ReviewArchives of microbiology2026
Encapsulation-mediated bioformulation of biocrust inoculants: microbial delivery strategies for dryland soil restoration.
Review in Archives of microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) are photosynthetic soil-surface consortia that stabilize dryland soils, regulate hydrological fluxes, support nutrient cycling, and promote ecosystem recovery. However, inoculation often performs inconsistently because propagules must withstand desiccation, ultraviolet radiation, erosion, transport stress, and repeated wet-dry cycles before functional cover develops. This review evaluates encapsulated carrier-based bioformulation as a microbial delivery strategy for biocrust inoculants. It compares six platform families: dripping ionic gelation, reverse ionic gelation, spray drying, complex coacervation, emulsion or layer-by-layer systems, and capsule, pellet, or seed-ball approaches. Evidence is classified into three levels: direct biocrust delivery studies, close dryland restoration analogues, and transferable microbial encapsulation evidence from biocontrol, probiotic delivery, environmental biotechnology, and agricultural bioformulation. The synthesis supports platform matching rather than a universal carrier. Alginate beads provide the strongest direct support for mixed or fragile biocrust inocula because mild aqueous gelation can accommodate complex propagules and create hydrated microsites. Capsules and pellets offer advantages for handling, microsite placement, delayed release, and co-delivery with seeds or amendments. Spray drying appears more suitable for robust cyanobacterial or algal starter cultures than for intact mixed fragments, whereas reverse ionic gelation, coacervation, emulsion-derived systems, and multilayer coatings remain transferable design concepts. Representative direct studies report controlled-condition establishment within weeks and more than 70% viability after 12 months in selected bead-based systems. Key gaps remain in multi-season field validation, carrier breakdown, residue effects, native-community responses, and platform comparability. Encapsulated biocrust bioformulations should be treated as emerging, evidence-matched restoration tools rather than universal field solutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42640326What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.