Table 4.

Grain yield, head milled rice yield and 2AP content in brown rice of three fragrant rice varieties grown under different water and nitrogen treatments in late season of 2013

Nitrogen	Variety	Water	Grain yield (t ha− 1)	Head milled rice yield (t ha− 1)	2AP content in brown rice (ug kg− 1 DW)
N1	Nongxiang 18	W1	5.98	3.47	113.92
		W2	5.88	3.61	145.43
		W3	5.56	3.44	101.83
	Yungengyou14	W1	5.54	3.35	101.76
		W2	5.51	3.42	112.92
		W3	6.28	3.88	126.73
	Basmati	W1	5.91	3.66	115.21
		W2	5.81	3.53	127.69
		W3	6.04	3.71	102.26
		Mean	5.83 b	3.56 b	116.42 c
N2	Nongxiang 18	W1	5.20	3.66	118.77
		W2	5.67	4.03	105.57
		W3	5.98	4.22	139.31
	Yungengyou14	W1	5.83	4.14	155.92
		W2	6.53	4.64	124.86
		W3	6.77	4.81	148.69
	Basmati	W1	5.45	3.80	113.07
		W2	5.55	3.83	128.36
		W3	5.98	4.17	108.85
		Mean	5.88 b	4.15 a	127.04 b
N3	Nongxiang 18	W1	6.07	3.91	156.09
		W2	7.12	4.57	142.47
		W3	6.74	4.46	179.48
	Yungengyou14	W1	6.07	3.86	148.13
		W2	7.42	4.85	149.13
		W3	6.45	4.17	199.99
	Basmati	W1	5.48	3.42	128.51
		W2	6.02	3.74	134.47
		W3	6.18	4.10	150.43
		Mean	6.39 a	4.12 a	154.30 a
ANOVA		Variety (V)	b	b	b
		Water (W)	b	b	b
		Nitrogen (N)	a	b	b
		V × W	b	b	b
		V × N	b	b	b
		W × N	ns	ns	b
		V × W × N	ns	ns	b

Within a column means followed by different letters are significantly different according to the LSD (0.05). N1, 0 kg N ha⁻¹; N2, 30 kg N ha⁻¹; N3, 60 kg N ha⁻¹, W1,Well-watered; W2, soil water potential was −15 ± 5 kPa; W3, soil water potential was −25 ± 5 kPa; ns, not significant at the 0.05 probability level; ^aand ^b, significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively