. 2017 Oct 17;6(4):49. doi: 10.3390/plants6040049

Table 1.

Analysis of parameters calculated from the chlorophyll fluorescence OJIP transient (Figure 6a) of quinoa plants under control, drought, salinity and a combination of salinity and drought treatments. Values are the means of five replicates (three measurements per replicate). ± indicates standard error. Values followed by different letters are significantly different at the p < 0.05 level using a Kruskal–Wallis nonparametric test.

Treatment	F_o	F_m	φD_o	ΨE_o
control	260 ± 10.0 ^b	1621 ± 19.3 ^a	0.180 ± 0.007 ^b	0.665 ± 0.014 ^a
drought	257 ± 4.2 ^b	1666 ± 12.8 ^a	0.172 ± 0.003 ^b	0.686 ± 0.007 ^a
salinity	297 ± 9.8 ^a	1252 ± 26.7 ^b	0.263 ± 0.012 ^a	0.516 ± 0.011 ^b
salinity–drought	306 ± 5.1 ^a	1270 ± 33.6 ^b	0.268 ± 0.007 ^a	0.514 ± 0.018 ^b
Treatment	ΔV_IP	δR_o	F_v/F_o	φE_o
control	0.390 ± 0.014 ^a	0.587 ± 0.015 ^a	4.64 ± 0.18 ^a	0.546 ± 0.015 ^a
drought	0.380 ± 0.010 ^a	0.554 ± 0.013 ^a	4.84 ± 0.10 ^a	0.568 ± 0.007 ^a
salinity	0.184 ± 0.010 ^b	0.356 ± 0.016 ^b	2.89 ± 0.17 ^b	0.381 ± 0.012 ^b
salinity–drought	0.197 ± 0.010 ^b	0.383 ± 0.015 ^b	2.75 ± 0.11 ^b	0.376 ± 0.015 ^b
Treatment	ABS/RC	TR_o/RC	ET_o/RC	DI_o/RC
control	1.574 ± 0.024 ^b	1.291 ± 0.021 ^ab	0.857 ± 0.020 ^a	0.283 ± 0.013 ^b
drought	1.545 ± 0.015 ^b	1.280 ± 0.010 ^ab	0.877 ± 0.010 ^a	0.266 ± 0.006 ^b
salinity	1.736 ± 0.069 ^ab	1.270 ± 0.030 ^b	0.655 ± 0.020 ^b	0.466 ± 0.041 ^a
salinity–drought	1.846 ± 0.051 ^a	1.348 ± 0.030 ^a	0.693 ± 0.028 ^b	0.498 ± 0.024 ^a
Treatment	RC/CS_o	φR_o	PI_ABS	PI_TOT
control	184.6 ± 6.2 ^b	0.320 ± 0.013 ^a	61.5 ± 6.1 ^a	30.6 ± 4.2 ^a
drought	185.1 ± 2.7 ^ab	0.314 ± 0.009 ^a	69.6 ± 3.6 ^a	32.7 ± 2.7 ^a
salinity	188.8 ± 2.8 ^a	0.135 ± 0.007 ^b	19.0 ± 2.1 ^b	3.1 ± 0.5 ^b
salinity–drought	184.6 ± 4.0 ^ab	0.143 ± 0.008 ^b	16.4 ± 1.8 ^b	2.8 ± 0.4 ^b