Abstract
The effects of several gibberellins (GAs), exo-16,17-dihydro GA 5 , 2,2-dimethyl GA 4 , and GA 3 , 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, GA 3 hastened floral bud development and shortened the time to anthesis, whereas early-stage applications of GA 3 either had no effect or delayed floral bud development. In contrast, an exceptionally growth-active GA, 2,2-dimethyl GA 4 , 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 GA 1 . 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 GA 5 . It stimulated floral bud development in up to 80% of the treated buds. Further, the promotive effect of 16,17-dihydro GA 5 was maintained through to anthesis across three years of field experiments on intact trees, as well as with cuttings. Whether 16,17-dihydro GA 5 , a competitive inhibitor of the 3β-hydroxylation step in GA biosynthesis, acts per se, acts via a metabolite (such as 16,17-dihydro GA 3 ), or acts by modifying endogenous GA metabolism is not yet known.Key words: gibberellins, trinexapac-ethyl, floral bud morphogenesis, peach.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Late GA 3 hastened floral bud development and anthesis.
- Taxon
- peach
Prunus persicae1 - Treatment
- GA 3e0
- Outcome
- floral bud development and shortened the time to anthesise0
- Direction
- hastenede0
- Qualifier
- At late developmental stagese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At late developmental stages, GA 3 hastened floral bud development and shortened the time to anthesis”
e1“peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Early GA 3 had no effect or delayed floral bud development.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Treatment
- GA 3e0
- Outcome
- floral bud developmente0
- Direction
- had no effect or delayede0
- Qualifier
- early-stage applicationse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“early-stage applications of GA 3 either had no effect or delayed floral bud development”
e1“peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.)”
Claim · model-written summary
2,2-dimethyl GA 4 promoted bud development on cuttings across application dates.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Treatment
- 2,2-dimethyl GA 4e0
- Outcome
- floral bud developmente0
- Direction
- promotede0
- Qualifier
- tested only on cuttingse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“2,2-dimethyl GA 4 , promoted floral bud development (tested only on cuttings) across a range of application dates”
e1“peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.)”
Claim · model-written summary
2,2-dimethyl GA 4 caused substantial bud abscission.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae2
- Treatment
- 2,2-dimethyl GA 4e1
- Outcome
- bud abscissione0
- Direction
- inducede0
- Qualifier
- high percentagee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it also induced a high percentage of bud abscission”
e1“2,2-dimethyl GA 4 , promoted floral bud development”
e2“peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Remaining buds after 2,2-dimethyl GA 4 had necrotic gynoecia and androecial alterations.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae2
- Treatment
- 2,2-dimethyl GA 4e1
- Outcome
- necrotic gynoecium and alterations in the androeciume0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“remaining buds had a necrotic gynoecium and alterations in the androecium”
e1“2,2-dimethyl GA 4 , promoted floral bud development”
e2“peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Trinexapac-ethyl promoted bud development less effectively than GA 1.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Treatment
- trinexapac-ethyle0
- Outcome
- floral bud developmente0
- Direction
- promotede0
- Comparator
- GA 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“trinexapac-ethyl also promoted floral bud development, although it was not as effective as GA 1”
e1“peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Trinexapac-ethyl-treated buds showed morphological alterations and gynoecium necrosis.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Treatment
- Trinexapac-ethyle0
- Outcome
- morphological alterations and gynoecium necrosise0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trinexapac-ethyl-treated buds also showed morphological alterations and gynoecium necrosis”
e1“peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.)”
Claim · model-written summary
16,17-dihydro GA 5 was the most consistent treatment for bud development and earlier anthesis.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Treatment
- 16,17-dihydro GA 5e0
- Outcome
- floral bud development and hastening flower anthesise0
- Direction
- enhancinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the best and most consistent treatment for enhancing floral bud development and hastening flower anthesis was 16,17-dihydro GA 5”
e1“peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.)”
Claim · model-written summary
16,17-dihydro GA 5 stimulated development in up to 80% of treated buds.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae2
- Treatment
- 16,17-dihydro GA 5e1
- Outcome
- floral bud developmente0
- Direction
- stimulatede0
- Value
- up to 80%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It stimulated floral bud development in up to 80% of the treated buds.”
e1“was 16,17-dihydro GA 5”
e2“peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The promotive effect of 16,17-dihydro GA 5 persisted to anthesis in field trees and cuttings.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Treatment
- 16,17-dihydro GA 5e0
- Outcome
- promotive effecte0
- Direction
- maintainede0
- Qualifier
- across three years of field experiments on intact trees, as well as with cuttingse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the promotive effect of 16,17-dihydro GA 5 was maintained through to anthesis across three years of field experiments on intact trees, as well as with cuttings”
e1“peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.)”
The same questions in other papers
Gibberellic acid · growth · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →Gibberellic acid · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.