| Literature DB >> 24367672 |
Beatriz R Vázquez-de-Aldana1, Antonia García-Ciudad1, Balbino García-Criado1, Santiago Vicente-Tavera2, Iñigo Zabalgogeazcoa1.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24367672 PMCID: PMC3867530 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084539
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Summary of ANOVA results for the effect of plant line, endophyte status and water treatment on growth of Festuca rubra.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Line (L) | 1 | 9.75 |
| 59.4 |
| 30.8 |
| 27.8 |
| 15.9 |
| 46.9 |
| |
| Endophyte (E) | 1 | 24.8 |
| 7.15 |
| 38.1 |
| 3.14 | 0.081 | 0.05 | 0.821 | 0.57 | 0.452 | |
| Treatment (T) | 2 | 12.5 |
| 9.98 |
| 0.668 | 0.522 | 8.33 |
| 5.60 |
| 103.3 |
| |
| L x E | 1 | 107.6 |
| 7.13 |
| 52.0 |
| 6.89 |
| 2.75 | 0.106 | 0.94 | 0.336 | |
| L x T | 2 | 5.11 |
| 9.42 |
| 0.433 | 0.652 | 6.48 |
| 2.89 | 0.068 | 55.1 |
| |
| E x T | 2 | 0.47 | 0.627 | 0.549 | 0.583 | 0.122 | 0.885 | 0.64 | 0.527 | 0.25 | 0.776 | 1.90 | 0.158 | |
| L x E x T | 2 | 1.55 | 0.220 | 2.80 | 0.074 | 1.241 | 0.301 | 1.01 | 0.367 | 2.22 | 0.123 | 1.75 | 0.182 | |
Significant P-values are in bold (P < 0.05)
Figure 1Biomass production and water content of Festuca rubra plants.
Effect of fungal endophyte status (• = E+, infected; ο = E-, non-infected) of two lines (PEN and RAB) of plants, growing at different water treatments (C= control; W1= moderate stress; W2= severe stress). Values, expressed as g of dry weight (DW) per pot, are means ± 2 SE (n=6).
Summary of ANOVA results showing the level of significance for the effect of plant line, endophyte status and water treatment on chemical composition of Festuca rubra in shoots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Line (L) | 1 | 35.8 |
| 222 |
| 18.2 |
| 36.6 |
| 6.79 |
| 0.16 | 0.685 | 83.1 |
| 6.10 |
|
| Endophyte (E) | 1 | 29.4 |
| 531 |
| 6.95 |
| 10.6 |
| 51.6 |
| 152 |
| 0.11 | 0.734 | 2.09 | 0.156 |
| Treatment (T) | 2 | 7.48 |
| 33.8 |
| 5.74 |
| 1.62 | 0.205 | 1.85 | 0.166 | 0.10 | 0.900 | 112 |
| 0.06 | 0.934 |
| L x E | 1 | 0.00 | 0.968 | 30.8 |
| 11.9 |
| 68.3 |
| 262 |
| 3.91 | 0.052 | 1.22 | 0.272 | 4.19 |
|
| L x T | 2 | 1.78 | 0.186 | 3.97 |
| 3.46 |
| 0.56 | 0.572 | 0.53 | 0.590 | 3.08 | 0.053 | 68.3 |
| 1.02 | 0.370 |
| E x T | 2 | 0.31 | 0.736 | 1.54 | 0.221 | 0.94 | 0.394 | 1.00 | 0.372 | 2.32 | 0.107 | 0.12 | 0.880 | 1.03 | 0.360 | 0.02 | 0.973 |
| L x E x T | 2 | 0.35 | 0.707 | 0.90 | 0.411 | 0.20 | 0.818 | 0.06 | 0.940 | 5.01 |
| 0.87 | 0.424 | 2.04 | 0.138 | 0.51 | 0.602 |
Significant P-values are in bold (P < 0.05)
TPhC = total phenolic content
Figure 2Nutrient concentration of Festuca rubra plants.
