Environmental Impacts of Plant Growth Regulators in Modern Agriculture: Advances, Risks, and Sustainable Perspectives

by Domenico Prisa

Domenico Prisa Google Scholar ^1,*,

Aristidis Matsoukis ^2,*,Aftab Jamal ³ and Damiano Spagnuolo ⁴

¹Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, Via Dei Fiori 8, 51012 Pescia, Italy

²Department of Crop Science, School of Plant Sciences, Agricultural University of Athens, 75 Iera Odos St., 11855 Athens, Greece

³Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Crop Production Sciences, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar 25130, Pakistan

⁴Department of Chemical, Biological, Pharmaceutical and Environmental Sciences, University of Messina, Salita Sperone 31, 98166 Messina, Italy

^*Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Agrochemicals 2026, 5(1), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals5010014

Submission received: 15 January 2026 / Revised: 27 February 2026 / Accepted: 2 March 2026 / Published: 17 March 2026

Abstract

Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are extensively used in modern agriculture to modify plant developmental processes, enhance productivity, and improve crop quality under increasingly variable environmental conditions. While their agronomic benefits are well established, growing attention has been directed toward understanding their broader environmental implications. In this current review, we analyze recent research published over the last five years to evaluate the environmental behavior and ecological impacts of widely used natural and synthetic plant growth regulators. Particular emphasis is placed on their persistence and mobility in soil and water, their interactions with soil microbial communities, and their effects on non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Recent advances in analytical detection and ecotoxicological assessment have revealed that several PGRs, despite being applied at low doses, may exhibit prolonged environmental residence and subtle biological effects, particularly following repeated applications. Alterations in soil enzyme activity, shifts in microbial community structure, and growth disturbances in non-target plants and aquatic primary producers have been increasingly reported. The review also discusses emerging strategies aimed at reducing environmental risks, including precision application technologies, the development of biodegradable regulators, and improved regulatory frameworks. Overall, these findings highlight the need for integrated risk assessment approaches and long-term field studies to support the sustainable use of plant growth regulators in agroecosystems.

Keywords: 

phytohormone analogues; soil microbial dynamics; ecological risk assessment; agroecosystem sustainability; environmental persistence

1. Introduction

Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are a distinct group of agrochemicals that influence plant physiological and developmental processes by modulating endogenous hormonal signaling pathways [1]. In contrast to fertilizers or pesticides, PGRs operate at very low concentrations and act on regulatory networks that control cell division, elongation, differentiation, flowering, fruit development, and senescence [2]. Their importance in modern agriculture has increased substantially owing to the growing need to stabilize crop productivity, enhance quality attributes, and improve plant resilience under variable environmental conditions.

Plant growth regulators (PGRs) include both naturally occurring phytohormones and synthetic analogues that mimic or interfere with hormone biosynthesis, transport, or signal transduction [3]. Natural phytohormones, such as auxins, gibberellins, cytokinins, abscisic acid, ethylene, jasmonates, and brassinosteroids, coordinate growth and stress responses throughout the plant life cycle [4], and many of these compounds can also be synthesized by soil microorganisms, including bacteria and fungi, contributing to plant growth regulation through plant–microbe interactions in the rhizosphere. Synthetic growth regulators, including growth retardants and hormone mimics, are designed to provide greater chemical stability and prolonged physiological effects. These properties make synthetic PGRs particularly effective in intensive cropping systems, horticulture, and perennial plantations [5].

The global adoption of PGRs has been driven by several interacting factors. Climate change has increased the frequency of abiotic stresses, including drought, salinity, and temperature extremes, encouraging growers to adopt chemical regulators to maintain the stability of crop yield [6]. In parallel, market-driven demands for uniform crop size, synchronized flowering, and controlled ripening have promoted the routine use of PGRs in high-value crops [7]. Technological advances in formulation chemistry and precision application systems have facilitated their widespread and repeated use across diverse agroecosystems.

Despite their agronomic benefits, increasing attention has been paid to the environmental implications of PGR application. As these compounds directly interfere with biological signaling pathways, even low environmental concentrations can produce measurable biological effects [8]. Traditional environmental risk assessments have largely focused on acute toxicity endpoints, which may be insufficient for capturing the chronic, sub-lethal, or cumulative effects associated with hormone-like compounds [9]. Consequently, concerns have emerged regarding whether existing regulatory frameworks adequately address the unique environmental behavior of PGRs.

One major environmental concern is the persistence and mobility of PGRs in soil systems. Several commonly used growth regulators exhibit moderate to high stability, resulting in extended residence times that may exceed a single growing season [10]. Soil characteristics, such as organic matter content, texture, pH, and microbial activity, strongly influence degradation rates, leading to spatial and temporal variability in the environmental persistence of agrochemicals, including plant growth regulators, which are often assessed using frameworks originally developed for pesticides [11]. Repeated applications under intensive management practices may result in residue accumulation, increasing the potential for off-site transport through leaching or surface runoff.

The occurrence of PGR residues in surface waters and groundwater has been increasingly reported, particularly in regions dominated by horticultural and plantation agriculture [12]. Aquatic primary producers, including algae and macrophytes, are highly sensitive to hormone-active chemicals. Exposure to low concentrations of PGRs has been shown to disrupts growth patterns, photosynthetic performance, and reproductive processes, potentially altering aquatic ecosystem structure and function [13]. Although the detected concentrations are typically low, the biological potency of these compounds raises concerns regarding their long-term ecological effects. Soil health is another critical dimension of the environmental impact of PGR. Soil microbial communities play a central role in nutrient cycling, organic matter turnover, and plant health, and serve as key agents in agrochemical degradation [14]. Recent studies employing metagenomic and enzyme-based analyses have demonstrated that PGR applications can modify microbial community composition, functional diversity, and enzymatic activity [15,16]. Such alterations may indirectly influence soil fertility, nutrient availability, and crop resilience, particularly under repeated or long-term exposure.

Non-target terrestrial organisms may also be affected by PGR use. Spray drift and volatilization can lead to unintended exposure of adjacent vegetation, resulting in abnormal growth responses or altered phenological patterns in non-crop plant species [17]. Indirect effects on insects, including pollinators and natural enemies, may occur through changes in plant architecture, flowering dynamics, and nectar composition [18]. Although the acute toxicity of these chemicals to fauna is generally considered low, chronic exposure and indirect ecological interactions remain insufficiently characterized.

In response to these challenges, recent research has increasingly emphasized the development of comprehensive environmental risk assessment frameworks for PGRs [19]. These approaches incorporate chronic exposure endpoints, improved analytical detection methods, and system-level evaluations that account for interactions with other agrochemicals and environmental stressors [20]. Concurrently, efforts are underway to develop biodegradable, bio-based, and microbially derived growth regulators with reduced environmental persistence and ecological risk [21].

Given the expanding role of plant growth regulators in modern agriculture, a critical synthesis of recent findings on their environmental behavior and ecological effects is timely. This review integrates current knowledge on the environmental fate, non-target impacts, and sustainability challenges associated with PGR use, while identifying key research gaps and future directions that are necessary to support environmentally responsible agricultural practices.

2. Classification and Agricultural Applications of Plant Growth Regulators

Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are a chemically and functionally diverse group of substances that modify plant physiological processes by influencing hormonal balance, signal transduction, and gene expression. Their classification is commonly based on mode of action, chemical structure, and physiological effects. PGRs can be broadly divided into naturally occurring phytohormones and synthetic growth regulators, each of which plays a distinct role in agricultural production systems [22,23].

To facilitate a clearer understanding of the chemical diversity underlying these functional classes, Figure 1 presents the chemical structures of representative plant growth regulators, including natural phytohormones (e.g., indole-3-acetic acid, gibberellic acid GA₃, abscisic acid, and salicylic acid) and widely used synthetic regulators (e.g., 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, paclobutrazol, trinexapac-ethyl, and ethephon). The structural comparison highlights differences in molecular complexity, functional groups, and physicochemical properties that are closely linked to their environmental persistence, mobility, and biological activity.

Figure 1. Chemical structures of representative natural and synthetic plant growth regulators commonly used in agriculture. The structural diversity highlighted in the figure underpins differences in biological activity, environmental persistence, and mobility in agroecosystems.

2.1. Natural Phytohormones

Natural phytohormones, such as auxins, gibberellins, cytokinins, abscisic acid, ethylene, jasmonates, and brassinosteroids, are increasingly investigated as alternatives to synthetic growth regulators due to their high biological activity and favorable environmental profiles [24]. In particular, formulations based on indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) produced by and extracted from soil microorganisms, including bacterial genera such as Streptomyces, are of growing interest for industrial applications, as they combine natural origin with scalability and compatibility with sustainable agricultural practices. In agricultural systems, auxin-based formulations are commonly used to promote rooting in cuttings, enhance fruit set, and reduce premature fruit drop in orchards [25].

In addition to IAA, indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) is a naturally occurring auxin that plays a crucial role in root initiation and development. IBA is widely recognized as one of the most effective rooting hormones and is extensively used in agriculture, horticulture, and nursery production to stimulate adventitious root formation, lateral root growth, and the successful establishment of stem cuttings. Compared to IAA, IBA exhibits greater chemical stability and reduced susceptibility to enzymatic degradation, which contributes to its sustained activity in plant tissues and enhanced effectiveness under practical application conditions. IBA may also serve as a precursor to IAA through β-oxidation pathways, thereby acting as a storage or transport form of auxin within plants. Due to these properties, IBA application has been shown to improve root system architecture, increase plant establishment success, and indirectly enhance overall plant vigor, fruit yield, and flower production across a wide range of crop species [26].

Gibberellins are another major class of phytohormones that promote stem elongation, seed germination, and flowering in certain species. More than 130 gibberellins have been identified, although only a subset is biologically active [27]. Exogenous application of gibberellins is widely practiced in viticulture to increase berry size and improve cluster architecture, as well as in malting barley to stimulate uniform germination [28].

Cytokinins are primarily associated with cell division, delay of senescence, and regulation of source–sink relationships. By modulating nutrient allocation and chlorophyll retention, cytokinins contribute to prolonged photosynthetic activity and improved crop vigor [29]. Their agricultural uses include enhancing shoot proliferation in tissue culture, improving grain filling, and delaying leaf senescence in leafy vegetables.

Abscisic acid (ABA) plays a central role in stress signaling, particularly in response to drought and salinity. Unlike growth-promoting hormones, ABA generally acts as a growth inhibitor, inducing stomatal closure and regulating seed dormancy [30]. Recent research has explored the use of ABA and ABA analogues to enhance stress tolerance in crops exposed to water-limited environments, although large-scale field applications remain limited due to cost and stability constraints [31].

