The use of bioeffectors, formally known as plant biostimulants, has become common practice in agriculture and provides a number of benefits in stimulating growth and protecting against stress. A biostimulant is loosely defined as an organic material and/or microorganism that is applied to enhance nutrient uptake, stimulate growth, enhance stress tolerance or crop quality. This review is intended to provide a broad overview of known effects of biostimulants and their ability to improve tolerance to abiotic stresses. Inoculation or application of extracts from algae or other plants have beneficial effects on growth and stress adaptation. Algal extracts, protein hydrolysates, humic and fulvic acids, and other compounded mixtures have properties beyond basic nutrition, often enhancing growth and stress tolerance. Non-pathogenic bacteria capable of colonizing roots and the rhizosphere also have a number of positive effects. These effects include higher yield, enhanced nutrient uptake and utilization, increased photosynthetic activity, and resistance to both biotic and abiotic stresses. While most biostimulants have numerous and diverse effects on plant growth, this review focuses on the bioprotective effects against abiotic stress. Agricultural biostimulants may contribute to make agriculture more sustainable and resilient and offer an alternative to synthetic protectants which have increasingly falling out of favour with consumers. An extensive review of the literature shows a clear role for a diverse number of biostimulants that have protective effects against abiotic stress but also reveals the urgent need to address the underlying mechanisms responsible for these effects.

Soil salinity is a growing problem around the world with special relevance in farmlands. The ability to sense and respond to environmental stimuli is among the most fundamental processes that enable plants to survive. At the cellular level, the Salt Overly Sensitive (SOS) signaling pathway that comprises SOS3, SOS2, and SOS1 has been proposed to mediate cellular signaling under salt stress, to maintain ion homeostasis. Less well known is how cellularly heterogenous organs couple the salt signals to homeostasis maintenance of different types of cells and to appropriate growth of the entire organ and plant. Recent evidence strongly indicates that different regulatory mechanisms are adopted by roots and shoots in response to salt stress. Several reports have stated that, in roots, the SOS proteins may have novel roles in addition to their functions in sodium homeostasis. SOS3 plays a critical role in plastic development of lateral roots through modulation of auxin gradients and maxima in roots under mild salt conditions. The SOS proteins also play a role in the dynamics of cytoskeleton under stress. These results imply a high complexity of the regulatory networks involved in plant response to salinity. This review focuses on the emerging complexity of the SOS signaling and SOS protein functions, and highlights recent understanding on how the SOS proteins contribute to different responses to salt stress besides ion homeostasis.

Sucrose nonfermenting 1 (SNF1)-related protein kinase 2s (SnRK2s) are central components of abscisic acid (ABA) signaling pathways. The snrk2.2/2.3/2.6 triple-mutant plants are nearly completely insensitive to ABA, suggesting that most of the molecular actions of ABA are triggered by the SnRK2s-mediated phosphorylation of substrate proteins. Only a few substrate proteins of the SnRK2s are known. To identify additional substrate proteins of the SnRK2s and provide insight into the molecular actions of ABA, we used quantitative phosphoproteomics to compare the global changes in phosphopeptides in WT and snrk2.2/2.3/2.6 triple mutant seedlings in response to ABA treatment. Among the 5,386 unique phosphorylated peptides identified in this study, we found that ABA can increase the phosphorylation of 166 peptides and decrease the phosphorylation of 117 peptides in WT seedlings. In the snrk2.2/ 2.3/2.6 triple mutant, 84 of the 166 peptides, representing 58 proteins, could not be phosphorylated, or phosphorylation was not increased under ABA treatment. In vitro kinase assays suggest that most of the 58 proteins can serve as substrates of the SnRK2s. The SnRK2 substrates include proteins involved in flowering time regulation, RNA and DNA binding, miRNA and epigenetic regulation, signal transduction, chloroplast function, and many other cellular processes. Consistent with the SnRK2 phosphorylation of flowering time regulators, the snrk2.2/2.3/2.6 triple mutant flowered significantly earlier than WT. These results shed new light on the role of the SnRK2 protein kinases and on the downstream effectors of ABA action, and improve our understanding of plant responses to adverse environments. T he phytohormone abscisic acid (ABA) plays important roles in plant development and responses to stressful environments (1, 2). Recently, the discovery of the PYR1 (Pyrabactin Resistance 1)/ PYL (PYR1-Like)/RCAR (Regulatory Component of ABA Receptor) family of ABA receptors led to the elucidation of the core ABA signaling pathway. ABA binds to the PYLs, triggering the PYLs to interact with and inactivate clade A protein phosphatase 2Cs (PP2Cs). This releases Sucrose nonfermenting 1 (SNF1)-related protein kinase 2s (SnRK2s) from inhibition by the PP2Cs, allowing the kinases to phosphorylate downstream effectors of ABA responses (3-5).SnRK2s are a plant-specific protein kinase family related to the yeast SNF1 and animal AMP-dependent protein kinase (AMPK) (6), and the family has 10 members (SnRK2.1-2.10) in Arabidopsis. ABA treatment can quickly activate SnRK2.2, 2.3 and 2.6 (7), and the snrk2.2/2.3/2.6 triple-knockout mutant has a very strong ABAinsensitive phenotype and shows little response to even very high concentrations of ABA in seed germination, root growth, and stomatal movement (8). In contrast, mutations in the other seven SnRK2 family members do not cause significant ABA insensitivity (9). Notwithstanding the key role of SnRK2.2/2.3/2.6 in ABA signaling, some ABA responses are possibly independent of the SnRK2s, because the PYL r...

SummaryLoss-of-function siz1 mutations caused early flowering under short days. siz1 plants have elevated salicylic acid (SA) levels, which are restored to wild-type levels by expressing nahG, bacterial salicylate hydroxylase. The early flowering of siz1 was suppressed by expressing nahG, indicating that SIZ1 represses the transition to flowering mainly through suppressing SA-dependent floral promotion signaling under short days. Previous results have shown that exogenous SA treatment does not suppress late flowering of autonomous pathway mutants. However, the siz1 mutation accelerated flowering time of an autonomous pathway mutant, luminidependens, by reducing the expression of FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC), a floral repressor. This result suggests that SIZ1 promotes FLC expression, possibly through an SA-independent pathway. Evidence indicates that SIZ1 is required for the full activation of FLC expression in the late-flowering FRIGIDA background. Interestingly, increased FLC expression and late flowering of an autonomous pathway mutant, flowering locus d (fld), was not suppressed by siz1, suggesting that SIZ1 promotes FLC expression by repressing FLD. Consistent with this, SIZ1 facilitates sumoylation of FLD that can be suppressed by mutations in three predicted sumoylation motifs in FLD (i.e. FLDK3R). Furthermore, expression of FLDK3R in fld protoplasts strongly reduced FLC transcription compared with expression of FLD, and this affect was linked to reduced acetylation of histone 4 in FLC chromatin. Taken together, the results suggest that SIZ1 is a floral repressor that not only represses the SA-dependent pathway, but also promotes FLC expression by repressing FLD activity through sumoylation, which is required for full FLC expression in a FRIGIDA background.