Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 2779 2024-03-12 08:33:17 |
2 format correct Meta information modification 2779 2024-03-13 03:14:06 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Shamshitov, A.; Kadžienė, G.; Supronienė, S. Lignocellulolytic Microorganisms in Cereal Crop Residue Decomposition. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 16 April 2024).
Shamshitov A, Kadžienė G, Supronienė S. Lignocellulolytic Microorganisms in Cereal Crop Residue Decomposition. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed April 16, 2024.
Shamshitov, Arman, Gražina Kadžienė, Skaidrė Supronienė. "Lignocellulolytic Microorganisms in Cereal Crop Residue Decomposition" Encyclopedia, (accessed April 16, 2024).
Shamshitov, A., Kadžienė, G., & Supronienė, S. (2024, March 12). Lignocellulolytic Microorganisms in Cereal Crop Residue Decomposition. In Encyclopedia.
Shamshitov, Arman, et al. "Lignocellulolytic Microorganisms in Cereal Crop Residue Decomposition." Encyclopedia. Web. 12 March, 2024.
Lignocellulolytic Microorganisms in Cereal Crop Residue Decomposition

The global escalation in cereal production, essential to meet growing population demands, simultaneously augments the generation of cereal crop residues, estimated annually at approximately 3107 × 106 Mg/year. Among different crop residue management approaches, returning them to the soil can be essential for various ecological benefits, including nutrient recycling and soil carbon sequestration. However, the recalcitrant characteristics of cereal crop residues pose significant challenges in their management, particularly in the decomposition rate. Microorganisms employ a range of mechanisms, such as the utilization of different enzymes that work in combination, to initiate oxidative attacks on plant litter. Consequently, this serves to reduce the recalcitrance of the lignocellulosic material, hence facilitating subsequent action by depolymerizing enzymes. Both fungi and bacteria have received increased attention for their ability to secrete a diverse range of lignocellulolytic enzymes.

cereal crop residue decomposition fungi bacteria actinobacteria

1. Introduction

The definition of crop residue has transformed in the last few decades, reflecting shifts in agricultural practices, technological progress, and a deeper understanding of its role in promoting sustainable agriculture and the environment. Earlier, the main focus of the definition was centered on the vegetative remnants left in fields after harvesting the main crop. It was frequently considered as waste and required removal from the field in order to facilitate preparation for the following planting season, particularly since it was viewed as an impediment to conventional tillage practices [1]. In contrast, modern agriculture redefines crop residue as a plant material deliberately retained in the fields, aligned with conservation agriculture practices. Furthermore, redefinition has expanded to reflect its potential impacts on carbon sequestration, and climate change mitigation, and is an important resource for the generation of bioenergy and the establishment of a circular economy [2][3][4]. Northern Europe, including Nordic countries, the UK, Ireland, and Baltic states plays a significant role in cereal grain production encompassing wheat, barley, maize, oats, and rye within the European Union [5][6].
It is well-known that incorporating or retaining cereal crop residue on the soil surface has numerous advantages in improving soil quality. Hence, the large-scale removal of crop residues from fields might have a detrimental impact on soil quality and productivity [7][8] by lowering total nitrogen (N) levels and soil organic carbon (C) [9][10], enhancing wind and water erosion [11], and decreasing soil microbial activity [12]. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the influence of C, N, cellulose, lignin, and polyphenols on the rate at which nutrients are released from agricultural residues. These decomposition products have a significant impact on the absorption rate of nutrients by crops [13]. The different approaches of cereal crop residue utilization include livestock fodder, compost, biogas, biochar or biofuel production and incorporation into the field. Among these approaches, incorporation is considered to be a better option since it manages a large quantity of residue while improving soil health [14][15].
The soil microbial community plays a crucial role in crop residue decomposition, carbon processes, and nutrient cycle in the soil. To break down crop residue components effectively, a collaborative effort of various hydrolytic and oxidative enzyme families is essential. These enzymes are produced by lignocellulose-degrading microorganisms and work together in a coordinated manner to carry out multiple oxidative, hydrolytic, and non-hydrolytic activities. In essence, they function as a synergistic cocktail with complementary actions to achieve the breakdown process [16][17][18].
Microorganisms employ a range of mechanisms, such as the utilization of different enzymes that work in combination, to initiate oxidative attacks on plant litter. Consequently, this serves to reduce the recalcitrance of the lignocellulosic material, hence facilitating subsequent action by depolymerizing enzymes [19]. In recent years, both fungi and bacteria have received increased attention for their ability to secrete a diverse range of lignocellulolytic enzymes.

2. Lignocellulolytic Activity of Fungi

Fungi are well known for their pivotal role in the soil microbiota, particularly in relation to the process of plant residue breakdown in the soil. Being filamentous by nature, fungi have an advantage in the breakdown of lignocellulosic material since they can create spores fast and prolifically and are assisted by a wide range of enzymes that have complementary catalytic activities [20]. The extracellular enzymatic system consists of hydrolytic enzymes that are involved in the breakdown of polysaccharides, as well as oxidative enzymes that are responsible for causing the deterioration of lignin and the opening of phenyl rings. Within the realm of lignocellulose breakdown, there are three particular groups of fungi, namely soft-rot, brown-rot, and white-rot fungi, each of which demonstrates diverse impacts and degradation techniques [21][22]. Likewise, it was reported that the decomposition process of plant residue in natural ecosystems is greatly aided by the presence of the Basidiomycota group [23].