Ethylene is a gaseous phytohormone that is involved in fruit ripening, senescence, and abscission. Due to its volatility, the manipulation of ethylene responses in agriculture often relies on ethylene-releasing compounds or inhibitors rather than direct application [32]. Jasmonates and salicylic acid are primarily associated with plant defense responses, but they also influence growth, flowering, and stress adaptation, making them increasingly relevant as multifunctional regulators in sustainable agriculture [33].

2.2. Synthetic Plant Growth Regulators

Synthetic growth regulators, including growth retardants and hormone mimics, are designed to provide greater chemical stability and prolonged physiological effects. These properties make synthetic PGRs particularly effective in intensive cropping systems, horticulture, and perennial plantations [34]. Representative examples include gibberellin-inhibiting growth retardants and ethylene-releasing or ethylene-modulating products developed by major agrochemical companies, such as paclobutrazol- and trinexapac-ethyl–based formulations marketed by Bayer and BASF, auxin- and cytokinin-related products commercialized by Corteva, and ethylene-regulating compounds supplied by companies such as Sumitomo Chemical, which are widely used in cereal, fruit, and horticultural production systems. Synthetic auxins, such as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), represent one of the earliest and most widely used classes of growth regulators. While commonly associated with herbicidal activity at high doses, synthetic auxins applied at low concentrations are used to stimulate fruit set and reduce premature fruit abscission in several horticultural crops [35]. In addition to synthetic auxins, synthetic cytokinins play a central role in plant growth regulation, particularly in tissue culture and horticultural production systems.

Among these, 6-benzylaminopurine (6-BAP) is one of the earliest and most extensively used synthetic cytokinins. 6-BAP acts primarily by stimulating cell division, promoting lateral bud outgrowth, and enhancing shoot proliferation through the activation of cytokinin signaling pathways and modulation of source–sink relationships [36]. Due to its high biological activity and stability, 6-BAP is widely employed in plant tissue culture media, such as Murashige and Skoog (MS) and Gamborg’s media, typically at concentrations ranging from 1 to 10 mg L⁻¹, to induce shoot regeneration and support micropropagation protocols across a broad range of species. Beyond in vitro systems, 6-BAP is also applied in horticultural and orchard crops to increase fruit set, improve fruit size uniformity, and delay leaf senescence by maintaining chlorophyll content and photosynthetic activity. Its effectiveness in promoting shoot proliferation and plant establishment has been demonstrated in commercial micropropagation systems, including banana (Musa acuminata), where 6-BAP significantly enhances shoot multiplication rates and plantlet vigor [37]. These properties make 6-BAP a key regulator in both propagation-intensive and high-value crop production systems. Growth retardants represent another important subgroup of synthetic plant growth regulators. Compounds such as chlormequat chloride, paclobutrazol, trinexapac-ethyl, and mepiquat chloride inhibit gibberellin biosynthesis, resulting in reduced stem elongation and more compact plant architecture [38]. These regulators are extensively applied in cereal crops to prevent lodging and improve yield stability under intensive fertilization regimes [39].

In perennial fruit crops and ornamentals, growth retardants are used to control vegetative vigor, synchronize flowering, and reduce pruning requirements. Paclobutrazol, for example, has been widely adopted in mango, apple, and citrus production to induce flowering and manage canopy size [40]. However, its relatively long persistence in soil has raised environmental concerns, highlighting the need for careful dose management and appropriate application timing. Ethylene-releasing compounds, such as ethephon, are another major category of synthetic PGRs used in agriculture. Ethephon decomposes within plant tissues to release ethylene, allowing growers to regulate fruit ripening, flowering, and abscission [41]. Its applications include accelerating ripening in climacteric fruits, promoting uniform flowering in pineapples, and facilitating mechanical harvesting through synchronized fruit drop. Synthetic inhibitors of ethylene perception, such as 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP), are increasingly used in postharvest systems to delay senescence and extend shelf life [42]. Although primarily applied after harvest, their classification as growth regulators underscores the expanding scope of PGR use beyond the fields. The major classes of natural and synthetic plant growth regulators, their primary physiological functions, and representative agricultural applications are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of major plant growth regulator classes, their principal physiological functions, and representative agricultural applications across cropping systems.

2.3. Agricultural Applications Across Cropping Systems

The application of PGRs varies considerably across cropping systems, reflecting the differences in crop physiology, production goals, and management intensity. In cereal and oilseed crops, PGRs are primarily used to modify plant architecture and improve yield stability. Growth retardants reduce lodging risk, enhance light interception, and improve the partitioning of assimilates toward reproductive structures [49]. In horticultural crops, PGRs play a central role in regulating flowering, fruit set, size, and ripening. Auxins and gibberellins are commonly applied to improve fruit quality attributes, while cytokinins are used to enhance sink strength and delay senescence [50,51]. In protected cultivation systems, such as greenhouses, precise PGR management allows growers to optimize plant forms and synchronize production cycles. Plantation crops and perennial systems rely heavily on PGRs for long-term canopy management and yield regulation. In fruit trees, repeated PGR applications are often integrated into annual management schedules, underscoring the importance of understanding cumulative environmental effects [52]. Similarly, turfgrass and ornamental industries use PGRs extensively to control growth rate, reduce mowing frequency, and improve aesthetic quality [53].

2.4. Emerging Trends and Integrated Use

In recent years, there has been growing interest in integrating PGRs with biostimulants, microbial inoculants, and precision agriculture technologies. Advances in sensor-based monitoring and decision-support systems have enabled more targeted applications, reducing overall chemical input while maintaining efficacy [54]. Additionally, research on bio-based and microbially derived growth regulators has expanded, offering potential alternatives with reduced environmental persistence [55]. Overall, the classification and application of plant growth regulators reflect their versatility and importance in agriculture. However, the diversity of compounds and use patterns also highlights the need for crop- and context-specific management strategies to balance agronomic benefits and environmental sustainability.

2.5. Brassinosteroids, Salicylic Acid, and 1-Methylcyclopropene: Emerging and Special-Use Plant Growth Regulators

In addition to the classical phytohormones and widely used synthetic growth regulators discussed above, several plant growth regulators (PGRs) with specialized or expanding applications warrant dedicated consideration due to their increasing commercial relevance and distinct environmental and physiological profiles. These include brassinosteroids (BRs), salicylic acid (SA), and the ethylene perception inhibitor 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) [56,57].

2.5.1. Brassinosteroids

Brassinosteroids are polyhydroxylated steroidal phytohormones that regulate cell expansion, vascular differentiation, reproductive development, and stress responses across diverse plant taxa. Exogenous BR application has been increasingly investigated as a strategy to enhance tolerance to abiotic stressors such as drought, heat, and salinity, often through modulation of antioxidant enzymes and hormonal crosstalk with abscisic and salicylic acid pathways [58,59]. Recent evidence demonstrates that BR treatments can improve drought resistance and photosynthetic resilience under water deficit, underscoring their potential utility in stress-adaptive agronomy [60,61].

From an environmental perspective, BRs are generally regarded as having low persistence in soil and limited bioaccumulation due to rapid metabolic turnover; however, emerging use under climate-adaptive strategies and their potent biological activity at low concentrations highlight knowledge gaps in environmental fate and microbial interactions [62,63]. Continued research is needed to clarify their long-term ecological behavior under repeated field applications [64].

2.5.2. Salicylic Acid

Salicylic acid is a naturally occurring phenolic regulator involved in systemic acquired resistance, stress signaling, and growth–defense balance. It is increasingly applied as a biostimulant or PGR to mitigate both biotic and abiotic stresses, enhancing photosynthesis, ion uptake, and antioxidant capacity in crops exposed to salinity and thermal stress [65,66]. Recent reviews emphasize its role in mediating defense responses and improving crop resilience across diverse environments [67,68].

The dual nature of SA as both a signaling molecule in plants and a biologically active compound in other organisms underscores the need for careful exposure assessment. While agricultural application rates are typically lower than levels associated with toxicity in mammalian systems, the hormone’s involvement in ethylene inhibition, stress signaling, and metabolic regulation highlights possible ecological consequences when SA accumulates in soil or water [69]. Environmental monitoring of SA and its breakdown products is therefore recommended, particularly where repeated applications occur [70].

2.5.3. 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP)

1-Methylcyclopropene is a synthetic regulator that inhibits ethylene perception by competitively binding to ethylene receptors, thereby delaying fruit ripening and senescence. It is widely used in postharvest storage to maintain quality and shelf life in climacteric fruits such as apples and stone fruits, with studies showing reduced respiration rates, suppressed ethylene production, and prolonged firmness under controlled application conditions [71]. Although 1-MCP’s primary use is in enclosed postharvest systems, emerging research has also examined pre-harvest foliar applications for modulating harvest physiology and storage outcomes [72].

1-MCP is generally considered to pose minimal direct environmental risk due to its volatile and transient nature, but its impact on plant phenology, physiological processes in non-target tissues, and potential residues in ecosystems remains insufficiently characterized, particularly with expanding use scenarios [73,74].

2.5.4. Implications for Environmental Risk Assessment

The inclusion of brassinosteroids, salicylic acid, and 1-MCP highlights the growing diversity of PGRs and the need for risk assessment frameworks that account for hormone-specific modes of action. While these compounds are often applied at low doses and may exhibit favorable degradation profiles, their biological potency and increasing frequency of use justify their inclusion in environmental risk monitoring and long-term exposure studies [75]. Hormone-active substances challenge conventional risk assessment paradigms that rely primarily on acute toxicity endpoints, reinforcing the need for chronic, sublethal, and ecosystem-level evaluation approaches [76,77].

