Dormancy breakage in <i>Cercis chinensis</i> seeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The seeds of Cercis chinensis Bunge are important for reproduction and propagation, but strong dormancy controls their germination. To elucidate the causes of seed dormancy in C. chinensis, we investigated the permeability of the hard seed coat and the contribution of the endosperm to physical dormancy, and we examined the effect of extracts from the seed coat and endosperm. In addition, the effectiveness of scarification methods to break seed dormancy was compared. Cercis chinensis seeds exhibited physical and physiological dormancy. The hard seed coat played an important role in limiting water uptake, and the endosperm acted as a physical barrier that restricted embryo development in imbibed seeds. Germination percentage of Chinese cabbage [Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (L.) Hanelt] seeds was reduced from 98% (control) to 28.3% and 56.7% with a seed-coat extract and an endosperm extract, respectively. This demonstrated that both the seed coat and endosperm contained endogenous inhibitors, but the seed-coat extract resulted in stronger inhibition. Mechanical scarification, thermal scarification, and chemical scarification had positive effects on C. chinensis seed germination. Soaking non-scarified seeds in gibberellic acid (GA3) solution did not promote germination; however, treatment with exogenous GA3 following scarification significantly improved germination. The optimal method for promoting C. chinensis seed germination was soaking scarified seeds in 500 mg·L−1 GA3 for 24 h followed by cold stratification at 5 °C for 2 mo.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".