White-rot fungi utilize a diverse range of carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes) that specifically target cellulose, hemicellulose, and pectin [24][25]. Furthermore, they use lignin-modifying enzymes belonging to the AA2 family and include class-II heme peroxidases including lignin peroxidases, versatile peroxidases, and manganese peroxidases [26][27]. These enzymes, along with auxiliary CAZyme oxidoreductases, catalyze oxidative reactions that effectively degrade the complex lignin polymers in plant residue [26][28]. White-rot fungi, belonging to the Basidiomycota phylum, have a particular ability to metabolize lignin as their primary source of energy [29]. Furthermore, there has been significant research conducted on the examination of lignocellulosic pretreatment methods, specifically focusing on two distinct classifications: selective and non-selective delignifiers of fungal species of the Basidiomycota phylum. The primary focus of selective delignifiers is to specifically target heteropolymeric lignin while scarcely affecting cellulose and hemicellulose components [29][30][31]. The aforementioned attribute renders them more appealing for scientific investigation, as they demonstrate a greater output of lignin-free cellulosic biomass in comparison to non-selective delignifiers. These are mostly responsible for the simultaneous degradation of lignocellulosic biomass structural components [32][33][34]. Several species of white-rot fungi have notable potential in the breakdown of lignin. Phanerochaete chrysosporium [28][35] and Trametes versicolor [36][37] have been the subject of much research due to their significant biological pretreatment capabilities. These organisms are commonly used as model organisms to gain insights into the process of lignin breakdown. Moreover, Ganoderma lucidum [38][39] and Phlebia spp. [40][41][42] have also been acknowledged for their ability to produce lignin-degrading enzymes, which enhances their potential to be viable candidates for diverse applications in the area. Xu and colleagues [43] obtained promising results, investigating the efficacy of white-root fungus Inonotus obliquus pretreatment for the first time in producing lignocellulolytic enzymes induced by wheat straw, rice straw, and maize stover biomass. The fungus process resulted in the highest lignin loss of 72%, 39%, and 47% within 12 days for wheat straw, rice straw, and corn stover, respectively.
Another essential group of fungi in the degradation of plant residue are brown-rot fungi, which are involved in the breakdown of crop residue. Similarly to forest ecosystems, brown-rot fungi adopt a selective decay strategy that primarily targets the degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose, while mostly modifying lignin rather than completely degrading it [44][45]. In comparison with white-rot fungi, brown-rot fungi do not possess genes for class-II peroxidases. As a result, the breakdown of polysaccharides of plant cell walls mostly occurs via non-enzymatic Fenton reactions, which are produced outside the fungal hyphae [19][46]. In the Hermosilla and colleague study, wheat straw pretreatment by the brown-rot fungus Gloeophyllum trabeum resulted in 11.3% weight loss after 40 days, and increased glucose recovery [47]. Another comparative investigation of lignocellulosic biomass degradation revealed that brown-rot fungi Fomitopsis pinicola exhibited the highest level of maize stalk mass reduction by 38% at 16 weeks among the species examined. Importantly, the observed effect was preceded by a substantial lag phase, a characteristic that was conspicuously lacking in the degradation patterns reported concerning other species [48]. It is worth noticing that the research on the ability of brown-rot fungi to degrade lignocellulosic biomass, particularly those derived from agricultural ecosystems, is relatively limited.
The significant contributions of lignocellulolytic fungi, particularly white-rot and brown-rot fungi, in the context of sustainable crop residue management, are of utmost importance and should not be underestimated. Initially, they utilize a diverse array of enzymes, efficiently breaking down complex lignocellulosic structures. Moreover, these fungi employ distinct mechanisms, such as selective degradation and the Fenton reaction, to enhance and accelerate the process. The comprehensive nature of this method highlights the essential contribution of these organisms in the natural processes of carbon and nitrogen recycling, hence playing a crucial role in the preservation of ecological equilibrium. In assessing the utilization of fungi for the decomposition of crop residue, it is important to take into account several factors. First and foremost, species specificity is of utmost importance, since different fungi exhibit varying levels of effectiveness and preference for different types of residues. Furthermore, it is essential to verify that the selected fungi do not cause diseases in crops and have positive effects on soil health. Therefore, it is crucial to carry out experimental studies or trials in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these fungi in certain agroecosystems, thereby guaranteeing an informed and appropriate strategy in terms of sustainable crop residue management.

3. Lignocellulolytic Activity of Bacteria

In addition to fungi, the utilization of bacteria for possible biodegradation processes is beginning to gain recognition due to their extensive functional diversity and versatility [49]. That can be explained by the ability to exhibit rapid growth rates and a remarkable tolerance range in terms of temperature, pH, and salinity, enabling them to adapt to a diverse array of environmental conditions [50][51][52][53]. In addition, some bacteria have the ability to meet their nitrogen needs through the process of biological nitrogen fixation [54]. Moreover, bacterial lignocellulases can produce multi enzymatic complexes, which are more adapted for the elaborate breakdown of biomass [55]. Some of the observations show that bacteria increase abundance in the latter stages of the lignocellulose breakdown process, which can be determined by the predominance of complex and recalcitrant carbon sources [56][57]. However, Arcand and colleagues [58] observed temporal variations in the relative abundance of Gram-positive bacteria depending on treatment, in contrast to a consistent decline in Gram-negative bacteria across different treatments. Concurrently, there was a notable increase in the relative abundance of Actinobacteria over time, a trend that persisted across all treatment conditions. Therefore, it is essential to acknowledge one more time that the abundance of bacteria in soil, specifically during the process of plant residue breakdown, is influenced by a complex combination of biotic and abiotic factors. Including nutrient availability, prevailing environmental conditions, inter-species competition, and synergistic associations, as well as the particular types of crops and their residues. The complex relationship described highlights the subtle features that define soil microbial ecology in agricultural ecosystems.
Bacteria possess distinct species and decomposition mechanisms that are adapted for either aerobic [59] or anaerobic conditions in plant lignocellulose breakdown [60]. During the lignocellulose degradation process, aerobic bacteria commence the breakdown by secreting lignocellulolytic enzymes that are capable of targeting biomass [61]. The bacteria initially engage in the hydrolysis of cellulose, resulting in the production of cellobiose, which is then followed by a stage of fermentation [62]. During this phase, the cellobiose molecule undergoes further hydrolysis reactions, leading to the formation of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and other organic acids [63]. Within the bacterial community, some aerobes, such as Cellulomonas, Bacillus, Pseudomonas, and Streptomyces, etc., are recognized as key players in cellulose degradation, contributing significantly to the process of residue decomposition [64][65][66][67].