Effect of fungal endophyte status (• = E+, infected; ο = E-, non-infected) of two lines (PEN and RAB) of plants, growing at different water treatments (C= control; W1= moderate stress; W2= severe stress). Values are means ± 2 SE (n=6).
Summary of ANOVA results showing the level of significance for the effect of plant line, endophyte status and water treatment on chemical composition of Festuca rubra in roots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Line (L) | 1 | 0.02 | 0.873 | 18.2 |
| 3.53 | 0.065 | 1.71 | 0.196 | 2.21 | 0.142 | 0.21 | 0.644 | 13.1 |
| 300 |
|
| Endophyte (E) | 1 | 2.16 | 0.156 | 1.12 | 0.292 | 9.34 |
| 23.0 |
| 9.61 |
| 28.2 |
| 4.04 | 0.067 | 41.4 |
|
| Treatment (T) | 2 | 6.52 |
| 1.24 | 0.296 | 14.9 |
| 3.84 |
| 18.0 |
| 13.3 |
| 21.0 |
| 16.2 |
|
| Lx E | 1 | 0.02 | 0.886 | 3.51 | 0.066 | 1.49 | 0.226 | 14.2 |
| 4.13 |
| 8.61 |
| 6.46 |
| 23.9 |
|
| L x T | 2 | 0.07 | 0.930 | 0.42 | 0.659 | 0.08 | 0.918 | 0.16 | 0.852 | 2.22 | 0.117 | 0.73 | 0.482 | 15.3 |
| 7.89 | 0.349 |
| E x T | 2 | 1.92 | 0.171 | 0.24 | 0.782 | 3.85 |
| 0.13 | 0.878 | 1.94 | 0.153 | 1.12 | 0.332 | 3.56 | 0.061 | 1.08 |
|
| L x E x T | 2 | 0.83 | 0.448 | 0.11 | 0.893 | 3.70 |
| 0.62 | 0.542 | 0.58 | 0.561 | 0.43 | 0.652 | 7.02 |
| 3.28 | 0.488 |
Significant P-values are in bold (P < 0.05)
TPhC = total phenolic conten
Figure 3Proline and total phenolic compounds (TPhC) of Festuca rubra plants.
Effect of fungal endophyte status (• = E+, infected; ο = E-, non-infected) of two lines (PEN and RAB) of plants, growing at different water availability levels (C= control; W1= moderate stress; W2= severe stress). Values are means ± 2 SE (n=6).
Figure 4Ergovaline concentration in endophyte infected (E+) plants.
Two lines (☐= PEN; ■= RAB) of plants, growing at different water treatments (C= control; W1= moderate stress; W2= severe stress). Values are means ± 2 SE (n=6).
Figure 5Hierarchical cluster with the Euclidean distance using the biplot scores.
Each sample was labelled with a first letter for plant line (P= PEN; R= RAB), a second letter for endophyte status (E+= endophyte infected; E-= non-infected), and a third letter for water treatment (C= control; W1= moderate stress; W2= severe stress). The cophenetic correlation coefficient was 0.679.
Figure 6H-J biplot representation of samples and variables on the factorial plane I-II.
Each sample was labelled with a first letter for plant line (P= PEN; R= RAB), a second letter for endophyte status (E+= endophyte infected; E-= non-infected), and a third letter for water treatment (C= control; W1= moderate stress; W2= severe stress).
Variable labels: DWshoot = shoot biomass; DWroot=root biomass; TPhCshoot= total phenolic compounds in shoots; TPhCroot= total phenolic compounds in roots; Prolineshoot= proline in shoots; Prolineroot= proline in roots; and nutrient concentration in shoot and roots: Nshoot, Nroot, Pshoot, Proot, Kshoot, Kroot, Cashoot, Caroot, Mgshoot, Mgroot, Znshoot, Znroot.