Plant dormancy has a major impact on the cultivation of plants, influencing such processes as seed germination, flowering, and vegetative growth. The diversity of plant tissues that exhibit, or contribute to the manifestation of, dormancy is great, and there appear to be numerous mechanisms of dormancy induction or release. This complexity was discussed by Romberger (55) nearly 25 years ago. Yet his analysis of the unresolved challenges in dormancy research is still valid today, for the overall understanding of dormancy is limited. This lack of understanding may be due, in part, to the abundance of terminology that has arisen without a nomenclatural framework in which to classify and relate the events being described.

In observing the growth phases of a plant’s many structures, a paraphrasing of J.L. Harper (7), and later Sussman and Douthit (13), comes to mind: “Some structures are born dormant, some achieve dormancy, and some have dormancy thrust upon them”. Indeed, the dormancy phenomena can be associated with essentially all meristematic regions of the plant. Accordingly, a wealth of terminology has arisen to describe various plant dormancy phenomena. While recently discussing seasonal growth processes, our use and misuse of current and historic dormancy terms led us to conclude that a simplified, descriptive dormancy terminology would be of benefit to the plant science community. Our purpose here is to review briefly the terminology now in use, critically examine dormancy phenomena and reduce terminology to a minimal number of descriptive terms, and consequently to stimulate discussion of this terminology scheme by our peers.

‘Nemaguard’ peach seedlings [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] were grown for 21 days in nutrient solution cultures containing a range (0 to 3.4 μM) of paclobutrazol concentrations. Shoot growth rate and total extension growth were reduced by all paclobutrazol treatments. Within 2 days of treatment, paclobutrazol at 3.4 μM significantly reduced the growth rate, as did the 3.4 × 10−2 μM concentrations after 5 days. Increases in paclobutrazol concentrations decreased leaf area and leaf, stem, and shoot weights. However, specific leaf weight increased as paclobutrazol concentration increased. Leaf expansion was more sensitive to paclobutrazol treatments than stem elongation. As paclobutrazol concentration increased, root extension growth was reduced, but roots were thicker and produced more laterals near the tip. Compared with the control, paclobutrazol at 3.4 × 10−1 and 3.4 × 10−2 μM significantly increased the root: shoot ratio. Chemical name used: β-[(4-chIorophenyl)methyl]-α-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol (paclobutrazol).

‘Nemaguard’ peach seedlings [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] were grown in nutrient solution cultures containing 0.36 µM 14C-labeled paclobutrazol (0.59 MBq·liter–1) for 9 days. Microautoradiographs of transverse and longitudinal stem sections showed that 14C activity was localized in the xylem. Tissue extracts showed that the total 14C activity in the plants was distributed predominantly between the roots (40.9%) and leaves (49.1%). The majority of 14C activity in stems and leaves was located in the lowest stem and leaf fractions. The concentration of 14C activity was highest in leaves (478 dpm·mg–1 fresh weight), and essentially equal in the roots and stems (141 dpm·mg–1 fresh weight) indicating that transport of the compound was occurring via the xylem. Although 14C-labeled paclobutrazol was relatively stable in the nutrient solution, its degradation in the plant was rapid. By 9 days after treatment, the amount of 14C label remaining as 14C-labeled paclobutrazol was 71.5% in the roots, 41.5% to 68.1% in the stems, and 7.8% to 12.2% in the leaves. Chemical name used: β-(4-chlorophenyl)methyl]-α-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol (paclobutrazol).

At last year's W-130 Regional Project meeting in Penticton, B.C., Edward L. Proebsting, Jr., chairman of the meeting, requested that we communicate our interest and discussion in the Oct. 1985 Viewpoint article by Lang, Early, Arroyave, Darnell, Martin, and Stutte concerning dormancy terminology (HortScience 20:809–812).