Aerobic bacteria have numerous significant benefits over anaerobic bacteria in the context of crop residue breakdown in agricultural settings [68][69]. Firstly, aerobic bacteria exhibit a faster rate of breakdown, which can be attributed to the more effective pathways for energy release in the presence of oxygen. Their high efficiency allows them to rapidly break down complex compounds such as cellulose and lignin [70]. This phenomenon occurs as a result of the wide range of enzymes generated by aerobic bacteria, which efficiently break down recalcitrant plant compounds and facilitate complete mineralization. Finally, the aerobic process improves the availability of nutrients in forms that are easier for plants to absorb. For instance, nitrogen is released in the form of nitrate, which is easily assimilated by plants, in contrast to the ammonium released by anaerobic processes [71][72][73].
In the anaerobic degradation of lignocellulose by bacteria, sugars are transformed into alcohol or acids, leading to the generation of biogas through subsequent anaerobic digestion [74]. This process involves various microorganisms, notably methanogens and acetogens, which are capable of utilizing cellulose. While CO2 is the primary byproduct of microbial cellulose degradation, methane (CH4) is also produced under anaerobic conditions [62]. The genus Clostridium is well recognized as a highly researched group for anaerobic degradation of lignocellulose, mostly due to its exceptional ability to efficiently breakdown cellulose [75][76]. This particular genus possesses the ability to produce complex enzymes known as cellulosomes, which exhibit a high level of efficiency in the process of breaking down cellulose and hemicellulose [74][77]. Moreover, anaerobic bacteria break down cellulose utilizing complex cellulase systems such polycellulosomes, while aerobic bacteria use a synergistic free cellulase system to utilize cellulose as a carbon and energy source by secreting different types of endo- and exo-acting enzymes.

4. Lignocellulolytic Activity of Actinobacteria

Another group of microorganisms that display characteristics that bear resemblance to both bacteria and fungi are actinobacteria. Nevertheless, the resemblance between actinomycetes and fungi is only superficial, and they possess sufficient distinctive characteristics to definitively classify them within the bacterial kingdom [78]. The majority of filamentous actinomycetes that frequently occur belong to the Streptomyces and Micromonospora families. Usually, actinomycetes are known for their ability to break down complex carbon and nitrogen compounds [79][80]. In soil, organic residues are initially decomposed by bacteria and fungi with actinomycetes subsequently taking over due to their comparatively slower growth and activity rates. Moreover, they have a crucial function in the subsequent decomposition of humus in the soil [81][82]. Actinobacteria communities exhibit a wide range of hydrolytic enzymes, such as β-glucosidase, cellobiohydrolase, ligninase, acetyl xylan esterase, and arabinofuranosidase. These enzymes, along with their associated supramolecular cellulosomes, are crucial for breaking down plant residues [83][84][85].
Additionally, the high C/N ratio in cereal crop residues constrains the nitrogen availability for microbial reproduction. However, the nitrogen-fixing capability of actinobacteria potentially enhances nitrogen availability during cereal residue decomposition driven by microbes [86][87][88]. Notably, this group of microorganisms have the ability to inhibit the growth of other species by producing antibiotics [89]. These ecological and physiological attributes collectively indicate a wide adaptation of actinobacteria communities in crop residue decomposition and soil carbon sequestration.
The key genera engaged in the process of degrading lignocellulose biomass include Streptomyces, Micromonospora, Thermobifida, Thermomonospora, Actinomadura, Nocardia, and others [18][90][91][92][93][94][95][96]. A study on wheat straw biodegradation by Streptomyces viridosporus T7A, revealed lignin and hemicellulose removal, carbonyl and methoxyl group modifications, and a significant guaiacyl unit reduction [97]. Another research conducted by Gong and his colleagues on the characterization of maize-straw-degrading actinomycetes revealed that a consortium composed of the three Streptomyces spp. showed a decomposition rate of 51.60% after 77 days, significantly reducing the content of recalcitrant components in the maize straw [98]. A metatranscriptomic analysis of compost-derived microbial communities enriched on rice straw under thermophilic and mesophilic conditions showed significant overexpression of enzymes from glycoside hydrolase family 48 and carbohydrate-binding modules families 2 and 33 in the thermophilic community, predominantly expressed by the actinobacteria genus Micromonospora [99].
Another study investigated the process of breaking down lignocellulose and specifically focused on the lignin-degrading ability of peroxidase Tfu-1649 secreted by Thermobifida fusca BCRC 19214, particularly in synergy with xylanase Tfu-11 substantially enhanced the degradation of lignocellulosic biomass [94].
The efficacy of cereal crop residue breakdown by various microbial inoculants varies depending on parameters such as application rate, timing of inoculation, type of cereal crop residue, etc. The efficiency of the microorganisms was assessed by measuring the percentage of mass loss of residues. The results are summarized in Table 1. The secretion of hydrolytic enzymes positions actinomycetes as a principal group among soil microorganisms that are responsible for organic matter decomposition. As decomposers, they are adept at breaking down resilient lignocellulose from crop residues including the most recalcitrant structures such as lignin. Furthermore, the nitrogen-fixing capability of certain species enhances the decomposition of cereal crop residues, which typically have low nitrogen content.
Table 1. Summary of microbial inoculant efficiency for degradation of cereal crop residues.
