Week 1 HW: Engineering a Soil Microbe to Support Short-Season Agriculture in Canada

1. Biological engineering application: PGPR

Agriculture in northern climates, such as Canada, faces structural biological constraints, particularly short and unpredictable growing seasons, cold soil temperatures in early spring, and variable nutrient availability. These constraints limit crop maturation time and increase vulnerability to climate change.

I propose developing an engineered plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium (PGPR) to enhance early-stage plant growth, nutrient uptake, and cold-stress resilience. The literature has recognized the effectiveness of PGPR in improving the growth and quality of certain crops and plants (Singh et al, 2023; Zhang et al, 2024). However, the theories have not been applied to improving the early developmental rate in cold climates. Therefore, I believe this biological engineering approach not only leverages rhizosphere ecology but also aligns agricultural productivity and ecological systems thinking.

2. Policy goal: Climate Adaptation Equity

To reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience, applying PGPR to crops in harsh climates can help promote agriculture for all Canadians. In particular, Northern, small-scale, and Indigenous agricultural communities face a harsher climate environment, are more vulnerable to climate change, and have fewer resources than industrial agriculture. Therefore, the development of an engineered PGPR can promote equity if the application is cost-effective, easy to adopt, and accounts for geographic, economic, and climatic realities.

3. Potential governance actions

a. Technical considerations PGPR has been proposed to be useful in certain climates, but it cannot be assumed that it will be useful in Canada, given the harsh climate. Moreover, soil composition is a complex science that can change the technical and resource requirements for northern communities. Therefore, academic researchers and scientists need to apply current understanding and practices regarding PGPR to Canadian realities and tailor these potential solutions accordingly. To facilitate research, grants should target PGPR-focused research though Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The risk is that PGPR is not a good fit for Canada due to the low return relative to cost; however, understanding failure is in itself a success, as it prevents further funding or widespread application and ensures that lessons are learned. The US government has an existing 5-year study through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Annual in 2021. The project concludes this year, and the methodology, findings, and risks can be referenced by Canadian researchers.

b. Community and Indigenous co-governance mechanisms Formal consultation and co-design frameworks should be established while funding PGPR-focused research. Indigenous agricultural knowledge and perspectives can provide valuable insights that no laboratory can produce. Moreover, respecting soil stewardship and intergenerational responsibility aligns with both ethical guidance and legal obligations. To facilitate this, the federal government, especially the Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, should take the lead. The risk that the Indigenous communities do not support PGPR exists, which will result in the loss of a major market in Canada. However, success is reflected in understanding of the user base, respect for Indigenous communities, adherence to the principle of inclusion, and valuable knowledge on both the scientific and political dimensions.

c. National biosafety standard update The current edition of the Canadian BiosafetyStandard was published in 2022. Microbe-related mentions are primarily about toxins and laboratory practices. There is no standard for assessing the safety of larger ecosystems for PGPR and potential ecosystem implications. Given that we are now in 2026 in the AI era, the standard is due for an update to consider ecological risk modelling, mandatory post-release surveillance, and data transparency requirements. National regulatory bodies, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, should lead the revision of the standard to include an expanded scope. The risk is that the standard update proceeds slowly and may not apply to PGPR if it is scientifically sound and a wide application becomes feasible. However, regardless of what PGPR can or cannot do, the biosafety standard is due for an update, and such an update would be successful if its scope were expanded to meet current economic and environmental needs.

4. Score (from 1-3 with, 1 as the best, or n/a) each of your governance actions

5. Combination of options

The three governance options have distinguished focuses on research, collaboration, and policy. A scientific innovation needs a holistic governance structure to ensure its scientific feasibility and credibility, respect for diverse knowledge and legal obligation, and policy alignment to ensure safety. Therefore, I believe all three options should be incorporated without prioritizing. The biggest trade-off is the need and the time invested. No scientific innovation and testing can happen overnight, but uncertainties about theories and feasibility may lead stakeholders to question whether investments are worth the uncertain returns, while many innovative ideas do not require long waits for research on feasibility and can deliver immediate returns. This is misleading, as immediate implementation does not guarantee immediate returns, and understanding the science and technology is essential, even if it takes time. Therefore, the main audience for this approach is the Canadian federal government, which invests in research, understands wait times, leads engagement, and updates standards. Given that the result can potentially benefit the national interest of Canada, especially in today’s trade environment,

References:

Singh, A., Yadav, V. K., Chundawat, R. S., Soltane, R., Awwad, N. S., Ibrahium, H. A., Yadav, K. K., & Vicas, S. I. (2023). Enhancing plant growth promoting rhizobacterial activities through consortium exposure: A review. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 11, 1099999. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1099999 USDA. (2025). TOWARDS DESIGN OF AN ENGINEERED PLANT GROWTH PROMOTING RHIZOBACTERIUM (PGPR) FOR CONTROLLED RELEASE IN THE RHIZOSPHERE. https://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/1027447-towards-design-of-an-engineered-plant-growth-promoting-rhizobacterium-pgpr-for-controlled-release-in-the-rhizosphere.html Zhang, T., Jian, Q., Yao, X., Guan, L., Li, L., Liu, F., Zhang, C., Li, D., Tang, H., & Lu, L. (2024). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) improve the growth and quality of several crops. Heliyon, 10(10), Article e31553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31553