3. Environmental Fate and Transport of Plant Growth Regulators

3.1. Persistence and Transformation in Soil Systems

Soil is the primary environmental reservoir for plant growth regulators (PGRs) following agricultural application. The persistence of PGRs in soil is governed by their chemical structure, formulation, and interactions with soil constituents, such as organic matter, clay minerals, and microbial communities [78]. Many PGRs are designed for chemical stability to ensure prolonged biological activity, a property that can inadvertently extend their environmental residence time. Growth retardants, including triazole- and cyclopropyl-based compounds, have been shown to persist for several months under field conditions, particularly in soils with low microbial activity or limited aeration [79]. The degradation of PGRs occurs through a combination of biotic and abiotic processes. Microbial metabolism is often the dominant pathway, yet repeated applications may alter the microbial community composition and functional capacity, potentially slowing degradation rates over time [80]. Abiotic processes, such as hydrolysis and oxidation, contribute to dissipation but are highly dependent on soil moisture, temperature, and pH [81]. These interacting factors result in substantial spatial and temporal variability in PGR persistence, complicating the prediction of long-term soil exposure. Following application, plant growth regulators may undergo soil retention and degradation, leach vertically through the soil profile, or be transported laterally via surface runoff to adjacent aquatic systems, resulting in the exposure of non-target organisms (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Conceptual representation of the environmental fate and transport of plant growth regulators, highlighting key pathways including soil retention and degradation, leaching to groundwater, surface runoff to aquatic systems, and subsequent exposure of non-target organisms.

3.2. Leaching Potential and Groundwater Contamination

Vertical transport through the soil profile is a critical pathway for PGRs to reach groundwater. Compounds characterized by high water solubility and low soil adsorption coefficients exhibit an increased propensity for leaching, particularly under intensive irrigation or high rainfall conditions [82]. Sandy soils with low organic carbon content are especially vulnerable to downward transport, whereas fine-textured soils may retard movement through sorption [83]. Recent field-scale studies have detected trace levels of PGR residues below the root zone, suggesting that leaching can occur even when compounds are applied according to the recommended agronomic practices [84]. Preferential flow through macropores and cracks can further accelerate transport, bypassing biologically active soil layers where degradation would otherwise occur [85]. Although the detected groundwater concentrations are typically low, the hormonal activity of PGRs raises concerns regarding chronic exposure and the adequacy of the current monitoring thresholds.

3.3. Surface Runoff, Aquatic Transport, and Sediment Interactions

Surface runoff is another major route for PGR dispersal, particularly in sloped landscapes and during intense precipitation events. PGRs may be transported in either a dissolved form or adsorbed to eroded soil particles, depending on their sorption behavior and formulation [86]. Runoff-mediated transport has been identified as a key source of contamination in adjacent surface waters, including streams, reservoirs, and irrigation channels located downstream of treated fields [87]. Once introduced into aquatic environments, PGRs undergo dilution, photochemical transformation, and microbial degradation, although these processes vary widely among different compounds and environmental conditions [88]. Hydrophobic regulators may partition into sediments, where they can persist and act as long-term sources of exposure for benthic organisms [89]. Periodic sediment resuspension can reintroduce these compounds into the water column, extending ecological exposure beyond the initial runoff events.

3.4. Atmospheric Dispersion and Integrated Fate Dynamics

Although most PGRs exhibit low vapor pressure, atmospheric dispersion can occur indirectly through spray drift and aerosolization during application [90]. Fine droplets may be transported over considerable distances under unfavorable wind conditions, leading to unintended deposition on non-target vegetation and ecosystems. Such off-site movement is particularly relevant in perennial cropping systems, where foliar spraying is common. The environmental fate of PGRs is best understood as the result of interacting transport pathways rather than isolated processes. Climate variability, cropping system intensity, and application frequency collectively influence the relative importance of soil retention, water transport, and atmospheric dispersion [91]. Emerging research emphasizes the need for integrated fate models that account for low-dose biological activity, chronic exposure, and interactions with other agrochemicals [89]. These approaches are essential for improving environmental risk assessments and guiding sustainable PGR management strategies.

4. Effects on Soil Health and Non-Target Organisms

4.1. Soil Microbial Communities and Functional Stability

Soil microorganisms are fundamental to agroecosystem functioning, contributing to nutrient cycling, organic matter turnover, and plant health. Exposure to plant growth regulators (PGRs), even at the recommended application rates, influences microbial community composition and functional diversity [92]. Hormone-related compounds may interfere with microbial signaling pathways or indirectly alter microbial habitats by modifying root exudation patterns and rhizosphere chemistry [93]. Recent molecular studies have indicated that repeated PGR applications can shift bacterial and fungal community structures, sometimes reducing the abundance of taxa associated with nutrient mineralization and disease suppression [94]. While such changes may not result in immediate agronomic consequences, they raise concerns regarding long-term soil resilience in intensive management systems.

4.2. Soil Enzyme Activity and Biogeochemical Processes

Soil enzymes are sensitive indicators of biological activity and are closely linked to carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycling. Several studies conducted in the past five years have reported that PGR exposure can alter the activity of key enzymes, including dehydrogenase, urease, and phosphatase, particularly following repeated or long-term use [95]. These effects are often indirectly mediated by changes in microbial biomass or substrate availability rather than direct enzyme inhibition. In some cases, transient stimulation of enzymatic activity has been observed, suggesting adaptive microbial responses [96]. However, sustained reductions in enzyme activity may impair nutrient availability and contribute to a gradual decline in soil fertility, especially under environmental stress conditions.

4.3. Responses of Soil Fauna and Terrestrial Non-Target Organisms

Soil fauna, such as earthworms and nematodes, play essential roles in maintaining soil structure and regulating microbial populations. Although plant growth regulators (PGRs) generally exhibit low acute toxicity toward these organisms, chronic exposure has been shown to affect reproduction, growth, and behavior [97]. For example, long-term exposure to certain growth retardants has been associated with a reduction in earthworm cocoon production of approximately 20–35% compared to untreated controls, even at environmentally relevant concentrations. Such reproductive effects may translate into population-level consequences over time, potentially influencing soil aeration, aggregation, and nutrient cycling through altered burrowing activity and biomass turnover [98]. In terrestrial ecosystems, non-target plants may be exposed to PGRs through spray drift or soil residues, resulting in abnormal growth patterns or altered phenology [99]. Such effects can modify plant community composition in field margins and semi-natural habitats, with potential implications for biodiversity conservation. It should be noted that the effects summarized in Table 2 reflect class-level associations reported in the literature, as the magnitude and nature of non-target responses to plant growth regulators depend strongly on compound-specific properties, application regimes, and environmental conditions.

Table 2. Effects of plant growth regulators on non-target organisms across environmental compartments, with representative PGR classes involved.

4.4. Aquatic and Insect-Mediated Indirect Effects

Aquatic ecosystems are particularly sensitive to hormone-active compounds introduced through agricultural runoff or erosion. Aquatic plants and algae exposed to low concentrations of PGRs may exhibit disrupted growth and photosynthetic performance, potentially altering food-web dynamics [106]. In terrestrial systems, insects are rarely directly affected by PGR toxicity; however, indirect effects mediated by changes in plant architecture, flowering time, or nectar production are increasingly recognized [107]. Pollinators and beneficial arthropods may experience altered resource availability or habitat structures, which can influence their population dynamics over time. These findings highlight the importance of considering indirect and system-level effects when evaluating the ecological risks associated with PGR use.

5. Human and Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment of Plant Growth Regulators

5.1. Principles of Risk Assessment for Plant Growth Regulators

The risk assessment of plant growth regulators (PGRs) aims to evaluate the likelihood of adverse effects on human health and the environment arising from their intended use. Traditional agrochemical risk assessment frameworks are largely derived from pesticide evaluation protocols and are based on hazard identification, dose–response assessment, exposure analysis, and risk characterization [108]. While these approaches provide a useful foundation, their applicability to PGRs has been increasingly questioned due to the distinct biological activities of hormone-related compounds. PGRs are effective at very low concentrations and may elicit chronic or sub-lethal effects that are not adequately captured by standard acute toxicity endpoints [109]. For human health, regulatory assessments typically focus on dietary exposure, occupational contact, and bystander exposure to chemicals. Acceptable daily intake (ADI) values and acute reference doses are derived from toxicological studies, often conducted in animal models [110]. Although most registered PGRs exhibit low acute mammalian toxicity, uncertainties remain regarding long-term exposure, vulnerable populations, and potential endocrine-related effects. These concerns have driven recent efforts to refine the risk assessment methodologies for hormone-active agrochemicals.

5.2. Human Exposure Pathways and Health Considerations

Human exposure to PGRs may occur through multiple pathways, including the consumption of treated crops, contamination of drinking water sources, and occupational exposure during handling and application [111]. Dietary exposure assessments generally indicate that residue levels in food commodities are below the established maximum residue limits. However, cumulative exposure to multiple food sources and repeated low-level intake remain areas of active investigation [112]. Occupational exposure represents a higher-risk scenario, particularly for agricultural workers involved in mixing, loading, and spraying. Dermal and inhalation exposure may occur in the absence of appropriate protective measures, highlighting the importance of risk mitigation strategies such as personal protective equipment and training [113]. Epidemiological data specific to PGR exposure are limited, but broader studies on agrochemical exposure suggest potential associations with endocrine disruption and reproductive health outcomes, underscoring the need for precautionary approaches [114].

5.3. Ecotoxicological Assessment and Non-Target Species Protection

Ecotoxicological risk assessment evaluates the potential impact of PGRs on non-target organisms, including terrestrial and aquatic species. Standard testing protocols typically include acute toxicity assays on indicator species, such as earthworms, aquatic invertebrates, fish, and algae [115]. While most PGRs demonstrate low acute toxicity in these tests, increasing attention has been directed toward chronic exposure, developmental effects, and behavioral changes that may occur at environmentally relevant concentrations [116]. Hormone-like activity complicates ecotoxicological evaluation, as subtle disruptions to growth, reproduction, or phenology may have population-level consequences over time. Aquatic primary producers are particularly sensitive to PGR exposure, and alterations at the base of the food web may propagate through ecosystems [117]. Furthermore, risk assessments based on single-compound exposure may underestimate ecological risks, as PGRs are often present alongside other agrochemicals, leading to potential mixture effects [118]. Conventional agrochemical risk assessment frameworks, which are largely based on acute toxicity endpoints and single-compound exposure, may not adequately capture the chronic, low-dose, and ecosystem-level effects associated with hormone-active plant growth regulators (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Schematic representation of key differences between traditional risk assessment methodologies applied to agrochemicals and emerging frameworks designed to address the hormone-active nature of plant growth regulators, highlighting the shift from acute, single-compound testing toward chronic, cumulative, and ecosystem-based evaluation.

