Table 3.
Cluster category | Flowering (d) | Podding (d) | Root–shoot ratio | SLAa | Water-use (exp. para R)b | RWC decline (% ºd–1)c | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 2008 | 2010 | 2008 | 2010 | 2010 | 2010 | 2008 | 2010 | 2008 | 2010 |
Cluster 1; European cv. | 64 | 72 | 75 | 81 | 0.33 | 215.4 | 0.994 | 0.989 | –0.07 | –0.08 |
Cluster 3; Australian cv. | 67 | 69 | 78 | 77 | 0.993 | 0.992 | –0.05 | –0.08 | ||
Cluster 2; wild | 87 | 107 | 97 | 114 | 0.37 | 172.8 | 0.985 | 0.985 | –0.21 | –0.14 |
Cluster 3; wild | 70 | 77 | 82 | 86 | 0.30 | 208.9 | 0.993 | 0.992 | –0.08 | –0.10 |
Wild contrast: 2 versus 3 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
LSD (P<0.05) | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 0.04 | 17.4 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0.06 | 0.05 |
a SLA, specific leaf area.
b exp. para R, exponential rate of PAW decreases over thermal time since the onset of terminal drought.
c % ºd–1, linear rate of RWC decrease over thermal time since the onset of terminal drought.