Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Microorganisms
This content is subject to copyright.
Academic Editors: Yelizaveta
Chernysh, Hynek Roubík and
Tsuyoshi Imai
Received: 7 March 2025
Revised: 25 March 2025
Accepted: 27 March 2025
Published: 31 March 2025
Citation: Gutiérrez-Benicio, G.M.;
Aguirre-Mancilla, C.L.; Arreola-
Tostado, J.M.; Aguado-Santacruz, G.A.
Growth, Health, Quality, and
Production of Onions (Allium cepa L.)
Inoculated with Systemic Biological
Products. Microorganisms 2025,13, 797.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
microorganisms13040797
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
Growth, Health, Quality, and Production of Onions
(Allium cepa L.) Inoculated with Systemic Biological Products
Glenda Margarita Gutiérrez-Benicio 1, César Leobardo Aguirre-Mancilla 1, * , Jesús Manuel Arreola-Tostado 2
and Gerardo Armando Aguado-Santacruz 2, 3, *
1Tecnológico Nacional de México/IT de Roque, Km 8 Carretera Celaya–Juventino Rosas, Celaya 38110,
Guanajuato, Mexico
2BIOqualitum, Oriente 7 # 158, Ciudad Industrial, Celaya 38010, Guanajuato, Mexico
3Campo Experimental Bajío, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias,
Km 6.5 Carretera Celaya-San Miguel de Allende, Celaya 38110, Guanajuato, Mexico
*Correspondence: cesar.am@roque.tecnm.mx (C.L.A.-M.); direccion@bioqualitum.com (G.A.A.-S.);
Tel.: +52-461-206-7629 (G.A.A.-S.)
Abstract: The efficiency and consistency of biologicals in the field remain a drawback
of current conventional products. The development of systemic biological products has
opened a new avenue for microbiological and agricultural research. In this study, we
evaluated over a two-year period (2022 and 2023) the functioning of two systemic products,
a biofertilizer and biofungicide, on the performance of the onion. The first indicator of
proper functioning of these products in onions was reflected in increased chlorophyll
accumulation. At the end of both years, the inoculated plants were taller, heavier, and
developed more leaves than their control counterparts (p< 0.5). Inoculated onion bulbs
collected at harvest time were significantly heavier (45.1% in 2022 and 56.2% in 2023)
than their non-inoculated counterparts (p< 0.5). Onion quality, expressed in terms of
total soluble solids and pyruvic acid content, was also significantly improved in plants
inoculated with the biological products; the two-year average values for these quality
variables were 10.2 vs. 14.4
◦
Brix and 2.3 vs. 4.0
µ
mol
·
g
−1
for control and biologically
treated plants, respectively. The two-year average fungal incidence was 1.9 times greater in
the control group than in the inoculated plants, while the average onion yield for this period
was 44.7% higher (p< 0.5) in the biologically treated plot (54.7 t
·
ha
−1
) than in the control
one (37.8 t
·
ha
−1
). Based on comparisons with previous studies employing conventional
biologicals, our results demonstrate the superior effectiveness of the systemic biologicas in
improving onion performance.
Keywords: onion; systemic biofertilizer; systemic biofungicide; yield; quality; endophyte;
Pseudomonas fluorescens;Azospirillum sp.
1. Introduction
The onion (Allium cepa L.) is an economically important vegetable grown worldwide,
including Mexico. It belongs to the Amaryllidaceae family and is native to Asia [
1
]. This
vegetable is cultivated to obtain fresh and processed products, including medicinal ones.
It is a hardy, bulbous winter plant, which is grown annually for bulb production and
biennially for seed production. The onion contains carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals,
antioxidants, and essential oils [
2
,
3
]. Although white, red, and yellow onions are available,
the latter make up 75% of all cultivated onions in the world. Onion cultivation is practiced
worldwide with an estimated area of 4.5 million hectares and a production of 92.1 million
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13040797
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 2 of 15
tons; the world average yield is 19.3 tons per hectare [
4
]. India, China, the USA, Egypt,
and Turkey are the top five onion-producing countries in the world [
5
]. Although India
is the largest onion producer, its productivity lags behind as the Republic of Korea has
the highest onion productivity in the world (79.6 t
·
ha
−1
) followed by the United States
(71.1 t
·
ha
−1
) [
6
]. In Uzbekistan, a number of farmers are currently obtaining greater onion
yields through the creation of new high-yielding onion varieties suitable for cultivation at
different times and the use of improved technologies for growing from seeds, seedlings, and
sprouts, in particular, water-saving technologies such as the drip and sprinkler irrigation
systems, achieving record yields of up to 150 t
·
ha
−1
[
4
]. Mexico’s onion production in
2023 was 1,800,000 tons. This country is the world’s leading producer of fresh onions,
with this agricultural crop being the fifth most important vegetable in the country. On the
other hand, China is the world’s leading producer of dehydrated onions [
7
]. In Mexico,
80% of the onion crop is grown under irrigation, while the remaining 20% is rainfed. The
average yield of onion in this country is around 31 t
·
ha
−1
[
8
]. Key challenges in onion
cultivation in Mexico and worldwide include optimizing fertilization (formula, quantity,
timing, and profitability) and implementing effective disease and pest control strategies [
9
].
To improve the profitability of onion production, farmers have been using high quantities
of agrochemicals, especially since the Green Revolution establishment in the late 1960s,
when farmers began incorporating new technologies such as high-yielding varieties of
cereals and the widespread adoption of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and controlled
irrigation [10].
The sharp rise in the prices of agricultural inputs and the growing interest of society
in consuming healthier foods produced with reduced environmental impact have forced
the search for new farming alternatives [
11
]. Consequently, there is growing interest in
producing our agricultural foods with minimal amounts of synthetic chemicals considering
alternative nutrient sources such as manure, composts, worm fertilizers or biofertilizers,
and botanical products or biopesticides to control diseases and pests [
11
,
12
]. In this context,
the use of biological products is expected to contribute to a more profitable, healthier, and
ecological agriculture. Despite the widely reported potential of biological products to
increase crop quality and production, reports on the efficacy of biological products are not
always conclusive due to the numerous plant and soil factors that affect the functioning of
microorganisms in agricultural ecosystems, and issues related to the quality of biological
products manufactured [
12
,
13
]. Systemic biological products offer a new, more efficient,
and powerful alternative to conventional biologicals, because in these products, the mi-
croorganisms can penetrate plants via the stomata and reside within the internal tissues
of plants, where they are less affected by biotic or abiotic environmental factors. At the
same time, the beneficial activities of the microorganisms are more direct, consistent, and
effective [
11
,
14
,
15
]. Consequently, systemic biological products have a more significant
effect on the production and quality of crops [11,14,15].
This is particularly evident in crops like onions, in which plants have poorly devel-
oped and shallow root systems and, consequently, are very sensitive to nutrient scarcity.
Moreover, the root system of the plants is ineffective at absorbing immobile nutrients
such as P, K, and some micronutrients [
16
]. Accordingly, onion crops have been shown
to respond positively to conventional biofertilizers and organic fertilizers [
12
,
17
,
18
]. As-
suming that conventional biological products are manufactured in compliance with basic
standards of quality, the consistency and reliability of these products remain a challenge
to be solved [
13
,
19
,
20
]. In 2010, our research group developed a novel technology called
“Micro In”, which enables the introduction of beneficial microorganisms into plants via the
stomata, making the employment of microorganisms in agriculture a more efficient and
reliable tool for increasing the productivity and quality of crops. Products derived from this
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 3 of 15
technology are called ‘systemic biological products’ [
14
]. We introduced the term ‘systemic
biological products’ in analogy with systemic agrochemicals. For example, in a systemic
chemical insecticide, the active compounds applied to plants are absorbed and translocated
into other parts of the plants through the vascular system, making these parts toxic to cer-
tain insects [
21
]. A systemic chemical herbicide kills the entire plant by spreading gradually
throughout its vascular system, from either foliar application down through the plant, or
soil application up towards the leaves [
22
]. Therefore, as we stated, a systemic biological
product allows the introduction of beneficial microorganisms inside plants via plant stom-
ata from where the microorganisms are transported to the vascular bundles and then to
the entire plant [
11
]. Compared with conventional biological products, several advantages
of systemic biologicals have been delineated [
14
]. The interior of plant tissues provides a
more favorable environment for the survival and proliferation of plant growth-promoting
microorganisms. Additionally, the beneficial activities of these microorganisms are more
efficient and consistent because the active compounds that promote growth and health of
the plants do not suffer losses (as happens, for example, in the case of nitrogen fixation
and hormone production in the rhizosphere) and act more directly on plant metabolism
(e.g., hormones, volatile compounds, ACC deaminase, antibiotics, and HCN). Additional
advantages of systemic and endophytic microorganisms have been mentioned by other
authors [
11
,
23
,
24
]. Therefore, the objective of this research was to evaluate the effects of
using two systemic products, a biofertilizer and a biofungicide/biofertilizer, on the health,
quality, and yield of onion over two growing cycles.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
This study was conducted over a two-year period (2022 and 2023) in San Juan de
la Vega, Municipality of Celaya, Guanajuato, Mexico (20
◦
39
′
25
′′
N; 100
◦
46
′
22
′′
W), at
an altitude of 1750 m.a.s.l. The soils present at this site are classified as Vertisols [
25
],
which are dark soils with a high content of organic matter and naturally fertile. The white
onion cultivar used in this investigation was ‘Carta Blanca’ (a hybrid, short-day variety of
onion developed by the INIFAP, National Institute for Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock
Research), with a seeding rate of 300,000 plants per hectare spaced 30 cm between rows and
10 cm between plants [
26
]. The onion seedlings were transplanted from the greenhouse
trays to the field in October, while the onion plants were harvested in January in both
study years.
In 2022, the annual rainfall was 480.2 mm (51.5 mm during the onion growing cycle),
while the average temperature ranged from 15.5
◦
C in December to 23.4
◦
C in May. In
2023, the annual rainfall was 453.3 mm (113.5 mm during the onion cycle), and the average
temperature ranged from 14.4 ◦C in December to 24.9 ◦C in June (Figure 1).
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 4 of 15
Microorganisms 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
Figure 1. Climographs of San Juan de la Vega, Guanajuato, Mexico, showing the precipitation (bars)
and the average temperature (line) during the years of 2022 and 2023.
2.2. Experimental Treatments
In this research, we evaluated the functioning of two commercial systemic biological
products (BactoCROP
®
, a biofertilizer; and Trichonator
®
, a biofungicide/biofertilizer) dis-
tributed by the company BIOqualitum (www.bioqualitum.com; patent 328184) on the
growth, quality, and yield of the onion (cultivar ‘Carta Blanca’). BactoCROP
®
contains
Pseudomonas fluorescens, Azospirillum brasilense, and Bacillus subtilis as active ingredients
(all of them at a minimum concentration of 1 × 10
8
UFC), whereas Trichonator
®
contains
four different Trichoderma species (Trichoderma viridae, T. harzianum, T. koningii, and T.
hamatum), each formulated at a minimum concentration of 1 × 10
8
UFC.
These systemic biological products also include minimal concentrations of some
other nutrients contained in the organic vehicle employed for their formulation (Table 1).
Both products were applied for two consecutive years (2002 and 2023) during the growing
cycle of onion. Every year, three applications of BactoCROP
®
and Trichonator
®
were used
in the one-hectare experimental plot. Both biologicals were additionally applied on the
experimental plot in addition to the local conventional crop management; with the excep-
tion of the chemical fungicide (methyl thiophanate) normally used by the farmers, which
was excluded from the experimental plot. A neighboring (control) plot of the same dimen-
sion was managed conventionally, following the complete application program of chem-
ical products normally employed by the local farmers.
The first application of the two biologicals was performed at sowing, when seeds
were placed 1.5 cm deep in 338-cavity greenhouse trays; 3.0 kg of BactoCROP
®
and 1 kg
of Trichonator
®
were dissolved in 600 L of water and then sprinkled on 900 greenhouse
trays using a backpack sprayer. The second application was performed at the transplant-
Figure 1. Climographs of San Juan de la Vega, Guanajuato, Mexico, showing the precipitation (bars)
and the average temperature (line) during the years of 2022 and 2023.
2.2. Experimental Treatments
In this research, we evaluated the functioning of two commercial systemic biological
products (BactoCROP
®
, a biofertilizer; and Trichonator
®
, a biofungicide/biofertilizer)
distributed by the company BIOqualitum (www.bioqualitum.com, accessed on 26 March
2025; patent 328184) on the growth, quality, and yield of the onion (cultivar ‘Carta Blanca’).
BactoCROP
®
contains Pseudomonas fluorescens,Azospirillum brasilense, and Bacillus subtilis
as active ingredients (all of them at a minimum concentration of 1
×
10
8
UFC), whereas
Trichonator
®
contains four different Trichoderma species (Trichoderma viridae,T. harzianum,T.
koningii, and T. hamatum), each formulated at a minimum concentration of 1 ×108UFC.
These systemic biological products also include minimal concentrations of some other
nutrients contained in the organic vehicle employed for their formulation (Table 1). Both
products were applied for two consecutive years (2002 and 2023) during the growing
cycle of onion. Every year, three applications of BactoCROP
®
and Trichonator
®
were
used in the one-hectare experimental plot. Both biologicals were additionally applied on
the experimental plot in addition to the local conventional crop management; with the
exception of the chemical fungicide (methyl thiophanate) normally used by the farmers,
which was excluded from the experimental plot. A neighboring (control) plot of the same
dimension was managed conventionally, following the complete application program of
chemical products normally employed by the local farmers.
The first application of the two biologicals was performed at sowing, when seeds
were placed 1.5 cm deep in 338-cavity greenhouse trays; 3.0 kg of BactoCROP
®
and 1 kg of
Trichonator
®
were dissolved in 600 L of water and then sprinkled on 900 greenhouse trays
using a backpack sprayer. The second application was performed at the transplanting time
(i.e., approx. 45–60 days after seed sowing) using the same proportion of biologicals for the
900 trays. Finally, the third application was carried out 1.5 to 2 months after transplanting
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 5 of 15
the seedlings to the field; this time, 2.0 kg of BactoCROP
®
and 750 g of Trichonator
®
were injected into the drip irrigation system, while 1 kg of the biofertilizer and 250 g of
the biofungicide were dissolved in 600 L of water and then sprinkled on the one-hectare
experimental plot of the onion using a tractor sprayer.
