Table 3.
Comparison of growth parameters of WT and transgenic lines after harvesting under drought stress conditions.
| Plant ID | SL | RL | SB | RB | PW | HI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WT | 51.3 ± 1.2a | 61.4 ± 2.9c | 23.6 ± 1.2a | 2.9 ± 0.1b | 5.4 ± 0.4c | 21.8 ± 0.3c |
| MTD1 | 54.1 ± 1.3a | 76.3 ± 2.0ab | 24.4 ± 0.8a | 3.3 ± 0.2ab | 10.5 ± 0.6ab | 29.1 ± 1.2a |
| MTD2 | 52.0 ± 1.3a | 68.9 ± 3.0bc | 23.8 ± 0.6a | 3.0 ± 0.1b | 8.3 ± 0.8bc | 26.8 ± 1.3ab |
| MTD3 | 51.1 ± 1.3a | 63.4 ± 3.5c | 23.6 ± 0.4a | 2.7 ± 0.3b | 6.3 ± 0.7c | 25.0 ± 2.0bc |
| MTD4 | 52.9 ± 1.0a | 80.6 ± 2.2a | 25.1 ± 0.5a | 3.9 ± 0.3a | 11.9 ± 1.0a | 30.1 ± 1.9a |
| LSD (P = 0.05) | 3.8 | 8.7 | 2.4 | 0.66 | 2.25 | 4.56 |
The mean ±SE (n = 3) followed by similar lower case letters within a column are significantly not different (P ≤ 0.05). Where, SL, Shoot length; RL, Root length; SB, Shoot biomass; RB, Root dry Biomass; PW, Pod weight; HI, Harvest index.