5.4. Emerging Approaches and Regulatory Perspectives

In response to these challenges, regulatory agencies and researchers have advocated for more integrated and precautionary risk assessment frameworks. These include the incorporation of chronic and sub-lethal endpoints, life-cycle exposure scenarios, and ecosystem-level indicators [119]. Advances in computational toxicology, in vitro screening, and adverse outcome pathway (AOP) frameworks offer promising tools for the early identification of hormone-related effects during the assessment process [120]. Post-registration monitoring and adaptive risk management are increasingly recognized as essential components of PGR regulation. Environmental surveillance programs and residue monitoring can help identify unanticipated effects and inform adjustments to usage recommendations [121]. Harmonization of international guidelines remains a priority, as differences in regulatory thresholds and assessment approaches can complicate risk communication and management [122]. Overall, improving the risk assessment of plant growth regulators requires balancing scientific rigor with practical applicability to ensure both agricultural productivity and the protection of human and environmental health.

6. Sustainable Use and Mitigation Strategies for Plant Growth Regulators

6.1. Optimization of Application Practices

The sustainable use of plant growth regulators (PGRs) begins with optimizing application practices to achieve agronomic objectives while minimizing environmental exposure. Dose optimization, timing of application, and selection of appropriate formulations are critical factors that influence both efficacy and environmental risk [123].

For example, field studies conducted in intensively managed cereal systems have shown that reducing the applied dose of growth retardants by approximately 25–30% and aligning applications with key phenological stages can lower the concentration of active ingredients detected in subsurface drainage water by up to 50–65%, while maintaining effective control of stem elongation and lodging risk [124,125,126]. These outcomes demonstrate that growth-regulating performance can be preserved when applications are physiologically targeted rather than calendar-based [127]. Such reductions in drainage-water contamination are particularly pronounced when optimized dosing is combined with soil moisture monitoring and avoidance of applications prior to heavy rainfall events [128]. Together, these strategies significantly decrease downward transport and off-site movement of PGRs without adversely affecting crop architecture or yield stability.

6.2. Precision Agriculture and Technological Innovations

Advances in precision agriculture offer significant opportunities to improve the sustainability of PGR use. Sensor-based monitoring, variable-rate application technologies, and decision-support systems enable site-specific and crop-responsive PGR deployment [129]. These tools allow growers to apply regulators only when and where they are needed, thereby reducing overall chemical input and environmental loading. Unmanned aerial vehicles and automated spraying systems have further enhanced application accuracy, particularly for high-value horticultural crops [130]. Coupled with digital field mapping and real-time plant health diagnostics, these technologies support the more efficient use of PGRs while minimizing the exposure of non-target areas. However, successful implementation requires technical expertise and investment, highlighting the importance of extension services and training farmers.

6.3. Development of Environmentally Benign Alternatives

Considerable research efforts have been directed toward developing alternative growth regulation strategies with reduced environmental persistence and toxicity. However, the large-scale production of natural phytohormones for agricultural use often requires extensive fermentation processes, which can influence production costs, formulation stability, and overall environmental footprints when evaluated at an industrial scale. Bio-based plant growth regulators (PGRs) derived from plant extracts, microbial metabolites, and algal biomass have shown particular promise as environmentally compatible alternatives to conventional synthetic compounds [131]. Recent studies have demonstrated that biodegradable auxin analogues based on indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) extracted from algal sources exhibit markedly faster dissipation in soil, with degradation rates exceeding 90% within 7–10 days, compared to several synthetic auxin derivatives that may persist for multiple weeks under comparable soil conditions. This rapid degradation has been attributed to enhanced microbial mineralization and reduced chemical stability of naturally derived formulations, thereby lowering the risk of residue accumulation and off-site transport. Such bio-based PGRs often exhibit lower bioaccumulation potential and reduced impacts on non-target soil microorganisms, although variability in field performance and environmental behavior remains dependent on formulation, soil characteristics, and application frequency. Microbial inoculants and biostimulants that modulate endogenous hormone production represent another emerging approach to growth regulation [132]. By indirectly enhancing plant hormonal balance through rhizosphere-mediated processes, these strategies may reduce the need for repeated exogenous PGR applications. Advances in formulation science, including encapsulation and controlled-release systems, further offer opportunities to enhance delivery efficiency while limiting environmental dispersion [133].

6.4. Regulatory Measures and Adaptive Management

Regulatory frameworks are crucial for promoting the sustainable use of PGRs. Recent policy trends emphasize precautionary risk management, post-registration monitoring, and adaptive regulations based on emerging scientific evidence [134]. Environmental stewardship programs and voluntary certification schemes have encouraged the adoption of best management practices among growers [135]. Adaptive management approaches that integrate monitoring data, stakeholder feedback, and periodic reassessment of use recommendations are increasingly viewed as essential for addressing uncertainties and long-term environmental effects [136]. Strengthening collaboration between researchers, regulators, industries, and farmers will be critical for translating scientific advances into practical mitigation strategies. Ultimately, the sustainable management of plant growth regulators requires a systems-based perspective that balances productivity goals with environmental protection and agroecosystem resilience. Therefore, the sustainable management of plant growth regulators relies on the integration of regulatory oversight, precision application technologies, adaptive risk assessment, continuous monitoring, and stakeholder engagement to minimize environmental risks while preserving agronomic performance (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Integrated risk management strategies for the sustainable use of plant growth regulators. The schematic illustrates the interaction between regulatory controls, precision application technologies, risk assessment frameworks, research and environmental monitoring, and stakeholder awareness, highlighting their combined role in minimizing environmental impacts while maintaining agronomic benefits.

7. Future Research Directions and Knowledge Gaps

7.1. Long-Term, Low-Dose, and Mixture Effects in Changing Agroecosystems

A major limitation of the current knowledge of plant growth regulators (PGRs) is the insufficient understanding of their long-term and low-dose effects under realistic agricultural conditions. Most available studies are based on short-term experiments or single-application scenarios, which may not adequately capture the cumulative impacts associated with repeated use across multiple growing seasons [137]. Given the hormone-like mode of action of PGRs, subtle effects on growth, reproduction, and ecosystem functioning may only emerge over extended timescales or under chronic exposure [138]. In addition, PGRs are rarely applied in isolation; crops are typically exposed to complex mixtures of agrochemicals, raising concerns regarding additive or synergistic effects that are not addressed by single-compound risk assessments [139]. Therefore, future research should prioritize long-term field studies and mixture-based experimental designs that reflect realistic exposure patterns in modern agroecosystems.

7.2. Methodological Innovation, Climate Integration, and Policy-Relevant Research

Advances in analytical chemistry, molecular biology, and ecological modeling provide new opportunities to address these gaps. High-resolution mass spectrometry and omics-based approaches can improve detection sensitivity and offer mechanistic insights into sub-lethal and early biological responses to PGR exposure [140]. Simultaneously, climate change is expected to modify application practices, degradation rates, and transport pathways, yet climate variables remain underrepresented in current PGR fate and risk studies [141]. Integrating climate scenarios, landscape-scale assessments, and adverse outcome pathway frameworks into future research will enhance ecological relevance and regulatory utility [142]. From a policy perspective, harmonized monitoring protocols and standardized endpoints for hormone-active compounds are required to support the adaptive regulation and sustainable management of plant growth regulators in agricultural systems [143].

8. Discussion

The expanding use of plant growth regulators (PGRs) reflects their effectiveness in addressing agronomic challenges related to yield optimization, crop uniformity, and stress mitigation [144]. However, the evidence synthesized in this review indicates that the environmental implications of PGR application are more nuanced than previously assumed. Unlike conventional pesticides, PGRs exert biological effects at very low concentrations and interact directly with conserved hormonal signaling pathways, increasing the likelihood of subtle, indirect, and long-term ecological responses [145]. This characteristic necessitates a broader interpretive framework that extends beyond acute toxicity and short-term effectiveness. One of the central insights emerging from recent research is the importance of the environmental context in determining the fate and impact of PGRs on the environment. Soil type, organic matter content, microbial diversity, and climatic conditions collectively influence degradation rates and mobility, resulting in pronounced spatial and temporal variability in environmental exposure [146]. Persistent growth retardants illustrate how chemical stability designed to enhance agronomic performance may inadvertently extend environmental residence time [62]. These findings challenge the assumption that low application rates inherently translate to negligible environmental risks and highlight the need for site-specific management and assessment approaches [147]. The interactions between PGRs and soil biological systems are a key dimension of environmental concerns. Alterations in microbial community composition and soil enzyme activity reported in recent studies suggest that PGRs may indirectly influence soil function through plant–microbe interactions and modified root exudation patterns [148]. Although many observed effects are subtle, their cumulative influence under repeated application scenarios may affect nutrient cycling efficiency and soil resilience over time [149]. Importantly, such changes may not be immediately reflected in yield outcomes, highlighting the limitations of relying solely on short-term agronomic indicators to evaluate sustainability [150]. Non-target organisms further complicate the environmental profiles of PGRs. Evidence indicates that unintended exposure of non-crop plants can induce abnormal growth responses and altered phenology, particularly in field margins and adjacent semi-natural habitats [151]. These changes may modify plant community structure and resource availability for insects and other wildlife. In aquatic systems, the sensitivity of primary producers to hormone-active compounds suggests that even low-level contamination may have disproportionate ecological consequences [152]. The potential for indirect and food-web-mediated effects reinforces the need for ecosystem-level perspectives in environmental evaluation. From a regulatory and risk assessment perspective, this review highlights the structural limitations of current evaluation frameworks. Most approaches applied to PGRs are adapted from pesticide risk assessment paradigms that prioritize acute toxicity endpoints and single-compound exposure [153]. Such frameworks may underestimate the risks associated with chronic, low-dose exposure and mixture effects, which are particularly relevant for hormone-active substances [154]. The growing recognition of these limitations supports the integration of chronic endpoints, functional ecological indicators, and realistic exposure scenarios into future assessments [155]. Management practices play a decisive role in shaping the environmental outcomes associated with PGR use. Application timing, formulation choice, and integration with other agronomic measures significantly influence environmental dispersion and persistence [156]. Precision agriculture technologies and decision-support systems have considerable potential to reduce unnecessary applications and off-site transport, shifting PGR use from a generalized input toward a targeted intervention aligned with plant physiological demand [157]. Emerging alternatives, including bio-based growth regulators and microbial biostimulants, represent promising complementary strategies [158]. However, variability in efficacy and environmental behavior suggests that these products are most effective when incorporated into integrated management systems rather than being used as direct replacements for synthetic PGRs [147]. However, their development reflects a broader transition toward biologically informed crop regulation. Climate change introduces additional complexity to the interpretation of the impacts of PGR [159]. Altered precipitation regimes, increased temperature extremes, and shifting crop stress patterns are likely to influence the demand for PGRs and their environmental behavior [110]. Increased reliance on chemical growth regulation may intensify cumulative exposure risks, whereas climate-driven changes in degradation and transport processes may modify exposure pathways [36]. These dynamics underscore the importance of integrating climate variability into future research and regulatory frameworks [116].

