There are plenty of good arguments for this theory. For one accessible review see here https://forestecosyst.springer... For more do an online search for Makarieva. Take a look at the physics journals too. You will find plenty to dwell on. These idea have been accepted in many journals with peer review not just ACP.

Not everything in the Science story is correct and objective. For example, why the “Russian” label? Would it be more or less credible if it was an “American theory” or a “French Theory”? Do such labels help anyone? They claim supporters are “a minority”. I don’t think that is true unless we call opponents a “minority” too (as few people feel able to judge one way or the other in science that is fine we just need to agree that it is important to clarify and assess rather than to dismiss these ideas). Are the publications really in "in lesser known journals"? ... Look up their publications and you can judge. They seem mainstream to me. Makarieva et al. 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A, 466:1893-1902. Gorshkov et al. 2012 J. Exp. & Theor. Phys., 115:723-728. Makarieva et al. 2014 Phys. Lett. A, 378:294-298. etc. Also, suggesting we have no idea how to test these ideas is misleading : there are predictions to evaluate and the conventional theories should be subjected to these tests too (see e.g., https://journals.ametsoc.org/j... and https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.... ). If anyone wants a more detailed overview of the evidence and arguments, I have summarised them for a non-technical audience here https://forestecosyst.springer...