Table 1. Composition of the vehicle used for formulating the two biological products applied in this
study, BactoCROP®and Trichonator®.
Component %
Protein 9.3
Polysaccharides 8.2
Carbohydrates 9.3
Phosphorous 0.7
Potassium 1.2
Iron 1.9
Calcium 0.5
Magnesium 0.5
Inoculation of the systemic biologicals was applied alongside the chemical fertilization
regime normally used by the local onion farmers, which consists of applying a 180-80-40
dose (Haifa, Israel) in two fractions. The first fertilization was carried out four to ten days
after transplanting, applying half of the N and all of the P
2
O
5
and the K
2
O (90-80-40). The
second fraction of N (90-00-00) was applied 50 days after the first fertilization.
2.3. Variables Analyzed
The following variables were determined on both plots (bioinoculated and control)
at 60, 90, and 120 days after transplanting (DAT) onion seedling into the field: plant
height (cm), fresh weight (g), number of leaves per plant, bulb fresh weight (g), and
chlorophyll content (
µ
g
·
g FW
−1
). At the end of the onion’s growing cycle, the total yield
per hectare (t ha
−1
) and fungal incidence rate (%) were also determined for both the
biofertilized and the conventionally managed plots. The incidence rate was calculated
with the following formula: Incidence (%) = (number of diseased plants
×
100)/total
plants observed. The chlorophyll content of the onion leaves was determined according
to
Aguado-Santacruz et al. [27]
. Finally, to evaluate the effects of the systemic biological
products on onion quality, the total soluble solids (
◦
Brix) and the pyruvic acid (
µ
mol/g)
contents were determined at the end of the productive cycle of the onion. The content of
total soluble solids in the bulbs was quantified by using a digital refractometer (model
Abbe Leika Mark II, Leica, Solms, Germany) measuring each sample in triplicate and
expressing the readings in
◦
Brix. The pyruvic acid content was quantified using the method
proposed in [
28
]. All of the afore mentioned growth and quality variables were determined
in 25 samples (seedlings, plant leaves, or bulbs) collected from each treatment. To determine
onion yield, ten randomly selected plots were harvested per treatment (biofertilized and
non-biofertilized); each plot consisted of five rows of onion (10 m long, 30 cm row spacing).
2.4. Statistical Analysis
One-way ANOVA was used to analyze differences among the growth, quality, and
productive variables of the biofertilized and control plots for every year. Significant
differences (p< 0.05) among these variables were determined using Tukey’s test [
29
].
Statistical differences (p< 0.05) in the fungal incidence percentages between the biofertilized
and non-biofertilized plots were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test [30].
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 6 of 15
2.5. Verification of the Presence of Beneficial Microorganisms Within Internal Onion Tissues
At the end of the growing cycle of the onion, 35 plants from the plot treated with the
systemic biologicals were randomly collected to re-isolate the bacteria and fungi previously
applied to the onion crop; the same quantity of plants were harvested from the control,
non-inoculated plot. Samples from onions (leaves and bulbs) were washed under running
water and cut into small fragments (2
×
2 cm). Subsequently, in a laminar flow hood,
these pieces were disinfected with 70% ethanol for 1 min and 3% sodium hypochlorite for
2 min, washed thrice with sterile distilled water and then placed on sterile paper napkins
to eliminate excess moisture. Finally, the onion fragments were cut into smaller fragments
(1
×
1 cm) and placed in Petri dishes containing selective media for the isolation of Bacillus
subtilis (BS medium) [
31
], Azospirillum brasilense (Congo Red and Elmarc media) [
32
],
Pseudomonas fluorescens (Gould S1 medium) [
33
], and Trichoderma spp. [
34
]. The Petri dishes
containing the onion pieces were incubated for 24 h at 28–30 ◦C. Morphologically distinct
microbial colonies were selected and purified. Trichoderma strains were analyzed under
a microscope to measure the size and morphology of conidia, conidiophores, mycelia,
and other important fungal structures, using taxonomic identification keys specifically
developed for our scientific group to identify and distinguish our Trichoderma strains. For
bacteria, molecular analyses were carried out for identifying the specific bacterial strains
inoculated on the onion plants.
2.6. DNA Extraction, PCR, and Restriction Analysis for Bacterial Strains
Briefly, the re-isolated microorganisms were grown in 10 mL of their respective growth
media for 24 h. Then, the bacterial samples were centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 10 min.
The supernatant was discarded, and the remaining pellets were used for genomic DNA
extraction by the sarcosine method [
35
]. To verify DNA quality, electrophoresis was
performed with 1% agarose gels. Using the extracted DNA as a template, fragments of the
internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions were amplified using the primers G1 (SEC ID NO:
7) and L1 (SEC ID NO:8) [
15
], in mixtures containing (in 50
µ
L final volumes) genomic DNA
(150 ng), Buffer 1X, MgCl
2
(2 mM), nucleotides (50
µ
M each), primers (0.2
µ
M each), and
Taq polymerase (1 U per reaction). The mixtures were then placed in a Thermo Scientific
thermocycler, considering the following conditions for amplifications: initial phase, 5 min
at 94
◦
C for one cycle; denaturation at 94
◦
C for 1 min; annealing at 55
◦
C for 2 min; and
extension at 72 ◦C for 2 min for 35 cycles.
A 7 min final extension at 72
◦
C for 1 cycle was performed at the end of the cycling
steps. After amplification, samples were maintained at 4
◦
C. The amplicons obtained were
purified using a QIAEX II kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and subsequently restricted
using the enzyme Dde I (Table 2). Previously, we had generated DNA fingerprints of
three bacteria based on the restriction patterns of the ITS fragments amplified using the
restriction enzymes Hae III, Dde I, and Hha I.
Table 2. Expected band sizes (bp) by the amplification of the ITS region and its restriction patterns
(bp) generated with the enzyme Dde I in the three bacteria.
Bacterial Species
P. fluorescens A. brasilense B. subtilis
Amplified fragments from
ITS region
692
654
614
668 455
265
Restriction fragments
generated with Dde I
195
138
105
190
122
88
208
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 7 of 15
3. Results
The prevailing climatic conditions during both years of the study were favorable
for onion growth. Annual precipitations of 480.2 mm in 2022 (51.5 mm during the first
productive cycle of the onion; Figure 1) and 453.3 in 2023 (113.5 mm during the second
cycle of onion) are considered suitable for onion growth. However, to always maintain
humidity at the levels required for onion maximum production, soil water potentials, as
measured with soil irrometer tensiometers, were always maintained between
−
0.30 and
−
0.4 bars at a soil depth of 20 cm by means of the irrigation system. Temperature was also
favorable for onion growth with December of 2022 showing an average temperature of
15.5
◦
C and May presenting an average temperature of 23.4
◦
C. During 2023, the coolest
month was December (14.4 ◦C), while the warmest month was June (24.9 ◦C; Figure 1).
Performance of the systemic biologicals applied in onion in this study led to consistent
and robust results from the initial samplings of plants carried out at 60 DAT to the final
samplings at 120 DAT. Taken together, all of the variables analyzed in this study showed ev-
ident benefits of the systemic biologicals employed in this study on the onion performance
(Tables 3and 4). Thus, with the use of the systemic products, plant height and weight were
significantly increased by 35% and 58%, respectively, with relation to the conventionally
managed plants in 2022 (Table 3;p< 0.5), and by 19% and 59% during 2023 (Table 4;
p< 0.5
).
During the initial sampling, inoculated plants developed up to almost 3.6 more leaves
than control plants in 2022, and 4.8 more leaves during 2023 (p< 0.5). At the end of the
productive cycle of 2022 (120 DAT; Table 3) the inoculated plants were 17 cm taller, 313.2 g
heavier, and developed 5.6 leaves more than their control counterparts (p< 0.5; Table 3).
Table 3. Productive variables analyzed in biofertilized and conventionally managed onion plots
located at San Juan de la Vega, Guanajuato, Mexico, during 2022.
Variable
Days After Transplantation
60 90 120
Control Inoculated Control Inoculated Control Inoculated
Plant height (cm) 37.1 a 50.1 b 38.9 a 78.8 b 83.1 a 100.1 b
Plant fresh weight (g) 239.8 a 379.6 b 399.9 a 512.6 b 467.9 a 781.1 b
No. leaves 6.2 a 9.8 b 7.1 a 10.6 b 10.2 a 15.8 b
Bulb fresh weight (g) 68.9 a 113.0 b 188.7 a 289.3 b 357.9 a 519.4 b
Chlorophyll (µg·g FW−1) 111.2 a 137.7 b 121.6 a 137.2 b 178.3 a 220.2 b
Average values of 25 replicates. Rows with the same letter are not significantly different between conventionally
managed (control) and inoculated plots for each transplant date, as determined by Tukey’s mean separation
(p> 0.05).
Table 4. Productive variables analyzed in biofertilized and conventionally managed onion plots
located at San Juan de la Vega, Guanajuato, Mexico, during 2023.
Variable
Days After Transplantation
60 90 120
Control Inoculated Control Inoculated Control Inoculated
Plant height (cm) 47.3 a 56.1 b 60.3 a 86.2 b 78.9 a 99.8 b
Plant weight (g) 279.8 a 444.3 b 411.1 a 554.8 b 486.6 a 811.3 b
No. leaves 7.2 a 12.0 b 8.9 a 14.8 b 11.6 a 17.2 b
Bulb weight (g) 82.4 a 115.5 b 200.8 a 330.8 b 366.8 a 572.8 b
Chlorophyll (µg·g FW−1) 109.1 a 138.0 b 122.3 a 157.9 b 163.3 a 231.4 b
Average values of 25 replicates. Rows with the same letter are not significantly different between conventionally
managed (control) and inoculated plots for each transplant date, as determined by Tukey’s mean separation
(p> 0.05).
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 8 of 15
Similarly, in 2023, onion plants inoculated with the systemic biologicals were signif-
icantly 26% taller, 66% heavier, and produced 48.3% more leaves than the control plants
(p< 0.5; Table 4). Onion bulbs collected from the experimental plot at harvest time were
significantly heavier (45.1% in 2022 and 56.2% in 2023) than their counterparts collected at
the control, non-inoculated plot (p< 0.5; Tables 3and 4).
As with the other growth variables analyzed in this research, differences in chlorophyll
accumulation between inoculated and non-inoculated onion plants were evident at all
sampling dates and during both years of the study (Tables 3and 4). At the end of the 2022
experiment, plants collected at the experimental plot developed 23.5% more chlorophyll
(41.9
µ
g
·
g FW
−1
) than plants collected at the control plot (p< 0.5; Table 3). In the same way,
plants inoculated with the systemic biological products during 2023 developed 41.7% more
chlorophyll than control plants (231.4 vs. 163.3 µg·g FW−1,p< 0.5).
As expected, all of the differences observed in the variables considered in this research
and in both years ultimately resulted in a higher onion yield in the plot inoculated with the
systemic products than in the conventionally managed plot. During 2022, the experimental
plot produced 14.4 t
·
ha
−1
more than the control plot (p< 0.5), whereas in 2023, this
difference was greater, i.e., 19.4 t
·
ha
−1
in favor of the inoculated plot (p< 0.5); the percentage
differences in the yields of the two years evaluated showed an average increase of 44.4%.
On the other hand, onion quality expressed in terms of total soluble solids and pyruvic
acid contents was significantly greater (p< 0.5) in the onion plants inoculated with the
biological products over the two-year study period in comparison with the plants not
receiving the plant growth-promoting microorganisms (Table 5). The two-year average
values for these variables were 10.2 vs. 14.4
◦
Brix and 2.3 vs. 4.0
µ
mol
·
g
−1
for the control
and the biologically treated plants, respectively.
Table 5. Yield, quality, and fungal incidence in onion plants inoculated and non-inoculated with
systemic biologicals.
Variable 2022 2023
Control Inoculated Control Inoculated
Yield (t·ha−1)33.8 a 48.2 b 41.9 a 61.3 b
Total soluble solids (◦Brix) 10.21 a 14.15 b 10.30 a 14.62 b
Pyruvic acid content (µmol/g) 2.24 a 3.78 b 2.45 a 4.22 b
Fungal incidence (%) 16.1 a 9.5 b 18.7 a 9.1 b
Average values of 10 (yield) and 25 replicates (onion quality variables and fungal incidence). Rows with the
same letter are not significantly different between conventionally managed (control) and inoculated plots for each
transplant date, as determined by Tukey’s mean separation (p> 0.05) for the yield and quality variables, and by
Fisher’s exact test for the fungal incidence percentages.
With respect to the fungal disease occurrence in the onion crop in both years, it could
be determined that fungal incidence at harvest time in the two years of evaluation was
statistically lower in the plot where the systemic biologicals were applied (p< 0.5; Table 5);
the fungal incidence was 1.7 and 2.1 times greater in the control than in the inoculated
plants during 2022 and 2023, respectively. The fungal pathogens attacking the onion crop
were identified as Sclerotium cepivorum and Fusarium oxysporum.
Finally, the analysis of the onion plants selected from each, the biologically inoculated
plot and the control, non-inoculated plot, by morphological and molecular techniques,
revealed the presence of at least two of the four strains of Trichoderma included in the
product Trichonator
®
and the three bacterial species contained in BactoCROP
®
within the
internal tissues of the onion plants (Table 6). These microorganisms were not detected in
the conventionally managed plants.
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 9 of 15
Table 6. Frequency of the inoculated microorganisms within the onion plants.
Microorganism Frequency (%)
Azospirillum brasilense 100
Bacillus subtilis 100
Pseudomonas fluorescens 100
Trichoderma hamatum 39
T. harzianum 55
T. koningii 53
T. viridae 52
4. Discussion
The data presented in this study demonstrate a robust and consistent performance of
the systemic biological products employed in the onion. The functionality of the biofertilizer
and the biofungicide/biofertilizer on the onion performance was evident since the first
applications. In our experience, one of the first signals of proper functioning of the systemic
biologicals in the onion, as in some conventional biological [
36
] and organic products [
12
]
employed in the onion, is a significant increase in chlorophyll content [11].
After this chlorophyll increase in onion plants, improvement in the growth variables
analyzed in this study revealed the benefits of applying the systemic products on onion
plants at all sampling dates. Plant height and weight, number of leaves, and bulb weight
were significantly greater (p< 0.5) in onion plants inoculated with the systemic biologicals
(Tables 3and 4) than in control plants.
These results are in accordance with those of other researchers evaluating the applica-
tion of biological products on onions. Gemin and collaborators, in 2019 [
37
], successfully
increased the caliber of onion bulbs and, consequently, the yield of this crop by 40% in the
onion cultivar ‘Perfecta F1’ through inoculation of the microalgae Scenedemus subspicatus (30
control vs. 42 t
·
ha
−1
inoculated). Conversely, in other onion cultivar evaluated in this study
(‘BR-29’), no differences were detected between the control and the experimental plot.
Cordeiro and collaborators, in 2022 [
36
], applying the microalgae Asterarcys quadricel-
lulare at different concentrations on two onion cultivars, namely ‘Alvará’ and ‘Perfecta’,
observed statistically significant differences in diverse productive variables of onion in
comparison with the control treatment. As a consequence of producing larger and more
uniform bulbs with the inoculation of the microalgae, increases in onion yield were de-
tected in both onion cultivars. In ‘Alvará’, a maximal increase in the onion yield of 28.3%
was obtained (30 vs. 41 t
·
ha
−1
), whereas in ‘Perfecta’, the greatest increase was 40.0%, as
compared to the control treatment (28 vs. 39 t·ha−1).
In 2014, ˇ
Colo and collaborators [
38
] evaluated the application of Azotobacter chroococ-
cum,Bacillus subtilis, and Pseudomonas fluorescens, and the combination of these microor-
ganisms, on the growth and yield of onion. Inoculation of A. chroococcum and B. subtilis
resulted in longer seedlings, whereas plant height was greater in individuals treated with
any of the bacteria evaluated (sixty days after inoculation). At the end of the productive
cycle of the onion, yield was higher in plants inoculated with A. chroococcum (34.73 t
·
ha
−1
,
97% increase) or with B. subtilis (28.8 t
·
ha
−1
, 63.5% increase) than in non-inoculated plants
(17.60 t
·
ha
−1
), i.e., the average of the biological treatment increased by 80% the onion yield
with relation to the control treatment.
Singh and colleagues, in 2017 [
39
], compared different combinations of chemical fertil-
ization doses with biological inoculants including Azospirillum, VAM (vesicular-arbuscular
mycorrhizae), and a PSB (phosphate solubilizing bacterium). Their findings revealed that
the complete fertilization dose of 120-60-80 combined with Azospirillum and VAM resulted
in the maximum plant height (51.96 cm), number of leaves per plant (11.96), leaf length
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 10 of 15
(45.71 cm), fresh weight of leaves (32.58 g), and bulb yield (46.8 t
·
ha
−1
) in comparison with
the control treatment consisting in the complete dose of fertilization. Similarly, onion yield
components such as bulb length (5.13 cm), bulb diameter (5.85 cm), bulb weight (81.44 g),
and bulb volume (92.8 cc) were greater in this treatment. Bulb yield was increased by 23%
in the biologically treated onions with relation to the control counterpart group (38.3 vs.
46.8 t·ha−1).
Arunachalam and collaborators, in 2024 [
40
], evaluated the effect of applying PSB
and mycorrhizae on the growth and nutrient uptake of onions cultivated during two
different seasons (2018–2019 and 2019–2020). The evaluated plant growth-promoting mi-
croorganisms included Serendipita indica (a fungal species of the Basidiomycota Division and
Sebacinales order), a PSB consortia consisting of Bacillus megaterium,Paenibacillus polymyxa
and other Bacillus sp., and a VAM consortia consisting of Glomus fasciculum,G. intraradices,
Acaulospora sp., and Gigaspora sp. These microorganisms were combined with 50% (50%
RDF) or 100% (100% RDF) of the recommended dose of chemical fertilization. Their results
indicated that 100% RDF combined with S. indica or the PSB consortia led to improved plant
growth, and higher nutrient concentrations in both the leaves and bulbs of onion compared
to the 100% RDF treatment alone. Moreover, the application of 100% RDF with S. indica
increased the total dry matter yield by 11.5% and 7.6% in the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020
seasons, respectively, in comparison with the complete recommended dose of fertilization
(100% RDF). This treatment also resulted in the greatest nutrient assimilation, with N
uptake increasing during the two seasons (2018–2019 and 2019–2020) by 6.9% and 29.9%, P
by 13.7% and 21.7%, K by 20.0% and 23.7%, and S by 18.1% and 23.4%, respectively, with
comparison to the treatment consisting in the complete chemical fertilization (100% RDF).
The combination of 100% RDF with S. indica inoculation led to a significant increase in
bulb yield in comparison with the 100% RDF treatment alone only in the first season (40 vs.
35 t
·
ha
−1
, 14.2% increase). The yield registered in the treatment including S. indica plus
100% RDF was also significantly greater during both seasons in comparison with the onion
yield observed in treatments receiving only 50% RDF or 0% RDF (absolute control).
Manna and collaborators, in 2014 [
41
], investigated the interactive effects of applying
chemical and biological fertilizers on the growth, yield, and quality of the onion. They
reported that the maximum plant height (67.66 cm), bulb diameter (4.82 cm), bulb weight
(56.92 g), total yield (30.20 t
·
ha
−1
), and marketable yield (28.43 t
·
ha
−1
) were recorded with
the application of the complete recommended dose of chemical fertilizers plus the addition
of a phosphate-solubilizing bacterium and Azospirillum. Total onion yield in this biological
treatment was 42.5% greater than that registered in the control treatment (21.03 t
·
ha
−1
),
consisting in the use of the complete recommended dose of chemical fertilizers.
On the basis of the referred studies, we can conclude that increases in the yield of
onions using conventional biological products and the complete recommended dose of
chemical fertilization are highly variable: 97% with the use of Azotobacter chroococcum or
63.5% with Bacillus subtilis [
38
]; 23% using a phosphate-solubilizing bacterium and 64.2%
with a mix of Azospirillum and VAM [
39
]; 14.2% with Serendipita indica [
40
]; and 42.5% using
a phosphate-solubilizing bacterium plus Azospirillum [41].
On the other hand, it is very important to state that there is no guarantee that increases
in onion yield over the traditional management of crops should be always expected when
conventional biological products are employed. Kadam and collaborators, in 2023 [
42
], were
unable to reach the yield obtained with the complete (22.2 t
·
ha
−1
) or half (18.4 t
·
ha
−1
) of the
recommended chemical fertilization dose for onions in India (100-50-100) by inoculating
different combinations of Azospirillum,Azotobacter, a VAM, and a phosphate-solubilizing
bacterium. The more efficient biological combination was obtained when Azospirillum and
Azotobacter were jointly inoculated on the onion (18.1 t·ha−1).
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 11 of 15
Using systemic biological products, in the present study, we were able to consistently
and significantly increase (p< 0.5) the onion yield in 14.4 (42.5% increase), and 19.4 t
·
ha
−1
(46.3% increase), the first and the second year of the study, respectively. The onion yields
reached in our study by using systemic biologicals in the cultivar ‘Carta Blanca’ are well
above the average onion yield in Mexico, which is around 31 t·ha−1[8].
We confirmed the positive interaction of chemical fertilizers with (systemic) biologicals
in the onion cultivation. These data agree with previous studies carried out by us on
sugarcane, where increases in yield were very consistent and reliable over six years [15].
Although Petrovic and collaborators, in 2019 [
19
], reported different advantages
in using products containing organic matter (such as manure) or vermicompost over the
application of biological products on the yield and different growth parameters of the onion,
advantageous synergies of conventional and systemic biologicals in combination with
organic nutritional sources are expected in the cultivation of agricultural crops, particularly
the onion.
Verma and collaborators, in 2021 [
43
], evaluated the application of different beneficial
microorganisms combined with vermicompost on the growth and yield of onion. Bulb
yield was greater in onion plants cultivated with the complete chemical fertilization and
inoculated with a combination of beneficial microorganisms (Azospirillum, VAM, and a
phosphate-solubilizing bacterium) and vermicompost than in control plot managed only
with the complete chemical fertilization. A maximal increase of 18% in the onion yield by
effect of the biological/organic treatment was reported (30.2 t
·
ha
−1
in the experimental
plot vs. 25.6 t·ha−1in the control plot).
Sarhan and Bashandy, in 2021 [
44
], analyzed the effects of applying manure, copper,
and Azobacter chroococcum on the yield and quality of onion. The highest yields were
obtained in plots where 24 t
·
ha
−1
of manure was applied, regardless of the inoculation with
A. chroococcum or the foliar spray with copper sulphate. Onion yield in plots managed with
24 t
·
ha
−1
of manure was between 50 and 52 t
·
ha
−1
with no statistical differences between
plots with or without both copper and A. chroococcum. Moreover, plots managed with
12 t
·
ha
−1
of manure plus copper and A. chroococcum showed no statistical differences with
plots receiving 24 t·ha−1manure.
Accordingly, as in the case of chemical nutritional sources, increment expectations in
onion yield by the use of biological products in the presence of organic sources are also quite
variable: 40% using Scenedesmus subspicatus; 28.3 to 40% with Asterarcys quadricellulare; and
18% with a mix of Azospirillum,Azotobacter,Bacillus,Herbaspirillum, and Chlorella vulgaris.
Moreover, reductions in the organic fertilization doses are possible with the use of
microorganisms. For example, manure doses can be reduced by half in the presence of
Azobacter chroococcum without losses in potential onion yields [44].
The benefits of using plant growth-promoting microorganisms extend beyond in-
creasing the yield of onion. Different studies have shown improvements in different
quality variables of this crop by using beneficial microorganisms. A study on the enhance-
ment of onion quality (antioxidant activity) by effect of applying a biofertilizer containing
Azospirillum,Bacillus,Chlorella vulgaris, and Herbaspirillum was published by Petrovic and
collaborators in 2020 [12].
Similarly, improvements in reducing sugars (%) and non-reducing sugars (%) have
also been described in onion plants inoculated with VAM compared with control, non-
inoculated plants fertilized with the complete dose of NPK [45].
Manna and collaborators, in 2014 [
41
], found that the quality of the onion bulbs, in
terms of total soluble solids and pyruvic acid contents, was improved with a biological
treatment including Azospirillum and a phosphate-solubilizing bacterium, whereas Sarhan
and Bashandy, in 2021 [
44
], concluded that fertilizing the onion plants with 12 t
·
ha
−1
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 12 of 15
manure plus copper sulphate and inoculating them with a biofertilizer makes it possible to
reach the same improvements in onion quality (such as bulb diameter, total soluble solids,
and onion storability) with the application of 24 t
·
ha
−1
manure, with obvious repercussions
in the net economic returns and benefit/cost ratio.
In addition to obtaining significative increases in onion yields by using systemic bio-
logicals in this study, we were able to enhance the quality parameters of onion, particularly
the contents of pyruvic acid and total soluble solids. Pyruvic acid concentration directly
correlates with the onion’s pungency; this is due to the enzymatic production of pyruvic
acid as a byproduct when onion cells are ruptured, releasing the compounds responsible
for the characteristic onion flavor and tear-inducing effect. On the other hand, the content
of total soluble solids in onions is important because it directly impacts the onion’s storage
life, flavor intensity, and overall quality, with higher total soluble solids generally indi-
cating better storage potential and a milder, sweeter taste due to increased sugar content;
essentially, onions with higher total soluble solids tend to last longer in storage without
significant quality degradation [46,47].
In the present research, the biological treatments were imposed over the local conven-
tional treatment of onion; only the chemical fungicide methyl thiophanate was omitted
from the experimental plot inoculated with the beneficial microorganisms. The results
obtained in this study reflect the particular activities of the microorganisms on the nutrition
and health of onion. Firstly, the results registered since the initial samplings on the plant
growth variables measured in onions clearly show the plant growth promotion activities of
the microorganisms included in BactoCROP
®
, i.e., Pseudomonas,Bacillus, and Azospirillum.
Previously, we had demonstrated the effects of this systemic biofertilizer on the growth
and production of other vegetables and cereals [
11
]. Plant growth promotion activities of
the microorganisms included in the formulation of the biofertilizer employed in this study
include nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, hormone production, ACC deaminase
activity, and siderophore production, among others [
11
]. However, we cannot rule out a
possible role of the biofungicide on the nutrition of the onion plants, because some of the
strains included in Trichonator®have phosphate-solubilizing capabilities.
These results obtained in onions utilizing systemic biological products jointly with
complete chemical fertilization has also been described by us in other crops substituting
the nutritional synthetic sources by organic sources, such as chicken or cow manure [11].
Another factor contributing to the improved growth of onion plants was the relatively
low levels of pathogenic fungi detected in the inoculated plants in comparison with those
observed in the control plants, which indicated the control efficiency exerted by the Tricho-
derma strains contained in Trichonator
®
. According to previous studies, the application
of plant growth-promoting microorganisms along with mineral fertilizers enhances plant
growth and crop yield by mechanisms including phytohormone secretion, nutrient supple-
mentation, and pathogen suppression [
48
,
49
]. In other words, a better nourished plant can
better resist the attack of pathogens [50].
We visualize two approaches for the application of biological products in agriculture.
The first one is focused on rainfed crops, in which the minimization of costs is central,
given the possibility that the occurrence of suboptimal precipitations or temperatures, or
the presence of plagues or diseases, significantly compromises the potential yields of crops.
The second one is directed to vegetables, fruit trees, sugarcane, and other highly profitable
crops, in which the search for the highest yields is the main goal.
5. Conclusions
Results presented in this research confirm our previous findings related to a better
and consistent functioning of the systemic biological products in agricultural crops in
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 13 of 15
comparison with conventional biologicals. Although a direct comparison between systemic
and conventional biological products was not contemplated, onion yields obtained in this
research using systemic biologicals were exceptional for the common yields registered
in Mexico using the cultivar ‘Carta Blanca’. Also, the differences found by us between
the control and the experimental plots were extraordinary if we compare them with the
published literature in onion inoculated with conventional biological products. Because
systemic biological products have proven to be consistent and efficiently increase the yield
and quality of crops, major efforts should be devoted to improving our knowledge on the
functioning of these biological products. This is particularly relevant if we consider that
systemic biologicals are the only products that can be successfully applied in agricultural
systems such as waterlogged rice, aquaculture, or mangrove ecosystem restoration as well
as in the employment of agricultural drones for inoculating beneficial microorganisms on
the field.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.A.A.-S.; methodology, G.M.G.-B. and C.L.A.-M.; soft-
ware, G.M.G.-B. and C.L.A.-M.; validation, G.M.G.-B.; formal analysis, G.A.A.-S.; investigation,
G.A.A.-S. and J.M.A.-T.; data curation, G.M.G.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, G.A.A.-S. and
J.M.A.-T.; writing—review and editing, G.A.A.-S.; supervision, G.A.A.-S.; project administration,
C.L.A.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Jones, H.A.; Mann, L.K. Onion and Their Allies; Leonard Hill (Books) Ltd.: London, UK, 1963; pp. 1–169.
2.
Roldán, E.; Sánchez-Moreno, C.; de Ancos, B.; Cano, P. Characterization of onion (Allium cepa L.) by-products as food ingredients
with antioxidant and antibrowning properties. Food Chem. 2008,108, 907–916. [CrossRef]
3.
Sekara, A.; Pokluda, R.; Del Vacchio, L.; Somma, S.; Caruso, G. Interactions among genotype, environment and agronomic
practices on production and quality of storage onion (Allium cepa L.)—A review. Hortic. Sci. 2017,44, 201–212. [CrossRef]
4.
Uz Daily. Available online: https://www.uzdaily.uz/en/a-new-record-for-onion-cultivation-has-been-set-up-to-150-tons-were-
collected-from-each-hectare/ (accessed on 19 February 2025).
5.
FAO. Crops and Livestock Products. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL (accessed on 19 February
2025).
6.
Statistic Korea. Cultivated Area of Garlic and Onions. 2020. Available online: https://www.korea.kr/briefing/pressReleaseView.
do?newsId=156517342#goList (accessed on 6 August 2024).
7. Fresh Plaza. Available online: https://www.freshplaza.com/north-america/article/2104408/ (accessed on 19 February 2025).
8. Agricultura Moderna. Available online: https://www.amrevista.com/post/el-cultivo-de-cebolla-en-m%C3%A9xico (accessed
on 19 February 2025).
9.
Bayer. Onion Disease Field Guide. Available online: https://www.vegetables.bayer.com/content/dam/bayer-vegetables/multi-
country/disease-guides/disease-guide-pdfs/Bayer%20Onion%20Disease%20Guide.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2025).
10.
Aguado-Santacruz, G.A.; Rascón-Cruz, Q.; Luna-Bulbarela, A. Impacto Económico y Ambiental del Empleo de Fertilizantes
Químicos. In Introducción al Uso y Manejo de los Biofertilizantes en la Agricultura; Aguado-Santacruz, G.A., Ed.; INIFAP/SAGARPA:
Morelos, México, 2012; pp. 1–22.
11.
Aguado-Santacruz, G.A.; Moreno-Gómez, B.; Dorantes-González, J.R.A.; Bobadilla-Meléndez, M.; Lozano-Contreras, M.G.;
Díaz-Valasis, M.; Irizar-Garza, M.B. Mejoramiento de la productividad y sanidad de los cultivos agrícolas mediante el uso de
productos biológicos. In Producción y uso de Bioinsumos para la Nutrición Vegetal y Conservación de la Fertilidad del Suelo, 3rd ed.;
Reyes-Castillo, A., García-Silva, R., Zetina-Lezama, R., Espinosa-Ramírez, M., Reveles-Hernández, M., Aguado-Santacruz, G.A.,
Camas-Gómez, R., Báez-Pérez, A., Patishtan-Pérez, J., Eds.; Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas yPecuarias:
Tecomán, México, 2024; pp. 1–494.
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 14 of 15
12. Petrovic, B.; Se¸kara, A.; Pokluda, R. Biofertilizers enhance quality of onion. Agronomy 2020,10, 1937. [CrossRef]
13.
Aguado-Santacruz, G.A. Uso de Microorganismos como Biofertilizantes. In Introducción al Uso y Manejo de los Biofertilizantes en la
Agricultura; Aguado-Santacruz, G.A., Ed.; INIFAP/SAGARPA: Morelos, México, 2012; pp. 35–78.
14.
Aguado-Santacruz, G.A. Productos biológicos sistémicos: La nueva frontera biotecnológica para aumentar el rendimiento y la
sanidad de los cultivos agrícolas. In Memorias de la 31a Semana Internacional de Agronomía; Universidad Juárez del Estado de
Durango: Venecia, México, 2019.
15.
Aguado-Santacruz, G.A.; Arreola-Tostado, J.M.; Aguirre-Mancilla, C.; García-Moya, E. Use of systemic biofertilizers in sugarcane
results in highly reproducible increments in yield and quality of harvests. Heliyon 2024,10, e28750. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Sullivan, D.M.; Brown, B.D.; Shock, C.C.; Horneck, D.A.; Stevens, R.G.; Pelter, G.Q.; Feibert, E.B.G. Nutrient Management for
Onions in the Pacific Northwest; Pacific Northwest Publications: Eugene, OR, USA, 2001.
17.
Hanna, M.G.; Elamin, S.M. Effect of different organic fertilizers on growth, yield and total soluble solid of the onion (Allium cepa
L.) variety Baftaim-s. J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 2013,14, 61–67.
18.
Pokluda, R.; Ragasova, L.N.; Jurica, M.; Kalisz, A.; Komorowska, M.; Niemiec, M.; Caruso, G.; Gastol, M.; Sekara, A. The shaping
of onion seedlings performance through substrate formulation and co-inoculation with beneficial microorganism consortia. Front.
Plant Sci. 2023,14, 1222557. [CrossRef]
19.
Petrovic, B.; Kopta, T.; Pokluda, R. Effect of biofertilizers on yield and morphological parameters of onion cultivars. Folia Hortic.
2019,31, 51–59. [CrossRef]
20.
Takahashi, W.Y.; Galvão, C.W.; Cassán, F.D.; Urrea-Valencia, S.; Stremel, A.C.; Stets, M.I.; Kremer, M.A.S.; Jesus, E.C.; Etto, R.
M Tracking maize colonization and growth promotion by Azospirillum reveals strain-specific behavior and the influence of
inoculation method. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2024,215, 108979. [CrossRef]
21.
Cloyd, R.A.; Bethke, J.A.; Cowles, R.S. Systemic insecticides and their use in ornamental plant systems. Floric. Ornamental
Biotechnol. 2011,5, 1–9.
22. Hall, L.; Beckie, H.; Wolf, T.M. How Herbicides Work: Biology to Application; Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Alberta
Government: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 1999.
23.
Vaishnav, A.; Shukla, A.K.; Sharma, A.; Kumar, R.; Choudhary, D.K. Endophytic bacteria in plant salt stress tolerance: Current
and future prospects. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2018,38, 650–668. [CrossRef]
24.
