Skip to main content
. 2015 Feb 13;66(7):1787–1799. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eru506

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Response of different AdaySel-derived QTL combinations in NILs in the background of IR64. (A) Difference in grain yield of various AdaySel-derived QTL combinations compared to IR64. (B) Difference in harvest index (HI) of various AdaySel-derived QTL combinations compared to IR64. (C) Flowering time of various AdaySel-derived QTL combinations compared to IR64. Each point represents the mean of 2–3 genotypes with that QTL combination. Significant differences shown are for the absolute values, whereas the graphs of yield and HI illustrate the difference from IR64. Results from the statistical analysis of only seasons in which genotypes with all QTL combination were studied are shown on the left, and results from the statistical analysis comparing IR64 and the 2-QTL NILs are shown on the right in each panel. No significant differences across well-watered treatments were observed. The presence of qDTY 10.1 is not presented here, and other QTL combination NILs were omitted for simplicity.