Objective To investigate the novel post-translational modifications (PTMs) of SnRK2.6, a central component in the abscisic acid (ABA) signaling pathway, such as SUMOylation, and to establish a foundation for revealing the physiological functions and molecular mechanisms of SnRK2.6 regulated by these new modifications.Methods The interaction between SnRK2.6 and the SUMO E3 ligase SIZ1, as well as members of the SUMO protease family, was examined using yeast two-hybrid and in vitro pull-down assays. An in vitro SUMOylation system in Escherichia coli was utilized to determine whether SnRK2.6 undergoes SUMOylation. Mass spectrometry, combined with site-directed mutagenesis of candidate lysine residues, was employed to identify potential SUMOylation sites on SnRK2.6. In vitro de-SUMOylation assays were performed to assess whether SUMO proteases interacting with SnRK2.6 could catalyze the removal of SUMO moieties from modified SnRK2.6. The protein stability of SnRK2.6 was assessed in a cell-free degradation assay using bacterial-purified SnRK2.6 incubated with total protein extracts from Col and siz1 mutant seedlings. To dissect the genetic relationship between SnRK2.6 and SIZ1, stomatal aperture assays were performed under ABA treatment using snrk2.6, siz1, and snrk2.6 siz1 double mutant plants.Results SnRK2.6 physically interacts with SIZ1 and the SUMO protease ESD4, with the binding domains localized to the C-terminal region of SIZ1 and the N-terminal region of ESD4, respectively. SnRK2.6 was found to be SUMOylated, exhibiting two distinct high-molecular-weight bands ranging from 70 to 100 ku, indicative of modified forms. Bioinformatics analysis predicted four putative SUMOylation sites on lysine residues K57, K63, K142, and K190. Mass spectrometry identified three SUMOylation sites on K63, K142, and K174. However, individual or combinatorial point mutations on these sites had minimal impact on the pattern or intensity of SUMOylation signals, suggesting that these residues may not be responsible for the SUMOylation on SnRK2.6. Instead, such mutations only weaken the protein stability or accelerate the protein mobility of SnRK2.6. Therefore, the exact SUMOylation sites on SnRK2.6 remain unidentified. In de-SUMOylation experiments, incubation of GST-ESD4 with SUMOylated SnRK2.6 for 1–2 h led to the near-complete disappearance of both SUMOylated bands. In contrast, neither the GST control nor the catalytically inactive mutant GST-ESD4^C448S exhibited any de-SUMOylation activity. In protein turnover experiments, SnRK2.6 exhibited markedly enhanced half-life in siz1 compared with Col, indicating that SIZ1-dependent SUMOylation promotes SnRK2.6 turnover. Phenotypically, snrk2.6 mutants were completely insensitive to ABA-induced stomatal closure; siz1 mutants displayed pronounced hypersensitivity; and the snrk2.6 siz1 double mutant phenocopied snrk2.6—showing no significant response to ABA beyond that of the snrk2.6 mutant. These data indicate that SIZ1 acts as a negative regulator of ABA-triggered stomatal closure and SnRK2.6 functions as a positive regulator, and the inhibitory activity of SIZ1 is strictly dependent on SnRK2.6, placing SnRK2.6 genetically upstream of SIZ1 in the ABA signaling pathway.Conclusion SnRK2.6 undergoes SUMOylation, although the specific SUMOylation sites have not been defined. SnRK2.6 is dynamically regulated by reversible SUMOylation—catalyzed by SIZ1 and reversed by ESD4 —which controls its protein stability. SUMOylation acts as a destabilizing signal for SnRK2.6, and SIZ1 exerts its negative effect on ABA-triggered stomatal closure probably through promoting SnRK2.6 degradation via SUMOylation. These findings uncover SUMOylation as a critical regulatory layer fine-tuning SnRK2.6 abundance in ABA signaling.