REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 12 references
The optimization of crop response to climatic stress through modulation of plant stress response mechanisms. Opportunities for biostimulants and plant hormones to meet climate challenges
T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Regulating biostimulants as pesticides is scientifically unjustified, the review concludes.
desk verdict A useful review of hormone-based stress resilience whose strongest safety claim fails on inspection; the regulatory argument deserves a serious but skeptical referee. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the plant hormone regulatory network, comprising biosynthesis, metabolism, transport, signaling, and perception. The paper uses this network to show that all interventions, genetic or exogenous, converge on the same endogenous pathways; the regulatory comparison then turns on the claim that exogenous products change endogenous hormone levels only within the range already seen naturally and below 1/100th of EU Codex Maximum Residue Limits.
What would settle it
A direct measurement study showing that a biostimulant applied at recommended rates raises a food crop's endogenous abscisic acid or auxin above the paper's 1/100th EU Codex MRL threshold, or a toxicology study showing harm at the hormone levels these products produce, would settle whether the safety claim is correct.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that crop resilience to climate stress is mediated by plant hormone signaling networks, and that breeding, nutrient supply, biostimulants, hormones, and microbial inoculants all achieve their effects by modulating these same networks. Because the changes in internal hormone concentrations caused by exogenous products do not exceed 1/100th of the EU Codex Maximum Residue Limits, the review asserts that these uses are safe and equivalent in kind to breeding and accepted agronomic practices. From this it follows that regulatory frameworks that automatically classify any product acting on plant growth regulation as a pesticide are not scientifically justified and should be replaced with rules based on the intended use and safety of the product.
Load-bearing premise
The safety conclusion rests on treating percent changes in hormone levels from many different studies as comparable to pesticide residue limits, and on assuming those limits are a valid safety benchmark for a plant's own hormones.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If the claim is right, current pesticide classification of biostimulants and plant hormones in the US and EU is scientifically unsupported.
- A use-based framework would let growers apply these products just-in-time when extreme weather is forecast, complementing slower breeding strategies.
- Manufacturers could openly claim that their products work through plant growth-regulatory pathways without triggering pesticide registration.
- Breeding and exogenous products could be treated as complementary, with breeding for long-term resilience and biostimulants for immediate, localized stress events.
- Regulatory reform would accelerate development of safe hormone analogs and microbial inoculants for climate-stress management.
Reading between the lines
- The paper does not say this, but if the equivalence claim is accepted, the same reasoning would extend to genome-edited crops that alter hormone pathways, since their hormonal endpoints overlap with those of exogenous products.
- A testable extension the authors do not run: compile absolute endogenous hormone concentrations from treated crops and compare them directly with toxicological reference values, rather than percent changes.
- The paper's safety conclusion is bounded by its own assumption that products are used at naturally occurring concentrations; supra-physiological synthetic analogs would fall outside the argument.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This review argues that crop resilience to climate stress is mediated largely through plant hormone signaling networks, and that breeding, nutrient management, biostimulants, exogenous hormones, and microbial products all achieve their effects by modulating these same natural pathways. On this basis, the authors contend that classifying biostimulants and plant hormones as pesticides is scientifically unjustified, and they propose a use-based regulatory framework. The paper synthesizes a large body of literature on hormone-mediated stress responses, provides tables of genetic manipulations and exogenous applications, and presents a Supplemental Table of endogenous hormone changes expressed as percentages of controls.
Significance. If the safety and equivalence claims were adequately supported, this review would provide a useful scientific foundation for reforming biostimulant regulation and for justifying rapid, targeted stress-mitigation tools in climate adaptation. The compilation of mechanistic evidence linking breeding, nutrition, biostimulants, and hormones to common hormone pathways is valuable, and the paper's explicit policy proposal is timely. However, the central safety demonstration in Section 4 is not quantitatively or toxicologically valid, which weakens the review's main regulatory conclusion as currently written.
major comments (3)
- [Section 4, Supplemental Table 1] The safety claim in Section 4 that measured changes in internal hormone levels 'did not result in internal hormone concentrations exceeding 1/100th of the EU Codex Maximum Residue Limit' is not supported by the data presented. Supplemental Table 1 reports only percentage changes relative to controls and contains no absolute concentrations, no consistent tissue or developmental-stage definitions, and no MRL values. Because a +817% change in barley shoot SA (Torun et al.) could correspond to very different absolute concentrations depending on the baseline, the table cannot demonstrate that any concentration threshold was not exceeded. Moreover, EU/Codex MRLs are legal residue limits for pesticide active substances in food, not toxicological reference values for endogenous plant hormones; the manuscript does not establish that MRLs exist for IAA, ABA, GA3, SA, JA, or cytokinins, nor that a pesticide MRL can be mapped to an endogenous hormone. This load-bearing conclusion therefore needs to be removed or replaced with an actual toxicological and exposure assessment.
- [Section 4 and Section 6] Even if endogenous hormone concentrations were shown to remain within some chosen range, that would not by itself establish that the exogenous products are safe. Product safety depends on the toxicity and exposure of the applied substance and its formulation, including application rate, inert ingredients, metabolites, and environmental fate; the manuscript provides no such assessment. The abstract's categorical statement that these products are 'safe' thus overreaches what the review can support, and Section 6's assertion that most plant hormones 'when present at concentrations found in nature have been designated as safe, with no viable human toxicity nor environmental persistence' is made without citation and is too broad to be accepted as a factual premise.
- [Section 5] The regulatory comparison in Section 5 needs verification: the quoted passage attributed to Article 2(b) of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 reads as a fragment ('influencing the life processes of plants, such as substances influencing their growth, other than as a nutrient or a plant biostimulant') and is not clearly a correct rendering of the legal text. Since the inconsistency of regulatory treatment is a central thesis, the description of the EU and US legal frameworks should be checked against primary sources and presented precisely, with the actual scope of the biostimulant exemption stated.
minor comments (3)
- [References] Several references are incomplete, including entries lacking publication years or full source details (e.g., Shakirova et al., Arslan et al., Fitzpatrick et al., Khedia et al., Ekinci et al.); these should be completed before publication.
- [Supplemental Table 1 and Tables 2-3] There are typographical and formatting errors, such as 'Trihoderma' instead of 'Trichoderma' and inconsistent spacing in phrases like 'copping system resilience'; a careful proofread of all tables is needed.
- [General] The paper would benefit from clearly separating the scientific synthesis from the policy advocacy, so that the regulatory arguments are presented as reasoned proposals rather than as direct consequences of the mechanistic data alone.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity; the central safety claim is unsupported but does not reduce to the paper's own inputs by construction.
full rationale
This is a narrative review with no fitted parameters, no predictive equations, and no formal derivation whose output is equivalent to its input. The Section 4 safety conclusion ('Across all stress events and all exogenous products or nutrient applications, the measured changes in internal hormone levels did not result in internal hormone concentrations exceeding 1/100th of the EU Codex Maximum Residue Limit... demonstrating that the use of these approaches to address crop stress is safe') is an invalid inference from the percentage-change data in Supplemental Table 1, but invalidity is not circularity: the conclusion does not reduce to the data by definition or by construction, and no equation maps percent changes to absolute concentrations against MRLs. The only notable self-citation, Li et al. (2022), supplies an approximate 18% biostimulant yield-effectiveness estimate; it supports the efficacy discussion and is not load-bearing for the regulatory or safety thesis. No load-bearing step is justified solely by a self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The derivation chain is therefore not circular, even though the safety argument is scientifically unsupported.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Plant stress resilience is largely mediated through plant hormone signaling networks.
- ad hoc to paper Changes in endogenous hormone levels caused by biostimulants and hormones do not exceed 1/100th of EU Codex MRLs and are therefore safe.
- ad hoc to paper A product that alters the same physiological pathways as breeding or nutrients should be regulated like those practices, not like a pesticide.
- ad hoc to paper Regulation should be based on toxicity and exposure rather than on mode of action.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of The optimization of crop response to climatic stress through modulation of plant stress response mechanisms. Opportunities for biostimulants and plant hormones to meet climate challenges." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K76IAUE3
@misc{pith2026250601714,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: The optimization of crop response to climatic stress through modulation of plant stress response mechanisms. Opportunities for biostimulants and plant hormones to meet climate challenges},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K76IAUE3}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01714}
}
read the original abstract
Climate change is a major threat to crop potential and is characterized by both long-term shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns as well as increased occurrence of extreme weather events, these extreme weather events are the most immediate and intractable threat to agriculture. Crop resilience in the face of stress depends upon the speed and effectiveness with which plants and cropping systems sense and respond to that stress. A variety of agronomic practices including breeding, exogenous inputs (nutrients, water, biostimulants and others) and shifts in cultivation practice have been used to influence plant stress response to achieve the goal of increased plant and cropping system resilience. Traditional breeding is a powerful tool that has resulted in stable and long-term cultivar improvements but is often too slow and complex to meet the diverse, complex and unpredictable challenges of climate induced stresses. Increased inputs (water, nutrients, pesticides etc.) and management strategies (cropping system choice, soil management etc.) can alleviate stress but are often constrained by cost and availability of inputs. Exogenous biostimulants, microbials and plant hormones have shown great promise as mechanisms to optimize natural plant resilience resulting in immediate but non-permanent improvements in plant responses to climate induced stresses. The failure to modernize regulatory frameworks for the use of biostimulants in agriculture will constrain the development of safe effective tools and deprive growers of means to respond to the vagaries of climate change. Here we discuss the scientific rationale for eliminating the regulatory barriers that constrain the potential for biostimulants or products that modulate plant regulatory networks to address climate change challenges and propose a framework for enabling legislation to strengthen cropping system resilience.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[6]
Production, bioactive properties, and potential applications of fish protein hydrolysates: Developments and challenges. Elsevier Ltd. Gashaw A, Theerawitaya C, Samphumphuang T, Cha -um S, Supaibulwatana K . 2014. CPPU elevates photosynthetic abilities, growth performances and yield traits in salt stressed rice (Oryza sativa L. spp. indica) via free prolin...
