Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 2;22(13):7181. doi: 10.3390/ijms22137181

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Phenotyping whole plant water use dynamics of OsERF115/AP2EREBP110-OE transgenic rice using the DroughtSpotter platform under heat-drought combined stress. (a) Photographs of OsERF115/AP2EREBP110-OE and WT plants exposed to the combined stress of drought and heat (42 °C) for 7 days and recovered at 30 °C for 7 days. (b) Whole plant water loss rates of OsERF115/AP2EREBP110-OE and WT plants under NONE mode of DroughtSpotter at three different thermal conditions (Control, HS1, and HS2). Data represent mean (± SD) from two independent experiments with five plants of each line. Two-way ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD test were performed by comparing with WT plants as controls (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001). Asterisks indicate significant differences in OE1-1 and OE1-2 compared to WT at each time point. (c–e) Whole plant water use phenotypes of OsERF115/AP2EREBP110-OE and WT plants under 7% DYNAMIC mode of DroughtSpotter at three different temperature thermal conditions. (c) Representative irrigation graphs from soil-pots of OsERF115/AP2EREBP110-OE and WT plants. (d) Total number and (e) amount of irrigated water input to soil-pots of OsERF115/AP2EREBP110-OE and WT plants. Data represent mean (± SD) from two independent experiments with 4 plants of each line. One-way ANOVA was performed by comparing with WT plants as controls (**, p < 0.01). (f) Whole plant water use efficiency (WP-WUE) of OsERF115/AP2EREBP110-OE and WT plants. WP-WUE was calculated by the ratio between the plant area gain and total amount of water input throughout the experimental period. Data represent mean (± SD) from two independent experiments with four plants of each line. Student’s t-test was performed by comparing with WT plants as controls (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01).