Table 3.

The number of metabolites showing significantly different pool sizes in the different comparisons

Groups	The number of significantly different metabolites detected by UPLC mode	The number of significantly different metabolites detected by GC mode	The number of significantly different metabolites detected by both two modes
CKS‐L versus CKR‐L	28	37	4
TS‐L versus TR‐L	41	29	4
CKS‐R versus CKR‐R	35	43	0
TS‐R versus TR‐R	42	19	2
TR‐R versus CKR‐R	66	53	3
TS‐R versus CKS‐R	42	54	4
TS‐L versus CKS‐L	40	47	0
TR‐L versus CKR‐L	55	48	3
CKS‐L versus CKS‐R	98	72	4
CKR‐L versus CKR‐R	101	71	6
TS‐L versus TS‐R	100	72	6
TR‐L versus TR‐R	99	75	8

CKR‐L, leaves of Pi‐resistant inbred lines under Pi‐sufficient conditions; CKR‐R, roots of Pi‐resistant inbred lines under Pi‐sufficient conditions; CKS‐L, leaves of Pi‐sensitive inbred lines under Pi‐sufficient conditions; CKS‐R, roots of Pi‐sensitive inbred lines under Pi‐sufficient conditions; TR‐L, leaves of Pi‐resistant inbred lines under Pi‐deficient conditions; TR‐R, roots of Pi‐resistant inbred lines under Pi‐deficient conditions; TS‐L, leaves of Pi‐sensitive inbred lines under Pi‐deficient conditions; TS‐R, roots of Pi‐sensitive inbred lines under Pi‐deficient conditions.