Microorganism Residue Type Method Days Mass Loss, % Enzyme(s) Evaluated Reference
Trichoderma reesei Rice straw, bran Solid-state fermentation 10 51.16 Laccase, xylanase, β-Glucosidase, cellobiohydrolase, endoglucanase [100]
Trichoderma harzianum Rice straw In situ 28 23.69 - [101]
Aspergillus niger Rice and wheat straw (4:1) Solid-state fermentation 10 16 CMCase, endoglucanase, cellobiase, β-1,4-xylanase [102]
Phanerochaete chrysosporium Maize stover Solid-state fermentation 28 21 - [103]
Ganoderma lobatum Wheat straw Solid-state fermentation 40 21.04 β-glucosidase [104]
Cellulomonas sp. Rice straw Submerged fermentation 4 49.3 β-glucosidase, endoglucanase, exoglucanase, xylanase, lignin peroxidase, manganese peroxidase, laccase. [105]
Bacillus sp. Wheat bran Submerged fermentation 7 60 Cellulase, endoglucanase, xylanase, laccase, mannase [106]
Streptomyces sp. Barley straw Submerged fermentation 7 60.55 Exoglucanase, endoglucanase, β-glucosidase [107]
Enterobacter sp. Rice straw Submerged fermentation 7 45.52 Endoglucanases, exoglucanase, xylanase [108]
Ganoderma lobatum + Gloeophyllum trabeum Wheat straw Solid-state fermentation 20 15.52 β-glucosidase [104]
Cellulomonas ZJW-6 + Acinetobacter DA-25 Rice straw Submerged fermentation 4 57.62 β-glucosidase, endoglucanase, xylanase, lignin peroxidase, laccase, manganese peroxidase, β-glucosidase [109]
Streptomyces sp. G1T + Streptomyces sp. G2T + Streptomyces sp. G3T Maize stalk solid-state fermentation 119 66.37 - [98]
Citrobacter freundii so4 + Sphingobacterium multivorum w15 + Coniochaeta sp. 2T2.1 Wheat straw Submerged fermentation 10 12.82 - [110]


  1. Lai, R. Conservation Tillage for Sustainable Agriculture: Tropics Versus Temperate Environments. Adv. Agron. 1989, 42, 85–197.
  2. Bisen, N.; Rahangdale, C.P. Crop Residues Management Option for Sustainable Soil Health in Rice-Wheat System: A Review. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2017, 5, 1038–1042.
  3. Yadvinder-Singh, B.S.; Timsina, J. Crop Residue Management for Nutrient Cycling and Improving Soil Productivity in Rice-Based Cropping Systems in the Tropics. Adv. Agron. 2005, 85, 269–407.
  4. Triplett, G.B.; Dick, W.A. No-Tillage Crop Production: A Revolution in Agriculture! Agron. J. 2008, 100, 153–165.
  5. The United Nations Statistics Division. Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49); The United Nations Statistics Division: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
  6. Pinke, Z.; Decsi, B.; Jámbor, A.; Kardos, M.K.; Kern, Z.; Kozma, Z.; Ács, T. Climate Change and Modernization Drive Structural Realignments in European Grain Production. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 7374.
  7. Turmel, M.S.; Speratti, A.; Baudron, F.; Verhulst, N.; Govaerts, B. Crop Residue Management and Soil Health: A Systems Analysis. Agric. Syst. 2015, 134, 6–16.
  8. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R. Crop Residue Removal Impacts on Soil Productivity and Environmental Quality. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2009, 28, 140–160.
  9. Wang, J.; Sainju, U.M. Aggregate-Associated Carbon and Nitrogen Affected by Residue Placement, Crop Species, and Nitrogen Fertilization. Soil Sci. 2014, 179, 153–165.
  10. Smith, W.N.; Grant, B.B.; Campbell, C.A.; McConkey, B.G.; Desjardins, R.L.; Kröbel, R.; Malhi, S.S. Crop Residue Removal Effects on Soil Carbon: Measured and Inter-Model Comparisons. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 161, 27–38.
  11. He, Y.; Presley, D.A.R.; Tatarko, J.; Blanco-Canqui, H. Crop Residue Harvest Impacts Wind Erodibility and Simulated Soil Loss in the Central Great Plains. GCB Bioenergy 2018, 10, 213–226.
  12. Chowdhury, S.; Farrell, M.; Butler, G.; Bolan, N. Assessing the Effect of Crop Residue Removal on Soil Organic Carbon Storage and Microbial Activity in a No-till Cropping System. Soil Use Manag. 2015, 31, 450–460.
  13. Rasche, F.; Musyoki, M.K.; Röhl, C.; Muema, E.K.; Vanlauwe, B.; Cadisch, G. Lasting Influence of Biochemically Contrasting Organic Inputs on Abundance and Community Structure of Total and Proteolytic Bacteria in Tropical Soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 74, 204–213.
  14. Garg, S. Bioremediation of Agricultural, Municipal, and Industrial Wastes. In Waste Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019.
  15. Goswami, S.B.; Mondal, R.; Mandi, S.K. Crop Residue Management Options in Rice–Rice System: A Review. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2020, 66, 1218–1234.
  16. Payne, C.M.; Knott, B.C.; Mayes, H.B.; Hansson, H.; Himmel, M.E.; Sandgren, M.; Ståhlberg, J.; Beckham, G.T. Fungal Cellulases. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 1308–1448.
  17. Madeira, J.V.; Contesini, F.J.; Calzado, F.; Rubio, M.V.; Zubieta, M.P.; Lopes, D.B.; de Melo, R.R. Agro-Industrial Residues and Microbial Enzymes. In Biotechnology of Microbial Enzymes; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 475–511.
  18. Shamshitov, A.; Decorosi, F.; Viti, C.; Fornasier, F.; Kadžienė, G.; Supronienė, S. Characterisation of Cellulolytic Bacteria Isolated from Agricultural Soil in Central Lithuania. Sustainability 2023, 15, 598.
  19. Cragg, S.M.; Beckham, G.T.; Bruce, N.C.; Bugg, T.D.H.; Distel, D.L.; Dupree, P.; Etxabe, A.G.; Goodell, B.S.; Jellison, J.; McGeehan, J.E.; et al. Lignocellulose Degradation Mechanisms across the Tree of Life. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2015, 29, 108–119.
  20. Kapahi, M.; Rani, R.; Kohli, K. Fungal Biorefineries for Biofuel Production for Sustainable Future Energy Systems. In Recent Trends in Mycological Research: Volume 2: Environmental and Industrial Perspective; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021.
  21. Rosso, M.N.; Berrin, J.G.; Lomascolo, A. Plant Wastes and Sustainable Refineries: What Can We Learn from Fungi? Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2022, 34, 100602.
  22. Hammel, K.E. Fungal Degradation of Lignin. Driven Nat. Plant Litter Qual. Decompos. 1997, 33, 45.
  23. Sánchez, C. Lignocellulosic Residues: Biodegradation and Bioconversion by Fungi. Biotechnol. Adv. 2009, 27, 185–194.
  24. Xu, J.-H. Carbohydrate Active Enzyme Database. In Catalysis from A to Z; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.
  25. Sharma, R.K.; Arora, D.S. Fungal Degradation of Lignocellulosic Residues: An Aspect of Improved Nutritive Quality. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 41, 52–60.
  26. Hofrichter, M.; Ullrich, R.; Pecyna, M.J.; Liers, C.; Lundell, T. New and Classic Families of Secreted Fungal Heme Peroxidases. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 87, 871–897.
  27. Vasina, D.V.; Moiseenko, K.V.; Fedorova, T.V.; Tyazhelova, T.V. Lignin-Degrading Peroxidases in White-Rot Fungus Trametes Hirsuta 072. Absolute Expression Quantification of Full Multigene Family. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173813.
  28. Xie, C.; Gong, W.; Zhu, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Xu, C.; Yan, L.; Hu, Z.; Ai, L.; Peng, Y. Comparative Secretome of White-Rot Fungi Reveals Co-Regulated Carbohydrate-Active Enzymes Associated with Selective Ligninolysis of Ramie Stalks. Microb. Biotechnol. 2021, 14, 911–922.
  29. Rudakiya, D.M.; Gupte, A. Assessment of White Rot Fungus Mediated Hardwood Degradation by FTIR Spectroscopy and Multivariate Analysis. J. Microbiol. Methods 2019, 157, 123–130.
  30. Marinović, M.; Aguilar-Pontes, M.V.; Zhou, M.; Miettinen, O.; de Vries, R.P.; Mäkelä, M.R.; Hildén, K. Temporal Transcriptome Analysis of the White-Rot Fungus Obba Rivulosa Shows Expression of a Constitutive Set of Plant Cell Wall Degradation Targeted Genes during Growth on Solid Spruce Wood. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2018, 112, 47–54.
  31. Marinović, M.; Nousiainen, P.; Dilokpimol, A.; Kontro, J.; Moore, R.; Sipilä, J.; De Vries, R.P.; Mäkelä, M.R.; Hildén, K. Selective Cleavage of Lignin β- O-4 Aryl Ether Bond by β-Etherase of the White-Rot Fungus Dichomitus Squalens. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 2878–2882.
  32. Den, W.; Sharma, V.K.; Lee, M.; Nadadur, G.; Varma, R.S. Lignocellulosic Biomass Transformations via Greener Oxidative Pretreatment Processes: Access to Energy and Value Added Chemicals. Front. Chem. 2018, 6, 141.
  33. Wang, X.; Yao, B.; Su, X. Linking Enzymatic Oxidative Degradation of Lignin to Organics Detoxification. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3373.
  34. Hatakka, A.; Hammel, K.E. Fungal Biodegradation of Lignocelluloses. In Industrial Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011.
  35. Machado, A.S.; Valadares, F.; Silva, T.F.; Milagres, A.M.F.; Segato, F.; Ferraz, A. The Secretome of Phanerochaete Chrysosporium and Trametes Versicolor Grown in Microcrystalline Cellulose and Use of the Enzymes for Hydrolysis of Lignocellulosic Materials. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 826.
  36. Asgher, M.; Wahab, A.; Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Delignification of Lignocellulose Biomasses by Alginate–Chitosan Immobilized Laccase Produced from Trametes Versicolor IBL-04. Waste Biomass Valorization 2018, 9, 2071–2079.
  37. Su, Y.; Xian, H.; Shi, S.; Zhang, C.; Manik, S.M.N.; Mao, J.; Zhang, G.; Liao, W.; Wang, Q.; Liu, H. Biodegradation of Lignin and Nicotine with White Rot Fungi for the Delignification and Detoxification of Tobacco Stalk. BMC Biotechnol. 2016, 16, 81.
  38. Van Kuijk, S.J.A.; Sonnenberg, A.S.M.; Baars, J.J.P.; Hendriks, W.H.; Cone, J.W. Fungal Treatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass: Importance of Fungal Species, Colonization and Time on Chemical Composition and in Vitro Rumen Degradability. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2015, 209, 40–50.
  39. Zhou, S.; Zhang, J.; Ma, F.; Tang, C.; Tang, Q.; Zhang, X. Investigation of Lignocellulolytic Enzymes during Different Growth Phases of Ganoderma Lucidum Strain G0119 Using Genomic, Transcriptomic and Secretomic Analyses. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198404.
  40. Krcmar, P.; Novotny, C.; Marais, M.F.; Joseleau, J.P. Structure of Extracellular Polysaccharide Produced by Lignin-Degrading Fungus Phlebia Radiata in Liquid Culture. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 1999, 24, 61–64.
  41. Fonseca, M.I.; Molina, M.A.; Winnik, D.L.; Busi, M.V.; Fariña, J.I.; Villalba, L.L.; Zapata, P.D. Isolation of a Laccase-Coding Gene from the Lignin-Degrading Fungus Phlebia Brevispora BAFC 633 and Heterologous Expression in Pichia Pastoris. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 124, 1454–1468.
  42. Hirakawa, M.P.; Rodriguez, A.; Tran-Gyamfi, M.B.; Light, Y.K.; Martinez, S.; Diamond-Pott, H.; Simmons, B.A.; Sale, K.L. Phenothiazines Rapidly Induce Laccase Expression and Lignin-Degrading Properties in the White-Rot Fungus Phlebia Radiata. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 371.
  43. Xu, X.; Xu, Z.; Shi, S.; Lin, M. Lignocellulose Degradation Patterns, Structural Changes, and Enzyme Secretion by Inonotus Obliquus on Straw Biomass under Submerged Fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 241, 415–423.
  44. Floudas, D.; Bentzer, J.; Ahrén, D.; Johansson, T.; Persson, P.; Tunlid, A. Uncovering the Hidden Diversity of Litter-Decomposition Mechanisms in Mushroom-Forming Fungi. ISME J. 2020, 14, 2046–2059.
  45. Qi, J.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, C.; Wen, J.; Deng, S.; Luo, B.; Fan, M.; Xia, Y. Selectively Enzymatic Conversion of Wood Constituents with White and Brown Rot Fungi. Ind. Crops Prod. 2023, 199, 116703.
  46. Goodell, B.; Zhu, Y.; Kim, S.; Kafle, K.; Eastwood, D.; Daniel, G.; Jellison, J.; Yoshida, M.; Groom, L.; Pingali, S.V.; et al. Modification of the Nanostructure of Lignocellulose Cell Walls via a Non-Enzymatic Lignocellulose Deconstruction System in Brown Rot Wood-Decay Fungi. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 179.
  47. Hermosilla, E.; Schalchli, H.; Diez, M.C. Biodegradation Inducers to Enhance Wheat Straw Pretreatment by Gloeophyllum Trabeum to Second-Generation Ethanol Production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 8467–8480.
  48. Kaffenberger, J.T.; Schilling, J.S. Comparing Lignocellulose Physiochemistry after Decomposition by Brown Rot Fungi with Distinct Evolutionary Origins. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 17, 4885–4897.
  49. Obeng, E.M.; Adam, S.N.N.; Budiman, C.; Ongkudon, C.M.; Maas, R.; Jose, J. Lignocellulases: A Review of Emerging and Developing Enzymes, Systems, and Practices. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2017, 4, 16.
  50. Mirete, S.; Morgante, V.; González-Pastor, J.E. Acidophiles: Diversity and Mechanisms of Adaptation to Acidic Environments. In Adaption of Microbial Life to Environmental Extremes: Novel Research Results and Application, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017.
  51. Dennis, P.G.; Newsham, K.K.; Rushton, S.P.; O’Donnell, A.G.; Hopkins, D.W. Soil Bacterial Diversity Is Positively Associated with Air Temperature in the Maritime Antarctic. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 2686.
  52. Walkup, J.; Dang, C.; Mau, R.L.; Hayer, M.; Schwartz, E.; Stone, B.W.; Hofmockel, K.S.; Koch, B.J.; Purcell, A.M.; Pett-Ridge, J.; et al. The Predictive Power of Phylogeny on Growth Rates in Soil Bacterial Communities. ISME Commun. 2023, 3, 73.
  53. Padan, E.; Bibi, E.; Ito, M.; Krulwich, T.A. Alkaline PH Homeostasis in Bacteria: New Insights. Biochim. Biophys. Acta—Biomembr. 2005, 1717, 67–88.
  54. Harindintwali, J.D.; Zhou, J.; Yu, X. Lignocellulosic Crop Residue Composting by Cellulolytic Nitrogen-Fixing Bacteria: A Novel Tool for Environmental Sustainability. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 715, 136912.
  55. López-Mondéjar, R.; Algora, C.; Baldrian, P. Lignocellulolytic Systems of Soil Bacteria: A Vast and Diverse Toolbox for Biotechnological Conversion Processes. Biotechnol. Adv. 2019, 37, 107374.
  56. DeAngelis, K.M.; Allgaier, M.; Chavarria, Y.; Fortney, J.L.; Hugenholtz, P.; Simmons, B.; Sublette, K.; Silver, W.L.; Hazen, T.C. Characterization of Trapped Lignin-Degrading Microbes in Tropical Forest Soil. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e19306.
  57. Tláskal, V.; Zrůstová, P.; Vrška, T.; Baldrian, P. Bacteria Associated with Decomposing Dead Wood in a Natural Temperate Forest. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2017, 93, fix157.
  58. Arcand, M.M.; Helgason, B.L.; Lemke, R.L. Microbial Crop Residue Decomposition Dynamics in Organic and Conventionally Managed Soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 107, 347–359.
  59. Georgiadou, D.N.; Avramidis, P.; Ioannou, E.; Hatzinikolaou, D.G. Microbial Bioprospecting for Lignocellulose Degradation at a Unique Greek Environment. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07122.
  60. Xin, Y.; Liu, W.; Ren, S.; Wang, D. Effect of nano-magnetite and ethanol on methane production in the anaerobic digestion of wheat straw. J. ASABE 2022, 65, 707–714.
  61. Singhvi, M.S.; Gokhale, D.V. Lignocellulosic Biomass: Hurdles and Challenges in Its Valorization. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 9305–9320.
  62. Hassan, S.S.; Williams, G.A.; Jaiswal, A.K. Moving towards the Second Generation of Lignocellulosic Biorefineries in the EU: Drivers, Challenges, and Opportunities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 101, 590–599.
  63. Beaton, D.; Pelletier, P.; Goulet, R.R. Microbial Degradation of Cellulosic Material and Gas Generation: Implications for the Management of Low-and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 204.
  64. Piccinni, F.; Murua, Y.; Ghio, S.; Talia, P.; Rivarola, M.; Campos, E. Draft Genome Sequence of Cellulolytic and Xylanolytic Cellulomonas sp. Strain B6 Isolated from Subtropical Forest Soil. Genome Announc. 2016, 4, e00891-16.
  65. Wang, W.; Yan, L.; Cui, Z.; Gao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Jing, R. Characterization of a Microbial Consortium Capable of Degrading Lignocellulose. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 9321–9324.
  66. De Lima Brossi, M.J.; Jiménez, D.J.; Cortes-Tolalpa, L.; van Elsas, J.D. Soil-Derived Microbial Consortia Enriched with Different Plant Biomass Reveal Distinct Players Acting in Lignocellulose Degradation. Microb. Ecol. 2016, 71, 616–627.
  67. Pinheiro, G.L.; Rodriguez, J.E.; Domont, G.B.; de Souza, W.; Junqueira, M.; Frases, S. Biochemical Characterization of Streptomyces Sp. I1.2 Secretome Reveals the Presence of Multienzymatic Complexes Containing Cellulases and Accessory Enzymes. Bioenergy Res. 2017, 10, 1–12.
  68. Olk, D.C.; Samson, M.I.; Gapas, P. Inhibition of Nitrogen Mineralization in Young Humic Fractions by Anaerobic Decomposition of Rice Crop Residues. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2007, 58, 270–281.
  69. Gao, H.; Chen, X.; Wei, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Chang, J.; Thompson, M.L. Decomposition Dynamics and Changes in Chemical Composition of Wheat Straw Residue under Anaerobic and Aerobic Conditions. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158172.
  70. Bierke, A.; Kaiser, K.; Guggenberger, G. Crop Residue Management Effects on Organic Matter in Paddy Soils—The Lignin Component. Geoderma 2008, 146, 48–57.
  71. Olk, D.C.; Cassman, K.G.; Schmidt-Rohr, K.; Anders, M.M.; Mao, J.D.; Deenik, J.L. Chemical Stabilization of Soil Organic Nitrogen by Phenolic Lignin Residues in Anaerobic Agroecosystems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 3303–3312.
  72. Doran, J.W. Microbial Biomass and Mineralizable Nitrogen Distributions in No-Tillage and Plowed Soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1987, 5, 68–75.
  73. Olk, D.C.; Cassman, K.G.; Mahieu, N.; Randall, E.W. Conserved Chemical Properties of Young Humic Acid Fractions in Tropical Lowland Soil under Intensive Irrigated Rice Cropping. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 1998, 49, 337–349.
  74. Ljungdahl, L.G.; Eriksson, K.-E. Ecology of Microbial Cellulose Degradation; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1985.
  75. Kinet, R.; Destain, J.; Hiligsmann, S.; Thonart, P.; Delhalle, L.; Taminiau, B.; Daube, G.; Delvigne, F. Thermophilic and Cellulolytic Consortium Isolated from Composting Plants Improves Anaerobic Digestion of Cellulosic Biomass: Toward a Microbial Resource Management Approach. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 189, 138–144.
  76. Hamann, P.R.V.; Silva, L.D.M.B.; Gomes, T.C.; Noronha, E.F. Assembling Mini-Xylanosomes with Clostridium Thermocellum XynA, and Their Properties in Lignocellulose Deconstruction. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2021, 150, 109887.
  77. Eibinger, M.; Ganner, T.; Plank, H.; Nidetzky, B. A Biological Nanomachine at Work: Watching the Cellulosome Degrade Crystalline Cellulose. ACS Cent. Sci. 2020, 6, 739–746.
  78. Stackebrandt, E.; Rainey, F.A.; Ward-Rainey, N.L. Proposal for a New Hierarchic Classification System, Actinobacteria Classis Nov. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1997, 47, 479–491.
  79. Barka, E.A.; Vatsa, P.; Sanchez, L.; Gaveau-Vaillant, N.; Jacquard, C.; Klenk, H.-P.; Clément, C.; Ouhdouch, Y.; van Wezel, G.P. Taxonomy, Physiology, and Natural Products of Actinobacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2016, 80, 1–43.
  80. Větrovský, T.; Steffen, K.T.; Baldrian, P. Potential of Cometabolic Transformation of Polysaccharides and Lignin in Lignocellulose by Soil Actinobacteria. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89108.
  81. Bastian, F.; Bouziri, L.; Nicolardot, B.; Ranjard, L. Impact of Wheat Straw Decomposition on Successional Patterns of Soil Microbial Community Structure. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 262–275.
  82. Meng, Q.; Wang, S.; Niu, Q.; Yan, H.; Li, Q. The Influences of Illite/Smectite Clay on Lignocellulose Decomposition and Humification Process Revealed by Metagenomics Analysis during Cattle Manure Composting. Waste Manag. 2021, 127, 1–9.
  83. Wang, C.; Dong, D.; Wang, H.; Müller, K.; Qin, Y.; Wang, H.; Wu, W. Metagenomic Analysis of Microbial Consortia Enriched from Compost: New Insights into the Role of Actinobacteria in Lignocellulose Decomposition. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2016, 9, 22.
  84. Wang, W.; Yu, Y.; Dou, T.Y.; Wang, J.Y.; Sun, C. Species of Family Promicromonosporaceae and Family Cellulomonadeceae That Produce Cellulosome-like Multiprotein Complexes. Biotechnol. Lett. 2018, 40, 335–341.
  85. Lewin, G.R.; Carlos, C.; Chevrette, M.G.; Horn, H.A.; McDonald, B.R.; Stankey, R.J.; Fox, B.G.; Currie, C.R. Evolution and Ecology of Actinobacteria and Their Bioenergy Applications. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 70, 235–254.
  86. Seneviratne, G. Litter Quality and Nitrogen Release in Tropical Agriculture: A Synthesis. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2000, 31, 60–64.
  87. Swarnalakshmi, K.; Senthilkumar, M.; Ramakrishnan, B. Endophytic Actinobacteria: Nitrogen Fixation, Phytohormone Production, and Antibiosis. In Plant Growth Promoting Actinobacteria: A New Avenue for Enhancing the Productivity and Soil Fertility of Grain Legumes; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016.
  88. Mitra, D.; Mondal, R.; Khoshru, B.; Senapati, A.; Radha, T.K.; Mahakur, B.; Uniyal, N.; Myo, E.M.; Boutaj, H.; Sierra, B.E.G.; et al. Actinobacteria-Enhanced Plant Growth, Nutrient Acquisition, and Crop Protection: Advances in Soil, Plant, and Microbial Multifactorial Interactions. Pedosphere 2022, 32, 149–170.
  89. Hamedi, J.; Mohammadipanah, F. Biotechnological Application and Taxonomical Distribution of Plant Growth Promoting Actinobacteria. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 42, 157–171.
  90. Pinheiro, G.L.; de Azevedo-Martins, A.C.; Albano, R.M.; de Souza, W.; Frases, S. Comprehensive Analysis of the Cellulolytic System Reveals Its Potential for Deconstruction of Lignocellulosic Biomass in a Novel Streptomyces Sp. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 101, 301–319.
  91. Abdulla, H.M.; El-Shatoury, S.A. Actinomycetes in Rice Straw Decomposition. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 850–853.
