could benefit from N application beyond 60 kg ha⁻¹, while mineral N use efficiency was lower in middle and center positions. Improved crop management options are most beneficial in floodplain fringe positions, where they can increase yields and reduce production risks. Due to low yield, high production risks and poor responsiveness to management interventions, the center may be taken out of rice production and could be considered for future use as protection zones.

To meet the growing rice demand in Africa, gaps between actual and attainable yields have to be reduced. In Tanzania, this particularly concerns smallholder rain-fed production systems in the floodplains. After quantifying the existing yield gaps, key contributing factors need to be analyzed to improve site-specific management. Field experiments were conducted for three years and in three pedo-hydrological environments (fringe, middle, and center positions) of the Kilombero floodplain to evaluate: (1) The grain yield under farmers’ management (actual yield), (2) yield with the best-recommended management (attainable yield), and (3) the non-limited yield simulated by the APSIM model (potential yield). In the field, we additionally assessed incremental effects of (1) field bunding and soil levelling, (2 and 3) additionally applying of 60 kg N ha⁻¹, as urea or as farmyard manure (FYM), and (4 and 5) incorporating in-situ-grown leguminous green manures. Attainable yields were determined with mineral N application at 120 kg ha⁻¹, additional PK fertilizer and supplemental irrigation. On average across years and positions, the potential, the attainable, and farmers’ actual yields were 11.5, 8.5, and 2.8 t ha⁻¹ indicating a high total yield gap. About 16–38%, 11–20%, and 28–42% of this gap could be attributed to non-controllable yield-reducing (i.e., pest and diseases), yield-limiting (i.e., water and nutrient deficiencies), and yield-defining factors (i.e., poor soil and crop management), respectively. Results indicate a closure of the exploitable yield gap (differences between attainable and farmers’ actual yields) by up to 6.5 t ha⁻¹ (nearly 60% of the potential yield). This exploitable yield gap was larger in 2016 than in 2017. Also, the gap was larger in the water-limited fringe and middle than in the frequently submerged center positions. Simple field bunds combined with land levelling could close 15–35% of the exploitable yield gap, depending on field positions and year. FYM or green manures were less effective than mineral N; however, in 2017 and in the wetter middle and center positions, they reduced the yield gap by >50%. We conclude that yield gaps in rainfed rice in Kilombero floodplain are large, but that a site- and system-specific adaptation of crop management can close much of the exploitable yield gap and increase grain yields by 0.7–4.8 t ha⁻¹. Similar benefits may be obtained in other hydrologically variable floodplain environments of the region and beyond.