Table 1.
ANOVA results based on split plot analysis of the estimated vegetative and yield traits of ten wheat cultivars under drought
| Trait | SOV | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Replication | Cultivar | Watering level | Cultivar × Watering level | Error | |||||||||||
| df | MS | % | df | MS | % | df | MS | % | df | MS | % | df | MS | % | |
| Leaf specific area | 4 | 477.23ns | 19 | 9 | 892.22** | 36 | 1 | 590.20ns | 24 | 9 | 69.32ns | 3 | 40 | 426.19 | 17 |
| Leaf chlorophyll stability index | 2 | 9.82ns | 1 | 9 | 74.86*** | 7 | 1 | 836.27*** | 83 | 9 | 74.86*** | 7 | 20 | 8.900 | 1 |
| Leaf photosynthesis rate | 2 | 11.57ns | 11 | 9 | 8.04ns | 8 | 1 | 65.29** | 62 | 9 | 14.61* | 14 | 20 | 5.067 | 5 |
| Leaf total carbohydrate content | 2 | 0.30ns | 0 | 9 | 695.79*** | 69 | 1 | 203.16*** | 20 | 9 | 104.72*** | 10 | 20 | 0.416 | 0 |
| Leaf membrane stability index | 2 | 0.13ns | 0 | 9 | 5.18*** | 1 | 1 | 467.95*** | 98 | 9 | 4.65*** | 1 | 20 | 0.634 | 0 |
| Leaf catalase activity | 2 | 0.02* | 0 | 9 | 1.68*** | 20 | 1 | 4.23*** | 49 | 9 | 2.62*** | 31 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Leaf relative water content | 2 | 2.33ns | 0 | 9 | 78.50*** | 8 | 1 | 885.81*** | 90 | 9 | 12.91ns | 1 | 20 | 9.636 | 1 |
| Leaf proline content | 2 | 0ns | 0 | 9 | 64.77*** | 3 | 1 | 1977.32*** | 95 | 9 | 34.37*** | 2 | 20 | 0.003 | 0 |
| Shoot length | 4 | 28.34ns | 1 | 9 | 474.35*** | 24 | 1 | 1426.57*** | 72 | 9 | 33.63ns | 2 | 40 | 22.084 | 1 |
| Shoot tillering ability | 4 | 0.27ns | 5 | 9 | 4.15*** | 70 | 1 | 0.36ns | 6 | 9 | 0.98*** | 17 | 40 | 0.145 | 2 |
| Shoot water content | 4 | 394.09ns | 1 | 9 | 5780.12*** | 13 | 1 | 36,481*** | 83 | 9 | 1015.42* | 2 | 40 | 382.405 | 1 |
| Shoot evapotranspiration rate | 2 | 1129.03ns | 3 | 9 | 2968.52** | 7 | 1 | 34,349.31*** | 85 | 9 | 1069.53ns | 3 | 20 | 745.41 | 2 |
| Biological yield | 4 | 0.61* | 0 | 9 | 12.52*** | 4 | 1 | 281.89*** | 94 | 9 | 4.26*** | 1 | 40 | 0.103 | 0 |
| Economic yield | 4 | 0.37* | 1 | 9 | 4.67*** | 10 | 1 | 38.48*** | 86 | 9 | 1.12*** | 3 | 40 | 0.065 | 0 |
| Water use efficiency for biomass | 4 | 0.02* | 3 | 9 | 0.48*** | 71 | 1 | 0ns | 0 | 9 | 0.17*** | 25 | 40 | 0.003 | 0 |
| Water use efficiency for grain | 4 | 0.01* | 4 | 9 | 0.15*** | 57 | 1 | 0.07*** | 27 | 9 | 0.03*** | 11 | 40 | 0.002 | 1 |
| Evapotranspiration efficiency | 4 | 0.02ns | 4 | 9 | 0.14*** | 26 | 1 | 0.26*** | 48 | 9 | 0.12*** | 22 | 40 | 0.003 | 1 |
| Hundred kernel mass | 4 | 0.45** | 2 | 9 | 2.86*** | 13 | 1 | 17.56*** | 83 | 9 | 0.38*** | 2 | 40 | 0.024 | 0 |
| Grain total carbohydrate content | 2 | 1.22ns | 0 | 9 | 5927.35*** | 3 | 1 | 196,424.82*** | 96 | 9 | 2598.45*** | 1 | 20 | 1.127 | 0 |
| Grain total protein content | 2 | 1.79ns | 1 | 9 | 142.72*** | 71 | 1 | 7.85ns | 4 | 9 | 47.82*** | 24 | 20 | 2.166 | 1 |
SOV source of variation, df degree of freedom, MS mean squares, ns non-significant variation, “%” MS for each SOV relative to total MS of all sources
*, ** and *** low, moderate and high degree of significant variation at p ≤ 0.05