  92. Chen, S.J.; Lam, M.Q.; Thevarajoo, S.; Abd Manan, F.; Yahya, A.; Chong, C.S. Genome Analysis of Cellulose and Hemicellulose Degrading Micromonospora Sp. CP22. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 160.
  93. Tuncer, M.; Ball, A. Degradation of Lignocellulose by Extracellular Enzymes Produced by Thermomonospora Fusca BD25. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2002, 58, 608–611.
  94. Liao, W.Y.; Huang, Y.C.; Chen, W.L.; Chen, C.Y.; Yang, C.H. Properties of Thermobifida Fusca Peroxidase Tfu-1649 and Its Combined Synergistic Effects with Xylanase on Lignocellulose Degradation. Bioresources 2021, 16, 942–953.
  95. Yin, Y.R.; Sang, P.; Xian, W.D.; Li, X.; Jiao, J.Y.; Liu, L.; Hozzein, W.N.; Xiao, M.; Li, W.J. Expression and Characteristics of Two Glucose-Tolerant GH1 β-Glucosidases From Actinomadura Amylolytica YIM 77502T for Promoting Cellulose Degradation. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 3149.
  96. Huang, Z.; He, C.; Wang, Z.; Luo, X.; Sun, X.; Zhao, J.; Gao, X.; Xiang, W.; Song, J.; Wang, X. Nocardia Rosealba Sp. Nov., a Novel Ligninase-Producing Actinobacterium Isolated from Soil. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2022, 72, 005416.
  97. Zeng, J.; Singh, D.; Laskar, D.D.; Chen, S. Degradation of Native Wheat Straw Lignin by Streptomyces Viridosporus T7A. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 10, 165–174.
  98. Gong, X.; Yu, Y.; Hao, Y.; Wang, Q.; Ma, J.; Jiang, Y.; Lv, G.; Li, L.; Qian, C. Characterizing Corn-Straw-Degrading Actinomycetes and Evaluating Application Efficiency in Straw-Returning Experiments. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1003157.
  99. Simmons, C.W.; Reddy, A.P.; D’haeseleer, P.; Khudyakov, J.; Billis, K.; Pati, A.; Simmons, B.A.; Singer, S.W.; Thelen, M.P.; Vandergheynst, J.S. Metatranscriptomic Analysis of Lignocellulolytic Microbial Communities Involved in High-Solids Decomposition of Rice Straw. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2014, 7, 495.
  100. Xia, Y.; Lin, X. Efficient Biodegradation of Straw and Persistent Organic Pollutants by a Novel Strategy Using Recombinant Trichoderma Reesei. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2022, 9, 91.
  101. Organo, N.D.; Granada, S.M.J.M.; Pineda, H.G.S.; Sandro, J.M.; Nguyen, V.H.; Gummert, M. Assessing the Potential of a Trichoderma-Based Compost Activator to Hasten the Decomposition of Incorporated Rice Straw. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 448.
  102. Choudhary, M.; Sharma, P.C.; Garg, N. Crop Residue Degradation by Autochthonous Fungi Isolated from Cropping System Management Scenarios. Bioresources 2015, 10, 5809–5819.
  103. Wendt, L.M.; Wahlen, B.D.; Walton, M.R.; Nguyen, J.A.; Lin, Y.; Brown, R.M.; Zhao, H. Exploring Filamentous Fungi Depolymerization of Corn Stover in the Context Bioenergy Queuing Operations. Food Energy Secur. 2022, 11, e333.
  104. Hermosilla, E.; Rubilar, O.; Schalchli, H.; da Silva, A.S.A.; Ferreira-Leitao, V.; Diez, M.C. Sequential White-Rot and Brown-Rot Fungal Pretreatment of Wheat Straw as a Promising Alternative for Complementary Mild Treatments. Waste Manag. 2018, 79, 240–250.
  105. Wu, L.; Che, S.; Qin, X.; Xu, Y.; Tian, S.; Zhu, Y.; Song, J.; Guan, Y.; Wang, D.; Wu, M.; et al. Identification, Characteristics and Rice Growth Promotion of a Highly Efficient Cellulolytic Bacterial Strain, Cellulomonas Iranensis ZJW-6, Isolated from Paddy Soil in Central China. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1152966.
  106. Vu, V.; Farkas, C.; Riyad, O.; Bujna, E.; Kilin, A.; Sipiczki, G.; Sharma, M.; Usmani, Z.; Gupta, V.K.; Nguyen, Q.D. Enhancement of the Enzymatic Hydrolysis Efficiency of Wheat Bran Using the Bacillus Strains and Their Consortium. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 343, 126092.
  107. Shrestha, S.; Khatiwada, J.R.; Kognou, A.L.M.; Chio, C.; Qin, W. Biomass-Degrading Enzyme(s) Production and Biomass Degradation by a Novel Streptomyces Thermocarboxydus. Curr. Microbiol. 2023, 80, 71.
  108. Xie, R.; Dong, C.; Wang, S.; Danso, B.; Dar, M.A.; Pandit, R.S.; Pawar, K.D.; Geng, A.; Zhu, D.; Li, X.; et al. Host-Specific Diversity of Culturable Bacteria in the Gut Systems of Fungus-Growing Termites and Their Potential Functions towards Lignocellulose Bioconversion. Insects 2023, 14, 403.
  109. Guan, Y.; Zhu, H.; Zhu, Y.; Zhao, H.; Shu, L.; Song, J.; Yang, X.; Wu, Z.; Wu, L.; Yang, M. Microbial Consortium Composed of Cellulomonas ZJW-6 and Acinetobacter DA-25 Improves Straw Lignocellulose Degradation. Arch. Microbiol. 2022, 204, 139.
  110. Wang, Y.; Elzenga, T.; van Elsas, J.D. Effect of Culture Conditions on the Performance of Lignocellulose-Degrading Synthetic Microbial Consortia. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 105, 7981–7995.
Subjects: Plant Sciences
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : , ,
View Times: 55
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 13 Mar 2024