9. Conclusions

Plant growth regulators (PGRs) play an increasingly important role in modern agricultural systems by improving crop productivity, quality, and stress resilience under conditions of climate variability and resource limitations. However, their expanding use necessitates a thorough understanding of their environmental behaviour and ecological implications. This review highlights that the environmental fate of PGRs is governed by their physicochemical properties, application practices, soil characteristics, and climatic conditions, which collectively influence the persistence, mobility, and exposure of non-target organisms. The evidence synthesised herein indicates that PGRs can exert subtle yet meaningful effects on soil health, microbial communities, and non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms, particularly under repeated or long-term exposure scenarios. Although acute toxicity is generally low, emerging research underscores the importance of considering chronic, sublethal, and indirect effects when assessing ecological and human health risks. These findings suggest that conventional regulatory frameworks may benefit from the incorporation of long-term exposure assessments, mixture effects, and hormone-specific endpoints. This review also emphasises the opportunities to mitigate the environmental risks associated with the use of PGRs through precision agriculture technologies, integrated crop management strategies, and the development of bio-based or biodegradable growth regulators. Long-term field studies, climate-integrated risk assessments, and advances in analytical and molecular tools will be essential for closing current knowledge gaps and improving environmental monitoring. In conclusion, plant growth regulators remain valuable tools for sustainable crop management; however, their long-term benefits depend on responsible use and informed risk management. Integrating scientific innovation with adaptive regulation and optimal agronomic practices is critical for balancing agricultural productivity with the protection of soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem services.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.P.; methodology, writing—original draft preparation D.P. and A.M.; software and investigation, D.S.; writing—review and editing, D.P. and A.J. 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

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors. All data, tables and figures in this manuscript are original. All figures presented in this manuscript are schematic and conceptual representations created by the authors for illustrative and educational purposes. They do not depict experimental results. Digital visualization tools were used solely to assist figure preparation, and all content was critically reviewed and validated by the authors to ensure scientific accuracy.

Acknowledgments

Domenico Prisa would like to express his heartfelt gratitude to his colleagues at CREA Research Centre for Vegetable and Ornamental Crops in Pescia and to all other sources for their cooperation and guidance in writing this article. A special thanks to Aristidis Matsoukis for the discount obtained through the vouchers from his review work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Zhang, W.; Li, C.; Li, Z.; Hu, N.; Cao, G.; Huang, J.; Yang, P.; Liu, H.; Bai, H.; Zhang, H. Effects of Different Plant Growth Regulators on Growth Physiology and Photosynthetic Characteristics of Pinus koraiensis Seedlings. Plants 2025, 14, 3671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Garban, Z.; Ilia, G. Structure–Activity of Plant Growth Bioregulators and Their Effects on Mammals. Molecules 2024, 29, 5671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Li, H.; Jiang, X.; Mashiguchi, K.; Yamaguchi, S.; Lu, S. Biosynthesis and Signal Transduction of Plant Growth Regulators and Their Effects on Bioactive Compound Production in Salvia miltiorrhiza (Danshen). Chin. Med. 2024, 19, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Verma, V.; Ravindran, P.; Kumar, P.P. Plant Hormone-Mediated Regulation of Stress Responses. BMC Plant Biol. 2016, 16, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Didi, D.A.; Su, S.; Sam, F.E.; Tiika, R.J.; Zhang, X. Effect of Plant Growth Regulators on Osmotic Regulatory Substances and Antioxidant Enzyme Activity of Nitraria tangutorum. Plants 2022, 11, 2559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Mikiciuk, G.; Miller, T.; Kisiel, A.; Cembrowska-Lech, D.; Mikiciuk, M.; Łobodzińska, A.; Bokszczanin, K. Harnessing Beneficial Microbes for Drought Tolerance: A Review of Ecological and Agricultural Innovations. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Rakočević, M.; Batista, E.R.; Matsunaga, F.T.; Scholz, M.B.d.S. Plant Growth Regulators and Short-Term Irrigation for Berry Maturation Homogeneity and Increased Coffea arabica Bean Quality. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Rostami, S.; Azhdarpoor, A. The Application of Plant Growth Regulators to Improve Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soils: A Review. Chemosphere 2019, 220, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Moffat, I.; Chepelev, N.; Labib, S.; Bourdon-Lacombe, J.; Kuo, B.; Buick, J.K.; Lemieux, F.; Williams, A.; Halappanavar, S.; Malik, A.; et al. Comparison of Toxicogenomics and Traditional Approaches to Inform Mode of Action and Points of Departure in Human Health Risk Assessment of Benzo[a]pyrene in Drinking Water. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2015, 45, 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Velloso, C.L.A.d.P.; Oliveira, J.T.d.; Baio, F.H.R.; Cunha, F.F.d.; Oliveira, J.T.d. Use of Plant Growth Regulators for Sustainable Management of Vegetation in Highway. Eng 2025, 6, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Borrowman, C.K.; Adhikari, R.; Saito, K.; Gordon, S.; Patti, A.F. Understanding the Impact of Soil Characteristics and Field Management Strategies on the Degradation of a Sprayable, Biodegradable Polymeric Mulch. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Lari, S.Z.; Khan, N.A.; Gandhi, K.N.; Meshram, T.S.; Thacker, N.P. Comparison of Pesticide Residues in Surface Water and Groundwater of Agriculture-Intensive Areas. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2014, 12, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Guo, L.; Chen, W.; Zhang, C.; Wang, Y.; Chen, G. The Toxicological Effects, Toxin-Producing Performance, and Molecular Mechanism of Marine Microalgae in Response to Environmental Estrogens: A Review. Water 2025, 17, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Guzmán, M.D.P.R.; Díaz, I.F.C.; Molina, L.X.Z. Reflections on the Role, Diversity, Conservation, and Management of Genetic Microbial Resources in Agriculture. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2025, 8, 100365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Gajjar, K.; Patel, S.; Chaudhary, M.; Agrawal, D.; Maniyar, R.; Chaudhary, D.; Patel, C.K.; Joshi, C.; Joshi, M.; Dharajiya, D. Metagenomic Insights Reveal the Impact of Natural Farming on Soil Nutrients, Enzyme Activities, Microbial Communities, and Yield in Turmeric Cultivation. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 26, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, X.; Zhang, L.; Liu, J.; Shen, Z.; Liu, Z.; Gu, H.; Hu, X.; Yu, Z.; Li, Y.; Jin, J. Biofertilizers Enhance Soil Fertility and Crop Yields through Microbial Community Modulation. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Wan, N.F.; Fu, L.; Dainese, M.; Kiær, L.P.; Hu, Y.Q.; Xin, F.; Goulson, D.; Woodcock, B.A.; Vanbergen, A.J.; Spurgeon, D.J.; et al. Pesticides Have Negative Effects on Non-Target Organisms. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Shapira, T.; Roth, T.; Bar, A.; Coll, M.; Mandelik, Y. Complex Effects of a Land-Use Gradient on Pollinators and Natural Enemies: Natural Habitats Mitigate the Effects of Aphid Infestation on Pollination Services. Insects 2023, 14, 872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Harrison, S.; Barnett, C.; Short, S.; Uluseker, C.; Silva, P.V.; Pavlaki, M.D.; Roberts, S.; Vieira, M.; Lofts, S.; Loureiro, S.; et al. Continuous Improvement towards Environmental Protection for Pharmaceuticals: Advancing a Strategy for Europe. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2025, 37, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Moreira, A.; Guedes, J.; Vieira da Silva, M. New Methodologies and Techniques for Biomonitoring Pesticide Exposure in Agricultural Workers: A Systematic Review. Toxics 2025, 13, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Rezaee Danesh, Y.; Mulet, J.M.; Porcel, R. Bridging Microbial Biocontrol and Phytochemical Biopesticides: Synergistic Approaches for Sustainable Crop Protection. Plants 2025, 14, 3453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Xue, C.; Wen, Y.; Sheng, S.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, T.; Peng, J.; Cao, S. Hormonal Regulation and Transcriptomic Insights into Flower Development in Hydrangea paniculata ‘Vanilla Strawberry’. Plants 2024, 13, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Sabagh, A.E.; Mbarki, S.; Hossain, A.; Iqbal, M.A.; Islam, M.S.; Raza, A.; Llanes, A.; Reginato, M.; Rahman, M.A.; Mahboob, W.; et al. Potential Role of Plant Growth Regulators in Administering Crucial Processes against Abiotic Stresses. Front. Agron. 2021, 3, 648694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Thilakarathne, A.S.; Liu, F.; Zou, Z. Plant Signaling Hormones and Transcription Factors: Key Regulators of Plant Responses to Growth, Development, and Stress. Plants 2025, 14, 1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Fu, S.F.; Wei, J.Y.; Chen, H.W.; Liu, Y.Y.; Lu, H.Y.; Chou, J.Y. Indole-3-Acetic Acid: A Widespread Physiological Code in Interactions of Fungi with Other Organisms. Plant Signal. Behav. 2015, 10, e1048052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Ludwig-Müller, J. Indole-3-butyric acid in plant growth and development. Plant Growth Regul. 2000, 32, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Gao, S.; Chu, C. Gibberellin Metabolism and Signaling: Targets for Improving Agronomic Performance of Crops. Plant Cell Physiol. 2020, 61, 1902–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. García-Rojas, M.; Meneses, M.; Oviedo, K.; Carrasco, C.; Defilippi, B.; González-Agüero, M.; León, G.; Hinrichsen, P. Exogenous Gibberellic Acid Application Induces the Overexpression of Key Genes for Pedicel Lignification and an Increase in Berry Drop in Table Grape. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 126, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Sun, X.; Zhao, Q.; Gao, J.; Liu, Z. The Physiological Mechanisms and Hurdles of Efficient Water–Nitrogen Utilization in Maize Production: A Review. Plants 2025, 14, 1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Muhammad Aslam, M.; Waseem, M.; Jakada, B.H.; Okal, E.J.; Lei, Z.; Saqib, H.S.A.; Yuan, W.; Xu, W.; Zhang, Q. Mechanisms of Abscisic Acid-Mediated Drought Stress Responses in Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Cardoso, A.A.; Gori, A.; Da-Silva, C.J.; Brunetti, C. Abscisic Acid Biosynthesis and Signaling in Plants: Key Targets to Improve Water Use Efficiency and Drought Tolerance. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Iqbal, N.; Khan, N.A.; Ferrante, A.; Trivellini, A.; Francini, A.; Khan, M.I.R. Ethylene Role in Plant Growth, Development, and Senescence: Interaction with Other Phytohormones. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Pandey, E.; Kumari, R.; Faizan, S.; Pandey, S. Linking the Interaction of Salicylates and Jasmonates for Stress Resilience in Plants. Stress Biol. 2025, 5, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Montaño, G.H.; Paredes-Carrera, S.P.; Chanona Pérez, J.J.; Medina, D.I.T.; Fregoso Aguilar, T.A.; Mendoza-Pérez, J.A.; Nicolás Álvarez, D.E. A New Plant Growth Regulator: An In Silico Evaluation. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 9797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Muselikova, K.; Mouralova, K. Synthetic Auxin Herbicide 2,4-D and Its Influence on a Model BY-2 Suspension. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2024, 51, 444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Werner, T.; Schmülling, T. Cytokinin action in plant development. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2009, 12, 527–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Chhon, Y.; Sorn, V.; Seab, P.; Ung, S.; Kheang, L.; Ly, V. Effect of 6-benzylaminopurine (6-BAP) on shoot proliferation in micropropagated Cavendish banana (Musa acuminata). Int. J. Agron. 2025, 2025, 4870939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Rademacher, W. Growth Retardants: Effects on Gibberellin Biosynthesis and Other Metabolic Pathways. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 2000, 51, 501–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Loukakis, L.O.; Giannoulis, K.D.; Garoufali, E.; Karaviti, T.; Sotirakoglou, K.; Kotoulas, V.; Papastylianou, P.; Economou, G. Integration of Biostimulants alongside Various Advanced Nitrogen Fertilization Practices Improves the Yield, Quality, and Sustainability of Malting Barley in Mediterranean Conditions. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Bacelar, E.; Pinto, T.; Anjos, R.; Morais, M.C.; Oliveira, I.; Vilela, A.; Cosme, F. Impacts of Climate Change and Mitigation Strategies for Some Abiotic and Biotic Constraints Influencing Fruit Growth and Quality. Plants 2024, 13, 1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Acharya, T.P.; Nambeesan, S.U. Ethylene-Releasing Plant Growth Regulators Promote Ripening Initiation by Stimulating Sugar, Acid, and Anthocyanin Metabolism in Blueberry (Vaccinium ashei). BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Tassoni, A.; Watkins, C.B.; Davies, P.J. Inhibition of the Ethylene Response by 1-MCP in Tomato Suggests that Polyamines Are Not Involved in Delaying Ripening, but May Moderate the Rate of Ripening or Over-Ripening. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 3313–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Overvoorde, P.; Fukaki, H.; Beeckman, T. Auxin Control of Root Development. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2010, 2, a001537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Castro-Camba, R.; Sánchez, C.; Vidal, N.; Vielba, J.M. Plant Development and Crop Yield: The Role of Gibberellins. Plants 2022, 11, 2650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Hönig, M.; Plíhalová, L.; Husičková, A.; Nisler, J.; Doležal, K. Role of Cytokinins in Senescence, Antioxidant Defence, and Photosynthesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 4045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Ali, S.; Hayat, K.; Iqbal, A.; Xie, L. Implications of Abscisic Acid in the Drought Stress Tolerance of Plants. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Tipu, M.M.H.; Sherif, S.M. Ethylene and Its Crosstalk with Hormonal Pathways in Fruit Ripening: Mechanisms, Modulation, and Commercial Exploitation. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1475496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Chen, S.; Wang, X.J.; Tan, G.F.; Zhou, W.Q.; Wang, G.L. Gibberellin and the Plant Growth Retardant Paclobutrazol Altered Fruit Shape and Ripening in Tomato. Protoplasma 2020, 257, 853–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Alagarswamy, S.; Karuppasami, K.M.; Djanaguiraman, M.; Venugopal, P.B.R.; Natarajan, S.; Rathinavelu, S.; Dhashnamurthi, V.; Veerasamy, R.; Parasuraman, B. Sustaining the Yield of Maize, Blackgram, Greengram, Groundnut, Cotton, Sugarcane, and Coconut through the Application of Nutrients and Plant Growth Regulator Mixture. Plants 2024, 13, 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Aremu, A.O.; Fawole, O.A.; Makunga, N.P.; Masondo, N.A.; Moyo, M.; Buthelezi, N.M.D.; Amoo, S.O.; Spíchal, L.; Doležal, K. Applications of Cytokinins in Horticultural Fruit Crops: Trends and Future Prospects. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Baldissera, S.; Dias, A.F.; Ribeiro, J.d.C.; Andrade Júnior, R.B.d.; Pirolli, B.; Costa Júnior, E.d.S.; Francescatto, P.; Rios, P.D.; Rufato, D.P.; Bogo, A. Cytokinin- and Auxin-Based Plant Growth Regulators Enhance Cell Expansion, Yield Performance, and Fruit Quality in ‘Maxi Gala’ Apple Fruits in Southern Brazil. Agriculture 2025, 15, 2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Gonçalves, B.; Santos, M.; Silva, V.; Rodrigues, A.; Oliveira, I.; Lopes, T.; Sujeeth, N.; Guinan, K.J. Biostimulants in Fruit Crop Production: Impacts on Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Putman, A.I.; Kaminski, J.E. Mowing Frequency and Plant Growth Regulator Effects on Dollar Spot Severity and on Duration of Dollar Spot Control by Fungicides. Plant Dis. 2011, 95, 1433–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
