Table 1.
ANOVA table summarizing the effects of ethylene production and the background of mutation on the nutrient concentration in Arabidopsis thaliana leaves.
| df | Ethylene concentration | Place of mutation (plants vs bacteria) | Ethylene concentration × place of mutation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | P | F | P | F | P | ||
| Fe | 1 | 26.98 | P < 0.0001 | 0.02 | 0.86 | 9.45 | 0.004 |
| Cu | 1 | 14.65 | P < 0.0001 | 2.31 | 0.11 | 7.56 | 0.008 |
| Zn | 1 | 22.34 | P < 0.0001 | 1.85 | 0.18 | 8.12 | 0.008 |
| B | 1 | 3.36 | 0.12 | 62.8 | P < 0.0001 | 0.07 | 0.75 |
| Mn | 1 | 1.15 | 0.29 | 2.93 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.71 |
| P | 1 | 8.75 | P < 0.001 | 0.42 | 0.51 | 11.38 | 0.004 |
| Error | 29 | ||||||
Two‐way ANOVAs compare the effect of place of mutation (bacterial vs plant genome) and presence of mutation (mutation connected to ethylene concentrations either in bacterial or plant genome) on the concentration of plant nutrient elements (Fe, Cu, Zn and P). Changes in ethylene production explained most of the variation across the treatments, regardless of whether this alteration was a result of a mutation in the plant or the microbial genome (nonsignificant effect of the place of mutation when sequentially fitted after shoot ethylene production). Comparison of Col‐0 vs eto1 overproducer Arabidopsis thaliana plants grown without bacterial addition shows the mutations in plant genome, and comparison of the Pseudomonas putida UW4 vs ACC deaminase‐deficient mutant (AcdS‐) growing on Col‐0 plants shows the effects as a result of bacterial genome. The target of intervention (plant or bacterial genome) was sequentially fitted after ethylene concentration. Bold highlights a statistically significant difference.