Table 4.
Effect of the waterlogging treatment on fiber length and strength at different main-stem fruiting branches in 2011 and 2012.
| Fruiting branches | Waterlogging treatment | UHMLb (mm) | Strength (cN/tex) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2012 | 2011 | 2012 | ||
| FB6–7 | WL0a | 31.5ac | 31.1a | 30.2a | 30.6a |
| WL3 | 30.8b | 30.4a | 29.6b | 29.8b | |
| WL6 | 30.3c | 29.2b | 28.9c | 29.2b | |
| WL9 | 29.4d | 28.6bc | 28.3d | 28.2c | |
| WL12 | 28.3e | 28.1c | 27.7d | 27.8c | |
| FB10–11 | WL0 | 30.9a | 31.8a | 31.1a | 30.2a |
| WL3 | 30.7ab | 31.6a | 30.7b | 29.4ab | |
| WL6 | 30.4bc | 31.2a | 30.4b | 29.5ab | |
| WL9 | 30.2cd | 30.3b | 30.1c | 28.7b | |
| WL12 | 29.8d | 29.3c | 29.9c | 27.8c | |
| FB14–15 | WL0 | 31.6a | 31.2a | 28.6d | 30.0b |
| WL3 | 31.1b | 31.0a | 29.3bc | 30.6ab | |
| WL6 | 30.9b | 29.7a | 29.7a | 30.9a | |
| WL9 | 30.4c | 29.8a | 29.1c | 30.5ab | |
| WL12 | 30.2c | 29.7a | 29.5ab | 30.2ab | |
| Year (Y) | 8.50**d | 12.06** | |||
| Fruiting branches (FB) | 20.50** | 48.92** | |||
| Waterlogging (WL) | 80.73** | 92.10** | |||
| Y × FB | 7.70** | 74.78** | |||
| Y × WL | 1.11 | 1.92 | |||
| FB × WL | 2.72** | 18.79** | |||
| Y × FB × WL | 1.49 | 1.13 | |||
a
WL0, WL3, WL6, WL9, and WL12 stand for waterlogging days of 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 days respectively.
b
UHML was short for upper half mean length.
c
Values followed by different letters within the same column are significantly different at P = 0.05 probability level. Each data represents the mean of three replications.
d
NS, not significant;
*, **
Significantly different at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels.