Table 4.
Physiological parameters assessing plant photosynthesis and chlorophyll a fluorescence at the end of both experiments with different treatments.
| Treatment | Photosynthesis Rate (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1) | Stomatal Conductance (mol H2O m−2 s−1) | Transpiration (mmol H2O m−2 s−1) | Effective Quantum Yield of PSII | ETR (μmol e-m−2 s−1) | Fv/Fm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pot experiment: | ||||||
| NC | 4.90 ± 2.87 | 0.20 ± 0.16 | 3.26 ± 2.29 | 0.47 ± 0.14 a | 39.96 ± 12.91 a | 0.74 ± 0.048 a |
| PC | 7.99 ± 1.18 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 3.34 ± 0.81 | 0.73 ± 0.03 b | 61.14 ± 3.80 b | 0.80 ± 0.005 b |
| BfL | 8.43 ± 2.44 | 0.19 ± 0.09 | 3.42 ± 1.57 | 0.76 ± 0.01 b | 69.04 ± 4.06 b | 0.79 ± 0.002 b |
| BfH | 8.83 ± 0.95 | 0.22 ± 0.06 | 3.89 ± 0.89 | 0.75 ± 0.03 b | 67.03 ± 7.18 b | 0.80 ± 0.009 b |
| ANOVA statistics | n = 16, F3, 12 = 3.12, p = 0.0663 | n = 16, F3, 6.38 = 0.08, p = 0.9667 | n = 16, F3, 12 = 0.14, p = 0.932 | n = 80, F3, 76 = 58.62, p < 0.0001 | n = 16, F3, 12 = 11.39, p = 0.0008 | n = 32, F3, 13.96 = 4.41, p = 0.0221 |
| Microplot experiment: | ||||||
| NC | 15.48 ± 1.57 | 0.21 ± 0.03 | 3.17 ± 0.30 | 0.34 ± 0.08 a | 124.57 ± 15.94 | 0.72 ± 0.05 a |
| PC | 11.34 ± 5.17 | 0.12 ± 0.07 | 2.13 ± 1.02 | 0.36 ± 0.15 ab | 119.35 ± 48.36 | 0.76 ± 0.03 ab |
| BfH | 17.62 ± 2.99 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 3.34 ± 0.54 | 0.48 ± 0.19 b | 145.31 ± 19.09 | 0.78 ± 0.04 b |
| ANOVA statistics | n = 12, F2, 9 = 3.21, p = 0.0887 | n = 12, F2, 9 = 3.51, p = 0.0748 | n = 12, F2, 9 = 3.61, p = 0.0706 | n = 60, F2, 33.65 = 4.19, p = 0.0237 | n = 12, F2, 9 = 3.91, p = 0.493 | n = 24, F2, 21 = 4.17, p = 0.02977 |
Data presented as averages with the standard deviation (±SD); ANOVA statistic (n—dataset size, Fdf, df—F-statistic with degrees of freedom (df) between groups, and df within groups; p—p-value); and Tukey’s HSD results. Means sharing a letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.