54. Rezaee Danesh, Y. Harnessing Beneficial Microbes and Sensor Technologies for Sustainable Smart Agriculture. Sensors 2025, 25, 6631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Zuiderveen, E.A.R.; Kuipers, K.J.J.; Caldeira, C.; Hanssen, S.V.; van der Hulst, M.K.; de Jonge, M.M.J.; Vlysidis, A.; van Zelm, R.; Sala, S.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. The Potential of Emerging Bio-Based Products to Reduce Environmental Impacts. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 8521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. El Sabagh, A.; Islam, M.S.; Hossain, A.; Iqbal, M.A.; Mubeen, M.; Waleed, M.; Reginato, M.; Battaglia, M.; Ahmed, S.; Rehman, A.; et al. Phytohormones as Growth Regulators during Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants. Front. Agron. 2022, 4, 765068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Mukherjee, A.; Gaurav, A.K.; Singh, S.; Yadav, S.; Bhowmick, S.; Abeysinghe, S.; Verma, J.P. The Bioactive Potential of Phytohormones: A Review. Biotechnol. Rep. 2022, 35, e00748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Manghwar, H.; Hussain, A.; Ali, Q.; Liu, F. Brassinosteroids (BRs) Role in Plant Development and Coping with Different Stresses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Usmani, L.; Shakil, A.; Khan, I.; Alvi, T.; Singh, S.; Das, D. Brassinosteroids in Micronutrient Homeostasis: Mechanisms and Implications for Plant Nutrition and Stress Resilience. Plants 2025, 14, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. Chen, E.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Wang, X.; Ge, X.; Li, F. Brassinosteroid Deficiency Causes Increased Sensitivity to Drought and Yield Penalty in Cotton. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Alizadeh, R.; Jalali, M.; Valizadeh-Rad, K.; Etesami, H. Enhancing Water Deficit Tolerance in Canola (Brassica napus L.) through the Synergistic Application of Nano-Silicon and Sulfur. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
62. Paiu, M.; Favier, L.; Gavrilescu, M. Assessing the Ecotoxicological Effects of Emerging Drug and Dye Pollutants on Plant–Soil Systems Pre- and Post-Photocatalytic Wastewater Treatment. Plants 2025, 14, 3835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Kennedy, J.R.; Blain, C.O. A Systematic Review of Marine Macroalgal Degradation: Toward a Better Understanding of Macroalgal Carbon Sequestration Potential. J. Phycol. 2025, 61, 399–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
64. Le, V.H.; Collins, S.L.; Vargas, R. Long-Term Ecological Studies Must Continue: Insights from a Dryland Transition Zone. Oecologia 2025, 207, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65. Yang, H.; Fang, R.; Luo, L.; Yang, W.; Huang, Q.; Yang, C.; Hui, W.; Gong, W.; Wang, J. Uncovering the Mechanisms of Salicylic Acid-Mediated Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Horticultural Crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1226041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
66. Fang, X.; Xie, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Long, Q.; Zhang, L.; Abid, G.; Zhang, W. The Role of Salicylic Acid in Plant Defense Responses against Biotic Stresses. Plant Horm. 2025, 1, e004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
67. Harishchandra, D.L.; Karunarathna, A.; Haituk, S.; Sittihan, S.; Wongwan, T.; Cheewangkoon, R. Improving Crop Resilience in Drought-Prone Agroecosystems: Bioinoculants and Biocontrol Strategies from Climate-Adaptive Microorganisms. Agriculture 2025, 15, 2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
68. Panigrahi, L.L.; Rout, G.R. Mechanistic Insights into Micro- and Nanosilicon for Environmental Stress Mitigation in Plants. Discov. Nano 2025, 20, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Gulcin, İ. Antioxidants: A Comprehensive Review. Arch. Toxicol. 2025, 99, 1893–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Amerson, A.M.; Harris, T.M.; Michener, S.R.; Gunn, C.M.; Haxel, J.H. A Summary of Environmental Monitoring Recommendations for Marine Energy Development That Considers Life Cycle Sustainability. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
71. Wang, Z.; Xie, J.; Duan, W.; Zhang, Z.; Meng, L.; Zhu, L.; Wang, Q.; Song, H.; Xu, X. DNA Methylation Is Crucial for 1-Methylcyclopropene Delaying Postharvest Ripening and Senescence of Tomato Fruit. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72. do Amarante, C.V.T.; Argenta, L.C.; de Freitas, S.T.; Steffens, C.A. Preharvest Application of 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to Schedule the Harvest and Maintain the Storage Quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ Apples. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
73. Tedeschi, P.; Marzocchi, S.; Marchetti, N.; Barba, F.J.; Maietti, A. Influence of Postharvest 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) Treatment and Refrigeration on Chemical Composition, Phenolic Profile, and Antioxidant Modifications during Storage of ‘Abate Fetel’ Pears. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Wichrowska, D.; Kozera, W.; Knapowski, T.; Prus, P.; Ligocka, A. Assessment of the Interactive Effect of the Use of 1-Methylcyclopropene and Cultivars on the Nutritional Value of Broccoli during Storage. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
75. Garrido-Auñón, F.; Puente-Moreno, J.; García-Pastor, M.E.; Serrano, M.; Valero, D. Brassinosteroids: An Innovative Compound Family That Could Affect the Growth, Ripening, Quality, and Postharvest Storage of Fleshy Fruits. Plants 2024, 13, 3082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Li, J.; Forghieri, G.; Geelen, D.; du Jardin, P.; Brown, P.H. Optimization of Crop Responses to Climatic Stress through Modulation of Plant Stress Response Mechanisms: Opportunities for Biostimulants and Plant Hormones. New Phytol. 2026, 249, 130–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
77. Mwelase, S.; Adeyemi, J.O.; Fawole, O.A. Recent Advances in Postharvest Application of Exogenous Phytohormones for Quality Preservation of Fruits and Vegetables. Plants 2024, 13, 3255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78. Chauhan, P.; Sharma, N.; Tapwal, A.; Kumar, A.; Verma, G.S.; Meena, M.; Seth, C.S.; Swapnil, P. Soil Microbiome: Diversity, Benefits, and Interactions with Plants. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79. Chen, Q.; Song, Y.; An, Y.; Lu, Y.; Zhong, G. Mechanisms and Impact of Rhizosphere Microbial Metabolites on Crop Health, Traits, and Functional Components: A Comprehensive Review. Molecules 2024, 29, 5922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
80. Yasir, M.; Hossain, A.; Pratap-Singh, A. Pesticide Degradation: Impacts on Soil Fertility and Nutrient Cycling. Environments 2025, 12, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
81. Nandi, R.; Sarker, A.; Rana, M.M.; Hasan, A.K. Influence of Organic Matter and Growing Conditions on Dissipation Behavior and Mobility of Two Pesticides in Soils. Environments 2025, 12, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
82. Khan, M.T.; Supronienė, S.; Žvirdauskienė, R.; Aleinikovienė, J. Climate, Soil, and Microbes: Interactions Shaping Organic Matter Decomposition in Croplands. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
83. Mamirova, A.; Pidlisnyuk, V.; Hrabak, P.; Shapoval, P.; Nurzhanova, A. Biochar-Supported Phytoremediation of Dredged Sediments Contaminated by HCH Isomers and Trace Elements Using Paulownia tomentosa. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
84. Ralaizafisoloarivony, N.; Degré, A.; Mercatoris, B.; Léonard, A.; Toye, D.; Charlier, R. A First Insight on the Interaction between Desiccation Cracking and Water Transfer in a Luvisol of Belgium. Soil Syst. 2021, 5, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
85. Pereira, J.L.S.; Martinho, V.J.P.D. Integrated Soil Management: Food Supply, Environmental Impacts, and Socioeconomic Functions. Soil Syst. 2025, 9, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
86. Cárceles Rodríguez, B.; Durán-Zuazo, V.H.; Soriano Rodríguez, M.; García-Tejero, I.F.; Gálvez Ruiz, B.; Cuadros Tavira, S. Conservation Agriculture as a Sustainable System for Soil Health: A Review. Soil Syst. 2022, 6, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
87. Narayanan, M.; Kandasamy, S.; Lee, J.; Barathi, S. Microbial Degradation and Transformation of PPCPs in Aquatic Environment: A Review. Heliyon 2023, 9, e18426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
88. Wernicke, T.; Rojo-Nieto, E.; Paschke, A.; Nogueira Tavares, C.; Brauns, M.; Jahnke, A. Exploring the Partitioning of Hydrophobic Organic Compounds between Water, Suspended Particulate Matter, and Diverse Fish Species in a German River Ecosystem. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2022, 34, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
89. Hong, S.-W.; Park, J.; Jeong, H.; Lee, S.; Choi, L.; Zhao, L.; Zhu, H. Fluid Dynamic Approaches for Prediction of Spray Drift from Ground Pesticide Applications: A Review. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
90. Godyń, A.; Świechowski, W.; Doruchowski, G.; Hołownicki, R.; Bartosik, A.; Sas, K. Spray Deposition, Drift, and Equipment Contamination for Drone and Conventional Orchard Spraying under European Conditions. Agriculture 2025, 15, 2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
91. Buonsenso, F. Scientific and Regulatory Perspectives on Chemical Risk Assessment of Pesticides in the European Union. J. Xenobiot. 2025, 15, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
92. Baloch, F.B.; Zeng, N.; Gong, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, N.; Baloch, S.B.; Ali, S.; Li, B. Rhizobacterial Volatile Organic Compounds: Implications for Agricultural Ecosystems’ Nutrient Cycling and Soil Health. Heliyon 2024, 10, e40522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
93. Wankhade, A.; Wilkinson, E.; Britt, D.W.; Kaundal, A. A Review of Plant–Microbe Interactions in the Rhizosphere and the Role of Root Exudates in Microbiome Engineering. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 7127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
94. Li, J.; Zuo, Y.; Zhang, J. Rhizosphere Shifts: Reduced Fungal Diversity and Microbial Community Functionality Enhance Plant Adaptation in Continuous Cropping Systems. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
95. Daunoras, J.; Kačergius, A.; Gudiukaitė, R. Role of Soil Microbiota Enzymes in Soil Health and Activity Changes Depending on Climate Change and the Type of Soil Ecosystem. Biology 2024, 13, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
96. Acierno, C.; Barletta, F.; Nevola, R.; Rinaldi, L.; Sasso, F.C.; Adinolfi, L.E.; Caturano, A. Metabolic Rewiring of Bacterial Pathogens in Response to Antibiotic Pressure—A Molecular Perspective. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 5574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and Their Residues (PPR); Ockleford, C.; Adriaanse, P.; Berny, P.; Brock, T.; Duquesne, S.; Grilli, S.; Hernandez-Jerez, A.F.; Bennekou, S.H.; Klein, M.; et al. Scientific Opinion Addressing the State of the Science on Risk Assessment of Plant Protection Products for In-Soil Organisms. EFSA J. 2017, 15, e04690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
98. Wen, S.; Shao, M.; Wang, J. Earthworm Burrowing Activity and Its Effects on Soil Hydraulic Properties under Different Soil Moisture Conditions from the Loess Plateau, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
99. Cederlund, H. Effects of Spray Drift of Glyphosate on Nontarget Terrestrial Plants—A Critical Review. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36, 2879–2886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
100. Gardner, T.; Acosta-Martinez, V.; Senwo, Z.; Dowd, S.E. Soil Rhizosphere Microbial Communities and Enzyme Activities under Organic Farming in Alabama. Diversity 2011, 3, 308–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
101. Singh, J.; Schädler, M.; Demetrio, W.; Brown, G.G.; Eisenhauer, N. Climate Change Effects on Earthworms—A Review. Soil Org. 2019, 91, 114–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
102. Moore, D.R.J.; Priest, C.D.; Brayden, B.H.; Hanzas, J.P.; Arpino, M.R.; Richardson, L.; Stryker, J.; Banman, C.; Rodney, S.I.; Chapple, A.; et al. A Field Spray Drift Study to Determine the Downwind Effects of Isoxaflutole Herbicide to Nontarget Plants. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2022, 18, 757–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
103. Carvalheiro, L.G.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Benadi, G.; Fründ, J.; Stang, M.; Bartomeus, I.; Kaiser-Bunbury, C.N.; Baude, M.; Gomes, S.I.; Merckx, V.; et al. The Potential for Indirect Effects between Co-Flowering Plants via Shared Pollinators Depends on Resource Abundance, Accessibility, and Relatedness. Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17, 1389–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Nadudvari, A.; Schagerl, M.; Ancheta, S.M. Possible Effects of Pesticide Washout on Microalgae Growth. Water 2025, 17, 2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
105. Bonacina, L.; Fasano, F.; Mezzanotte, V.; Fornaroli, R. Effects of Water Temperature on Freshwater Macroinvertebrates: A Systematic Review. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2023, 98, 191–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
106. Akmukhanova, N.R.; Seiilbek, S.N.; Zayadan, B.K.; Bolatkhan, K.; Bakytzhan, R.A.; Domash, G.S.; Bruce, B.D. Harnessing Microalgae and Cyanobacteria for Sustainable Pesticide Biodegradation: Advances, Challenges, and Ecological Benefits. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
107. Jan, S.; Singh, R.; Bhardwaj, R.; Ahmad, P.; Kapoor, D. Plant Growth Regulators: A Sustainable Approach to Combat Pesticide Toxicity. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
108. Krieger, R.I.; Ross, J.H. Risk Assessments in the Pesticide Regulatory Process. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1993, 37, 565–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109. Rademacher, W. Plant Growth Regulators: Backgrounds and Uses in Plant Production. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2015, 34, 845–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
110. Pekmezci, H.; Sipahi, S.; Başaran, B. Health Risk Assessment of Dietary Chemical Exposures: A Comprehensive Review. Foods 2025, 14, 4133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
111. Sunderland, E.M.; Hu, X.C.; Dassuncao, C.; Tokranov, A.K.; Wagner, C.C.; Allen, J.G. A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2019, 29, 131–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
112. Gangemi, S.; Miozzi, E.; Teodoro, M.; Briguglio, G.; De Luca, A.; Alibrando, C.; Polito, I.; Libra, M. Occupational Exposure to Pesticides as a Possible Risk Factor for the Development of Chronic Diseases in Humans: A Review. Mol. Med. Rep. 2016, 14, 4475–4488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
113. Pú, N.; Rommes, F.; Alvarado-Arias, M.; Méndez-Rivera, M.; Lizano-Fallas, V. Endocrine-Disrupting Pesticide Exposure Relevant to Reproductive Health: A Case Study from Costa Rica. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2025, 197, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
114. Wang, X.; Hao, W. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Plant Growth Regulators in Humans and Animals. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2023, 196, 105640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
115. Windsor, F.M.; Ormerod, S.J.; Tyler, C.R. Endocrine Disruption in Aquatic Systems: Up-Scaling Research to Address Ecological Consequences. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2018, 93, 626–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
116. Si, W.; Song, Y.; Guo, C.; Huang, Z.; Chen, L.; Xu, F.; Bai, B.; Huo, K.; Wang, S. Multi-Model Risk Assessment of Pesticide Residues in Seasonal Fruits Based on Integrated Targeted/Non-Targeted Screening: Implications for Vulnerable Populations. Food Chem. X 2025, 28, 102599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
117. EFSA Scientific Committee; More, S.J.; Bampidis, V.; Benford, D.; Bennekou, S.H.; Bragard, C.; Halldorsson, T.I.; Hernández-Jerez, A.F.; Koutsoumanis, K.; Naegeli, H.; et al. Guidance on Harmonised Methodologies for Human Health, Animal Health, and Ecological Risk Assessment of Combined Exposure to Multiple Chemicals. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e05634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
118. El-Masri, H.; Friedman, K.P.; Isaacs, K.; Wetmore, B.A. Advances in Computational Methods along the Exposure to Toxicological Response Paradigm. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2022, 450, 116141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
119. Vijver, M.G.; Hunting, E.R.; Nederstigt, T.A.; Tamis, W.L.; van den Brink, P.J.; van Bodegom, P.M. Postregistration Monitoring of Pesticides Is Urgently Required to Protect Ecosystems. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36, 860–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
120. Lezotre, P.L. Value and Influencing Factors of the Cooperation, Convergence, and Harmonization in the Pharmaceutical Sector. In International Cooperation, Convergence and Harmonization of Pharmaceutical Regulations; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 171–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
121. Le, V.N.; Nguyen, Q.T.; Nguyen, T.D.; Nguyen, N.T.; Janda, T.; Szalai, G.; Le, T.G. The Potential Health Risks and Environmental Pollution Associated with the Application of Plant Growth Regulators in Vegetable Production in Several Suburban Areas of Hanoi, Vietnam. Biol. Futur. 2020, 71, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
122. Khangura, R.; Ferris, D.; Wagg, C.; Bowyer, J. Regenerative Agriculture—A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
123. Wang, S.L.; Olver, R.; Bonin, D. Sustainable Crop Farm Productivity: Weather Effects, Technology Adoption, and Farm Management. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
124. Ahmed, N.; Yang, Z.; Zhong, L.; Ahmed, Z.; Khalique, A.; Hussain, Z.; Hussain, S.; Bozdar, B.; Narejo, M.-u.-N.; Hussain, M.; et al. Root exudate-mediated plant–microbe interactions and next-generation strategies for sustainable nitrogen management in agricultural soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2026, 219, 106758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
125. Julien, T.; Jeantet, A.; Marks-Perreau, J.; Dutertre, A.; Maillet-Mezeray, J. Shifting application dates on cereal reduces pesticide transfer via subsurface drainage based on water flow forecasts during autumn applications. Pest Manag. Sci. 2023, 79, 3058–3070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
126. Herrero, J.; Ramírez-Santos, A.; Díaz-Santos, E.; Torres-Cortés, G. Biofertilizers for enhanced nitrogen use efficiency: Mechanisms, innovations, and challenges. Nitrogen 2025, 6, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
127. Shukla, B.K.; Maurya, N.; Sharma, M. Advancements in Sensor-Based Technologies for Precision Agriculture: An Exploration of Interoperability, Analytics, and Deployment Strategies. Eng. Proc. 2023, 58, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
128. García-Munguía, A.; Guerra-Ávila, P.L.; Islas-Ojeda, E.; Flores-Sánchez, J.L.; Vázquez-Martínez, O.; García-Munguía, A.M.; García-Munguía, O. A Review of Drone Technology and Operation Processes in Agricultural Crop Spraying. Drones 2024, 8, 674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
129. Pérez-Montaño, F.; Aparicio, N.; Arenas, F.; Arjona, J.M.; Camacho, M.; Fernández-García, N.; García-Fraile, P.; Goicoechea, N.; Macías-Naranjo, S.; Matías, J.; et al. Emerging Crops and Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria (PGPB): A Synergistic Approach to Climate-Resilient Agriculture. Microbiome 2025, 13, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
130. Jurado-Flores, A.; Heredia-Martínez, L.G.; Torres-Cortes, G.; Díaz-Santos, E. Harnessing Microalgae and Cyanobacteria for Sustainable Agriculture: Mechanistic Insights and Applications as Biostimulants, Biofertilizers, and Biocontrol Agents. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
131. Sampedro-Guerrero, J.; Vives-Peris, V.; Gomez-Cadenas, A.; Clausell-Terol, C. Efficient Strategies for Controlled Release of Nanoencapsulated Phytohormones to Improve Plant Stress Tolerance. Plant Methods 2023, 19, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Fenibo, E.O.; Matambo, T. Biopesticides for Sustainable Agriculture: Feasible Options for Adopting Cost-Effective Strategies. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2025, 9, 1657000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
133. Liu, T.; Bruins, R.J.F.; Heberling, M.T. Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Best Management Practices: A Review and Synthesis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
134. Edmondson, E.; Fanning, L. Implementing Adaptive Management within a Fisheries Management Context: A Systematic Literature Review Revealing Gaps, Challenges, and Ways Forward. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
135. Yakhin, O.I.; Lubyanov, A.A.; Yakhin, I.A.; Brown, P.H. Biostimulants in Plant Science: A Global Perspective. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 7, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
136. Karnaš Babić, M.; Majić, I.; Dandić, A.; Rastija, V. The Future of Azoles in Agriculture—Balancing Effectiveness and Toxicity. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 12902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
137. Temwani, K.; Pan, D.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Lan, H. Advances in Miniaturized Liquid Chromatography for the Detection of Organic Pollutants in Food, Environmental, and Biological Samples. Separations 2025, 12, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
138. Campos, E.V.R.; Pereira, A.d.E.S.; Aleksieienko, I.; Carmo, G.C.d.; Gohari, G.; Santaella, C.; Fraceto, L.F.; Oliveira, H.C. Encapsulated Plant Growth Regulators and Associative Microorganisms: Nature-Based Solutions to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change on Plants. Plant Sci. 2023, 331, 111688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
139. Ankati, S.; Podile, A.R. Metabolites in the Root Exudates of Groundnut Change during Interaction with Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria in a Strain-Specific Manner. J. Plant Physiol. 2019, 243, 153057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
140. Haldar, S.; Sengupta, S. Plant–Microbe Cross-Talk in the Rhizosphere: Insight and Biotechnological Potential. Open Microbiol. J. 2015, 9, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
141. Zhang, H.; Sun, X.; Dai, M. Improving Crop Drought Resistance with Plant Growth Regulators and Rhizobacteria: Mechanisms, Applications, and Perspectives. Plant Commun. 2021, 3, 100228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
142. Vlahoviček-Kahlina, K.; Jurić, S.; Marijan, M.; Mutaliyeva, B.; Khalus, S.V.; Prosyanik, A.V.; Vinceković, M. Synthesis, Characterization, and Encapsulation of Novel Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs) in Biopolymer Matrices. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
143. Toma, C.; Cappelli, C.I.; Manganaro, A.; Lombardo, A.; Arning, J.; Benfenati, E. New Models to Predict the Acute and Chronic Toxicities of Representative Species of the Main Trophic Levels of Aquatic Environments. Molecules 2021, 26, 6983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
144. Ghisman, V.; Mureșan, A.C.; Bogatu, N.L.; Herbei, E.E.; Buruiana, D.L. Recent Advances in the Remediation of Degraded and Contaminated Soils: A Review of Sustainable and Applied Strategies. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
145. Brown, I. Comparative Risk Assessment to Inform Adaptation Priorities for the Natural Environment: Observations from the First UK Climate Change Risk Assessment. Climate 2015, 3, 937–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
146. Souza, R.d.; Ambrosini, A.; Passaglia, L.M.P. Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as Inoculants in Agricultural Soils. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2015, 38, 401–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
147. Gupta, V.V.S.R.; Tiedje, J.M. Ranking Environmental and Edaphic Attributes Driving Soil Microbial Community Structure and Activity with Special Attention to Spatial and Temporal Scales. mLife 2024, 3, 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
148. Shafi, Z.; Shahid, M.; Ilyas, T.; Pandey, V.K.; Aijaz, S.A.; Singh, R.; Sahu, P.K. Unveiling the Plant Growth Regulators Crosstalk in Agricultural Crop Response to Salinity Stress: A Concise Review. Physiol. Plant. 2025, 177, e70402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
149. Kokotović, I.; Veseli, M.; Ložek, F.; Karačić, Z.; Rožman, M.; Previšić, A. Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds Modulate Adverse Effects of Climate Change on Resource Quality in Freshwater Food Webs. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 168751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
150. Folina, A.; Kakabouki, I.; Baginetas, K.; Bilalis, D. Integration of Bioresources for Sustainable Development in Organic Farming: A Comprehensive Review. Resources 2025, 14, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
151. Vandenberg, L.N.; Colborn, T.; Hayes, T.B.; Heindel, J.J.; Jacobs, D.R., Jr.; Lee, D.H.; Shioda, T.; Soto, A.M.; vom Saal, F.S.; Welshons, W.V.; et al. Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses. Endocr. Rev. 2012, 33, 378–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
152. Costantini, D.; Messina, S.; Sebastiano, M.; Marasco, V. Life at New Extremes: Integrating Stress Physiology and the Bio-Exposome in the Anthropocene. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2025, 1548, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
153. Liang, X.; Yu, S.; Ju, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yin, D. Integrated Management Practices Foster Soil Health, Productivity, and Agroecosystem Resilience. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
154. Lupica, S.; Privitera, S.; Trusso Sfrazzetto, A.; Cerruto, E.; Manetto, G. Toward Modern Pesticide Use Reduction Strategies in Advancing Precision Agriculture: A Bibliometric Review. AgriEngineering 2025, 7, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
155. Arinaitwe, U.; Yabwalo, D.N.; Hangamaisho, A. Unlocking the Potential of Biostimulants: A Review of Classification, Mode of Action, Formulations, Efficacy, Mechanisms, and Recommendations for Sustainable Intensification. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2025, 16, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
156. Khoulati, A.; Ouahhoud, S.; Taibi, M. Harnessing Biostimulants for Sustainable Agriculture: Innovations, Challenges, and Future Prospects. Discov. Agric. 2025, 3, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
157. Grigorieva, E.; Livenets, A.; Stelmakh, E. Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change: A Scoping Review. Climate 2023, 11, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
158. Balbus, J.M.; Boxall, A.B.; Fenske, R.A.; McKone, T.E.; Zeise, L. Implications of Global Climate Change for the Assessment and Management of Human Health Risks of Chemicals in the Natural Environment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013, 32, 62–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
159. Bonfanti, R.C.; Ruggieri, S.; Schimmenti, A. Psychological Trust Dynamics in Climate Change Adaptation Decision-Making Processes: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

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.

© 2026 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.