Singh, K.R.; Singh, P.; Guo, D.-J.; Sharma, A.; Li, D.-P.; Li, X.; Verma, K.K.; Malviya, M.K.; Song, X.-P.; Lakshmanan, P.; et al.
Root-derived endophytic diazotrophic bacteria Pantoea cypripedii AF1 and Kosakonia arachidis EF1 promote nitrogen assimilation
and growth in sugarcane. Front. Microbiol. 2021,12, 774707. [CrossRef]
25.
INEGI. Compendio de Información Geográfica Municipal: Celaya, Guanajuato; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía: Celaya,
México, 2010.
26.
Osuna, C.F.J.; Ramírez, R.S. Manual para Cultivar Cebolla con Fertirriego y riego por Gravedad en el Estado de Morelos; Folleto técnico
No. 12; Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP)—Centro de Investigación Regional
Pacífico Sur Campo Experimental Zacatepec: Morelos, México, 2013.
27.
Aguado-Santacruz, G.A.; Cabrera-Ponce, J.L.; Ramírez-Chávez, E.; Rascón-Cruz, Q.; Herrera-Estrella, L.; Olalde-Portugal, V.
Establishment, characterization and plant regeneration from highly chlorophyllous embryogenic cell cultures of blue grama grass,
Bouteloua gracilis (H.B.K.) Lag ex. Steud. Plant Cell Rep. 2001,20, 131–136. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Anthon, G.E.; Barret, M. Modified method for the determination of pyruvic acid with dinitrophenyl hydrazine in the assessment
of onion pungency. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2003,83, 1210–1213. [CrossRef]
29. Zar, J.H. Biostatistical Analysis, 1st ed.; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1974; pp. 1–620.
30.
Hollander, M.; Wolfe, D.A.; Chicken, E. Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2015. [CrossRef]
31.
Cazorla, F.M.; Romero, D.; Pérez-García, A.; Lugtenberg, B.J.J.; de Vicente, A.; Bloemberg, G. Isolation and characterization of
antagonistic Bacillus subtilis strains from the avocado rhizoplane displaying biocontrol activity. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007,103,
1950–1959. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32.
Ferrera-Cerrato, R.; González-Chávez, M.; Rodríguez-Mendoza, M.D.L.N. Manual de Agromicrobiología, 1st ed.; Trillas: México
City, México, 1993; p. 142.
33.
Johnsen, K.; Nielsen, P. Diversity of Pseudomonas strains isolated with King’s B and Gould’s S1 agar determined by repeti-
tive extragenic palindromic-polymerase chain reaction, 16S rDNA sequencing and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
characterization. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1999,173, 155–162. [CrossRef]
34.
Elad, Y.; Chet, I.; Henis, Y. A selective medium for improving quantitative isolation of Trichoderma spp. from soil. Phytoparasitica
1981,9, 59–67. [CrossRef]
35.
Lopes, M.A.; Takasaki, K.; Bostwick, D.E.; Helentjaris, T.; Larkins, B.A. Identification of two opaque2 modifier loci in quality
protein maize. Mol. Gen. Genet. 1995,247, 603–613. [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 2025,13, 797 15 of 15
36.
Cordeiro, E.C.N.; Mógor, Á.F.; de Oliveira Amatussi, J.; Mógor, G.; de Lara, G.B.; Marques, H.M.C. Microalga biofertilizer triggers
metabolic changes improving onion growth and yield. Horticulturae 2022,8, 223. [CrossRef]
37.
Gemin, L.G.; Mógor, A.F.; Amatussi, J.D.O.; Mógor, G. Microalgae associated to humic acid as a novel biostimulant improving
onion growth and yield. Sci. Hortic. 2019,256, 108560. [CrossRef]
38.
ˇ
Colo, J.; Hajnal-Jafari, T.I.; Ðuri´c, S.; Stamenov, D.; Hamidovi´c, S. Plant growth promotion rhizobacteria in onion production.
Polish J. Microbiol. 2014,63, 83–88. [CrossRef]
39.
Singh, V.K.; Kumari, S.A.; Chaudhary, V.K.; Shree, S. Role of biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer for sustainable onion (Allium
cepa L.) production. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017,6, 2034–2040. [CrossRef]
40.
Arunachalam, T.; Gade, K.; Mahadule, P.A.; Soumia, P.S.; Govindasamy, V.; Gawande, S.J.; Mahajan, V. Optimizing plant growth,
nutrient uptake, and yield of onion through the application of phosphorus solubilizing bacteria and endophytic fungi. Front.
Microbiol. 2024,15, 1442912. [CrossRef]
41.
Manna, D.; Ghosal, A.; Adhikary, R.; Maity, T.K. Influence of bio-fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of onion (Allium cepa L.)
Cv. Sukhsagar. Environ. Ecol. 2014,32, 728–730.
42.
Kadam, A.A.; Kulkarni, S.A. Effect of bio-fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of onion (Allium cepa). Environ. Ind. Manag. Econ.
Agric. Rural. Urban Dev. Sustain. Potential 2023,1, 120–123.
43.
Verma, N.; Jaiswal, R.K.; Ali, S.A.; Kumar, D.R. Impact of biofertilizers on growth and yield attributes of onion (Allium cepa L.)
var. AFLR. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2021,10, 931–938. [CrossRef]
44.
Sarhan, M.G.R.; Bashandy, S.O. Enhancing onion yield, quality, storability and profitability by using FYM, copper and bio-fertilizer.
Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 2021,61, 323–335. [CrossRef]
45.
Singh, V.V.; Mauriya, S.K.; Pal, S.; Ram, R.B.; Yadav, S.P. Effect of bio-fertilizers on growth, yield and quality traits of onion (Allium
cepa L.). Int. Res. J. Pure Appl. Chem. 2020,21, 18–22. [CrossRef]
46. AVRDC. AVRDC Report 1999; Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center: Tainan, Taiwan, 2000; p. 152.
47.
Kiran, P.R.; Aradwad, P.; Kumar, T.V.A.; Nayana, N.P.; Ramya, C.S.; Sahoo, M.; Sumit, B.U.; Yadav, R.; Kar, A.; Mani, I. A
comprehensive review on recent advances in postharvest treatment, storage, and quality evaluation of onion (Allium cepa):
Current status, and challenges. Future Postharvest Food 2024,1, 124–157. [CrossRef]
48.
Zhang, H.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, X.; Fan, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Gao, X.; Shi, J.; et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer
on photosynthetic characteristics, biomass, and yield of wheat under different shading conditions. Agronomy 2021,11, 1989.
[CrossRef]
49.
Yu, W.; Hayat, K.; Ma, J.; Fan, X.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Yu, Q.; Qian, M.; Lin, H. Effect of antibiotic perturbation on nitrous oxide
emissions: An in-depth analysis. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024,54, 1612–1632. [CrossRef]
50.
Spann, T.M.; Schumann, A.W. The role of plant nutrients in disease development with emphasis on Citrus and Huanglongbing.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 2009,122, 169–171.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Content uploaded by Gerardo Armando Aguado-Santacruz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gerardo Armando Aguado-Santacruz on Jun 16, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Gerardo Armando Aguado-Santacruz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gerardo Armando Aguado-Santacruz on Apr 13, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
