ArticleTree physiology2024
Identifying indicators of apple bud dormancy status by exposure to artificial forcing conditions.
Article in Tree physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- PpERF27-PpCBF2/4 Module Integrates Low-Temperature and Ethylene Signals to Activate Abscisic Acid and DAM Pathways to Promote Bud Endodormancy in Peach.Plant, cell & environment · 2026Article
- Genetic Analysis of Apple Autumn Canopy Senescence in a Nordic Climate.Physiologia plantarumArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dormancy in temperate fruit trees is a mechanism of temporary growth suspension, which is vital for tree survival during winter. Studies on this phenomenon frequently employ scientific methods that aim to detect the timing of dormancy release. Dormancy release occurs when trees have been exposed to sufficient chill, allowing them to resume growth under conducive conditions. This study investigates dormancy dynamics in two apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) cultivars, 'Nicoter' and 'Topaz', by sampling branches in an orchard over 14 weeks (2019 to 2020) and over 31 weeks (2021 to 2022) and subjecting them to a 42-day budbreak forcing period in a growth chamber. Temporal changes in budbreak percentages demonstrated dormancy progression in the studied apple cultivars and allowed the three main dormancy phases to be distinguished: paradormancy (summer dormancy), endodormancy (deep dormancy) and ecodormancy (spring dormancy), along with transition periods between them. Using these data, we explored the suitability of several alternative methods to determine endodormancy release. Tabuenca's test, which predicts dormancy release based on the differences in dry weights of buds with and without forcing, showed promise for this purpose. However, our data indicated a need for considerable adjustments and validation of this test. Bud weight and water content of buds in the orchard did not align with budbreak percentages under forcing conditions, rendering them unsuitable for determining endodormancy release in 'Nicoter' and 'Topaz'. Shoot growth cessation did not seem to be connected with either dormancy progression or dormancy depth of the studied cultivars, whereas leaf fall coincided with the beginning of the transition from endo- to ecodormancy. This work addresses methodological limitations in dormancy research and suggests considering the mean time to budbreak and budbreak synchrony as additional criteria to assess tree dormancy status.
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.