Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 25;18(8):1670–1682. doi: 10.1111/pbi.13331

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Transgenic SPL13‐RNAi and 35S‐miR156a tomato plants are phenotypically similar. (a) Second inflorescence from representative transgenic (left and middle) and WT (right) tomato plants at 10 weeks after planting. (b) Total fruit yield per plant for representative transgenic (left and middle) and WT (right) tomato plants. All transgenic lines are in the Ailsa Craig background. (c–e) Accumulation of flowers, fruits and the percentage of vegetative branch inflorescences per plant at three developmental stages. (f) Statistical comparison of the vertical and horizontal diameters of the fruit from the transgenic and WT tomato plants. (g, h) Lateral branch number and number of nodes from the first inflorescence in the transgenic and WT tomato plants at seven weeks after planting. (i, j) Mean values for the total fruit yield and fruit weight from the transgenic and WT tomato plants. Three transgenic lines from four representative transgenic plants and four representative WT plants were selected for statistical comparisons. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences relative to the wild type and were determined using t‐tests. *, P < 0.05, **, P < 0.01.