Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 5;12(1):1825–1840. doi: 10.1080/21505594.2021.1948667

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Comparison of conidial morphology and yields between the WT and ΔAoRgs mutants. A. Conidial morphology of the WT and ΔAoRgs mutants incubated on CMY plates at 28°C for 14 d. B. The conidia yields of the WT and ΔAoRgs mutants. Bar = 10 μm. Error bars: standard deviation, asterisk: significant difference between mutant and WT (Tukey’s HSD, P < 0.05)