Dormancy in peach (<i>Prunus persica</i>) flower buds. VI. Effects of gibberellins and an acylcyclohexanedione (trinexapac-ethyl) on bud morphogenesis in field experiments with orchard trees and on cuttings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of several gibberellins (GAs), exo-16,17-dihydro GA5, 2,2-dimethyl GA4, and GA3, and trinexapac-ethyl (an acylcyclohexanedione inhibitor of late-stage GA biosynthesis), were assessed for their effects on flower bud development during and after winter dormancy in peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.) in three field trials and one experiment using cuttings. At late developmental stages, GA3hastened floral bud development and shortened the time to anthesis, whereas early-stage applications of GA3either had no effect or delayed floral bud development. In contrast, an exceptionally growth-active GA, 2,2-dimethyl GA4, promoted floral bud development (tested only on cuttings) across a range of application dates. However, it also induced a high percentage of bud abscission and remaining buds had a necrotic gynoecium and alterations in the androecium. Surprisingly, trinexapac-ethyl also promoted floral bud development, although it was not as effective as GA1. Trinexapac-ethyl-treated buds also showed morphological alterations and gynoecium necrosis. However, the best and most consistent treatment for enhancing floral bud development and hastening flower anthesis was 16,17-dihydro GA5. It stimulated floral bud development in up to 80% of the treated buds. Further, the promotive effect of 16,17-dihydro GA5was maintained through to anthesis across three years of field experiments on intact trees, as well as with cuttings. Whether 16,17-dihydro GA5, a competitive inhibitor of the 3β-hydroxylation step in GA biosynthesis, acts per se, acts via a metabolite (such as 16,17-dihydro GA3), or acts by modifying endogenous GA metabolism is not yet known.Key words: gibberellins, trinexapac-ethyl, floral bud morphogenesis, peach.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".