Dormancy in peach (<i>Prunus persica</i>) flower buds. V. Anatomy of bud development in relation to phenological stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anatomical changes in the peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.) flower buds were defined and then assessed and correlated with the phenological stage from early dormancy through to flower opening. The peach flower bud, unlike the vegetative bud, shows a continuous anatomical development during the late autumn and winter dormancy period, even though there are no obvious macroscopic changes. Sterile whorls differentiate rapidly in late summer through early autumn. In contrast, fertile whorls develop very slowly during winter; their rapid development begins in late winter and continues through early spring. The androecium develops throughout the winter, while the gynoecium develops in late winter. By late winter, the anthers begin to undergo microsporogenesis and microgametogenesis and the ovaries have formed ovules. Vascular connections between flower primordia and branch wood are complete by late winter, when rapid phenological changes begin. At this point in time, the peach floral bud enters a "rapid maturation phase" that ends in flower opening. Thus, for the peach flower bud at least, the concept of dormancy as "a temporary suspension of visible growth of any plant structure containing a meristem" that was proposed by earlier researchers appears inappropriate. Rather, cell division, enlargement, and differentiation, which lead to organogenesis, take place throughout the entire "dormancy" period.Key words: dormancy, floral bud anatomy, floral bud phenology, peach, Prunus persica.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".