work page 2014
-
[9]
S-ABA Enhances Rice Salt Tolerance by Regulating Na+/K+ Balance and Hormone Homeostasis. Metabolites 14, 181. Jiang M, Xu F, Peng M, Huang F, Meng F . 2016. Methyl jasmonate regulated diploid and tetraploid black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) tolerance to salt stress. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 38, 1–13. Jin P, Zhu H, Wang J, Chen J, Wang X, Zheng Y ....
work page 2016
-
[10]
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 84, 115–124
Gibberellin secreting rhizobacterium, Pseudomonas putida H -2-3 modulates the hormonal and stress physiology of soybean to improve the plant growth under saline and drought conditions. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 84, 115–124. Kang S-M, Shahzad R, Bilal S, Khan AL, Park Y -G, Lee K-E, Asaf S, Khan MA, Lee I - J. 2019. Indole -3-acetic-acid and ACC de...
work page 2019
-
[11]
Journal of Plant Physiology 270, 153629
The cytokinin -producing plant beneficial bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens G20 -18 primes tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) for enhanced drought stress responses. Journal of Plant Physiology 270, 153629. Meyer RS, Purugganan MD. 2013. Evolution of crop species: genetics of domestication and diversification. Nature reviews genetics 14, 840–852. 54 Mittler R, ...
work page 2013
-
[12]
Exogenous naphthaleneacetic acid alleviated alkalinity -induced morpho -physio- biochemical damages in Cyperus esculentus L. var. sativus Boeck. Frontiers in Plant Science 13, 1018787. Vaidya AS, Helander JDM, Peterson FC, et al. 2019. Dynamic control of plant water use using designed ABA receptor agonists. Science 366, eaaw8848. Visentin I, Vitali M, Fer...
work page 2019
-
[1995]
Physiologia Plantarum 93, 498–504
Control of osmotin gene expression by ABA and osmotic stress in vegetative tissues of wild‐type and ABA‐deficient mutants of tomato. Physiologia Plantarum 93, 498–504. Gujjar RS, Banyen P, Chuekong W, Worakan P, Roytrakul S, Supaibulwatana K. 2020. A Synthetic Cytokinin Improves Photosynthesis in Rice under Drought Stress by Modulating the Abundance of Pr...
work page 2020
-
[2014]
, 2021) Bacillus licheniformis Greenhouse pot None Onion leaves +29 (Gupta et al
Rice roots +350 +89 +500 Azotobacter vinelandii Hydroponic system Heavy metals Rice root +84 +155 +113 (Sahoo et al. , 2021) Bacillus licheniformis Greenhouse pot None Onion leaves +29 (Gupta et al. ,
work page 2021
-
[2017]
Environmental and Experimental Botany 134, 102–115
Cadmium stress related to root-to-shoot communication depends on ethylene and auxin in tomato plants. Environmental and Experimental Botany 134, 102–115. Ambreetha S, Chinnadurai C, Marimuthu P, Balachandar D . 2018. Plant -associated Bacillus modulates the expression of auxin -responsive genes of rice and modifies the root architecture. Rhizosphere 5, 57...
work page 2018
Show all 12 references
-
[2018]
Algal extracts (Kappaphycus alvarezii) Open air pot Salt Wheat +20 +70 Protein hydrolysates (animal) Greenhouse pot Drought Tomato +7.7 (Casadesús et al., 2019) 38 Trichoderma harzianum Seedling nursery None Melon shoots +34 +118 +29 +39 +77 (Martínez- Medina et al. , 2011) Gl...
2019
-
[2021]
a product of any of the following types, intended only to aid the growth of desirable plants, is not a “plant regulator
Pseudomonas fluorenscence Greenhouse pot None Onion leaves +32 Bacillus subtilis Greenhouse pot None Cauliflowe r –2.8 +14 +29 +20 (Ekinci et al.) Azospirillum brasilense with N Field None Soybean +19 +45 +57 (Zahedi and Abbasi, 2015) 39 5 Summary and the Implications of Regul...
2015
-
[2022]
Plants 11
Bio-Stimulating Effect of Natural Polysaccharides from Lobularia maritima on Durum Wheat Seedlings: Improved Plant Growth, Salt Stress Tolerance by Modulating Biochemical Responses and Ion Homeostasis. Plants 11. Bouzroud S, Gasparini K, Hu G, Barbosa MAM, Rosa BL, Fahr M, Ben...
2020
-
[2024]
Journal of Plant Growth Regulation doi: 10.1007/s00344-024-11394-9
Consortium of Endophytic Bacillus australimaris CK11 and Staphylococcus epidermidis CK9 from Commiphora gileadensis Mediates Tomato Resilience to Combined Salinity, Heat, and Drought Stresses. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation doi: 10.1007/s00344-024-11394-9. 50 Jankowicz-Cie...
Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.