. 2021 Feb 20;28(5):2619–2625. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.02.052

Table 3.

CA effect on sugar, protein, and proline content and the proline content of Pisum sativum seedlings grown with or without SPD.

Treatment	Sugar (mg g⁻¹ DW)	Protein (mg g⁻¹ FW)	Nitrate reductase activity (µmol NO₂ g⁻¹ FW h⁻¹)	Proline (µg g⁻¹ DW)
Control	3.62 ± 0.12^b	21.24 ± 0.76^a	22.69 ± 0.54^a	20.51 ± 0.63^c
SPD	4.19 ± 0.48^a	23.14 ± 0.67^a	24.86 ± 0.93^a	18.54 ± 0.54^d
CA1	2.81 ± 0.18^c	19.41 ± 0.46^b	19.68 ± 0.98^c	25.85 ± 1.31^b
SPD + CA1	3.05 ± 0.15^b	20.19 ± 0.83^b	21.36 ± 0.96^b	26.33 ± 0.41^b
CA2	2.46 ± 0.22^c	16.34 ± 0.78^c	17.94 ± 0.99^d	28.92 ± 0.92^a
SPD + CA2	2.93 ± 0.54^c	18.54 ± 0.52^b	20.22 ± 0.57^b	29.13 ± 0.18^a

Data are expressed as mean ± standard error of three independent experiments with three replicates. The values followed by different letters indicate a significant difference between treatments according to ANOVA and DMRT.