Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42539862›Full record

ReviewPlant diversity2026

Regeneration from seeds with physical defects: Contrasts in survival strategies in recalcitrant and orthodox seeds.

Fui Ying Tsan, Louise Colville, Hugh W Pritchard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plant diversity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fui Ying TsanFaculty of Plantation and Agrotechnology, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Jasin Campus 77300, Merlimau, Malacca, Malaysia.
Louise ColvilleRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Wakehurst, Ardingly, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH17 6TN, United Kingdom.
Hugh W PritchardKunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Seeds with different desiccation tolerance and their foraging animals present unique strategies for ensuring population growth and ecological fitness in the natural environment. While some seeds minimize physical injuries by having lignified thick coats or defensive compounds, others tolerate a certain degree of mass loss, with larger seeds enduring partial animal consumption better than smaller seeds, consistent with the reserve effect hypothesis, regardless of their desiccation tolerance. In endozoochory, aerial, terrestrial and aquatic fauna with appropriate gape sizes that consume whole fruits with mostly orthodox seeds are important for longer-distance seed dispersal as long as seed viability suffers little impairment following defecation. Some seeds even gain benefits from animal consumption when physical dormancy is overcome and germination occurs earlier. Dung beetles perform secondary spread and burial of seeds, reducing plant aggregation. On the other hand, highly nutritious recalcitrant seeds of a limited number of plant species show sprouting despite partial loss of embryonic axes to browsing animals, often with damage to radicles being less critical than to plumules. Some recalcitrant seeds even possess the unique ability to regenerate roots and shoots from the cotyledonary tissues devoid of embryonic axes. Such embryonic cell development, or 'stemness', from seed tissue fraction is rare in the plant kingdom, but evidently present in at least four families. Plant regeneration despite seed predation is a multi-trait adaptation that ensures species survival and fosters resilient natural ecosystems.

Indexed as

CotyledonEmbryoSeed ecologySeedlingSeed traitsStem cells

Identifiers

PMID42539862
PMCPMC13424734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.