ArticleAnnals of botany2013
Quantitative analysis of the thermal requirements for stepwise physical dormancy-break in seeds of the winter annual Geranium carolinianum (Geraniaceae).
Article in Annals of botany, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breaking Seed Dormancy during Dry Storage: A Useful Tool or Major Problem for Successful Restoration via Direct Seeding?Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Variation in wild pea (PeerJ · 2019Article
- Identification and characterization of ten new water gaps in seeds and fruits with physical dormancy and classification of water-gap complexes.Annals of botany · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPhysical dormancy (PY)-break in some annual plant species is a two-step process controlled by two different temperature and/or moisture regimes. The thermal time model has been used to quantify PY-break in several species of Fabaceae, but not to describe stepwise PY-break. The primary aims of this study were to quantify the thermal requirement for sensitivity induction by developing a thermal time model and to propose a mechanism for stepwise PY-breaking in the winter annual Geranium carolinianum.
methodsSeeds of G. carolinianum were stored under dry conditions at different constant and alternating temperatures to induce sensitivity (step I). Sensitivity induction was analysed based on the thermal time approach using the Gompertz function. The effect of temperature on step II was studied by incubating sensitive seeds at low temperatures. Scanning electron microscopy, penetrometer techniques, and different humidity levels and temperatures were used to explain the mechanism of stepwise PY-break. KEY
resultsThe base temperature (Tb) for sensitivity induction was 17·2 °C and constant for all seed fractions of the population. Thermal time for sensitivity induction during step I in the PY-breaking process agreed with the three-parameter Gompertz model. Step II (PY-break) did not agree with the thermal time concept. Q10 values for the rate of sensitivity induction and PY-break were between 2·0 and 3·5 and between 0·02 and 0·1, respectively. The force required to separate the water gap palisade layer from the sub-palisade layer was significantly reduced after sensitivity induction.
conclusionsStep I and step II in PY-breaking of G. carolinianum are controlled by chemical and physical processes, respectively. This study indicates the feasibility of applying the developed thermal time model to predict or manipulate sensitivity induction in seeds with two-step PY-breaking processes. The model is the first and most detailed one yet developed for sensitivity induction in PY-break.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.