Table 4.

Effect of waterlogging stress on shoot length, root length, shoot width, and their respective weights of WTL and WSL.

ANa	DATd	TMe	SLh(cm/pi)	RLk(cm/p)	SWl(cm/p)	SFWm(g/p)	RFWn(g/p)
WTLb (PI408105A)	5	Cf	11.5±1.3 nsj	13.7±0.2 ns	4.5±0.2 ns	12.0±0.2 ns	5.3±2.1
		Wg	11.2±0.7 ns	14.2±0.8 ns	4.7±0.8 ns	10.8±3.9 ns	3.2±1.6*
	10	C	17.0±1.7 ns	16.5±1.4 ns	5.3±0.5 ns	16.2±1.9	5.7±0.9
		W	16.8±0.1 ns	16.4±1.2 ns	5.1±1.0 ns	12.0±4.1*	4.7±1.6*
WSLc (S99-2281)	5	C	17.8±2.7 ns	18.6±1.6 ns	3.7±0.2 ns	11.5±1.5	6.7±3.5
		W	19.3±0.7 ns	19.2±0.7 ns	3.8±0.2 ns	8.3±0.2*	3.1±0.9*
	10	C	25.6±3.0	21.1±1.1 ns	4.3±0.1	15.0±0.9	6.3±1.7
		W	22.8±3.2*	20.4±0.9 ns	4.8±0.7*	13.4±2.5*	5.6±1.5*

Each data showed mean ± standard deviation (n = 20) and data was collected by three replication.

^*shows the values are significantly different (P < 0.05).

^aAccession number;

^bWaterlogging tolerance variety;

^cWaterlogging susceptible variety;

^dDays after treatment;

^eTreatment;

^fControl;

^gWaterlogging;

^hShoot length;

ⁱPlant;

^jNo significant difference;

^kRoot length;

^lStem width;

^mShoot fresh weight;

ⁿRoot fresh weight;