Quantifies thermal thresholds for embryo growth in Apiaceae, indicating evolutionary constraints on regeneration timing.
Premise Temperature is a primary regulator of seed development. In seeds with morphological (MD) or morphophysiological (MPD) dormancy, embryo elongation represents a distinct postdispersal developmental phase that precedes germination. However, the thermal thresholds governing this embryo growth phase remain poorly quantified. We quantified species‐specific embryo‐growth thermal niches to provide a mechanistic framework for understanding regeneration timing and its evolutionary constraints. Methods We estimated cardinal temperatures—base ( T b ), optimum ( T o ), and maximum ( T m )—for embryo growth in 10 Apiaceae species, a family in which MD and MPD are very common due to the presence of underdeveloped embryos. Seeds were incubated at five temperatures (5–25°C) with and without gibberellic acid (GA 3 ). Embryo growth rates were modeled using nonlinear thermal performance curves within a multimodel inference framework, followed by phylogenetic signal analyses. Results Substantial interspecific variation was found, with T b ranging from 0 to 6.5°C, T o from 5 to 25°C, and T m from 21.5 to 31°C. GA 3 generally increased growth rates and widened thermal ranges by reducing T b and raising T m , though responses were strongly species‐specific. Phylogenetic analyses revealed significant signal for all thermal thresholds ( T b , T o , T m ), indicating that evolutionary history constrains these thermal niches for postdispersal embryo growth. Conclusions Postdispersal embryo growth constitutes a distinct, quantifiable thermal niche rather than a mere proxy for germination. By explicitly treating postdispersal embryo growth as a distinct thermal niche rather than a proxy for germination, this study extends thermal threshold theory to an overlooked developmental phase and provides a mechanistic framework for understanding dormancy release and regeneration timing under variable climatic conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nadi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: