VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE FACULTY OF AGRONOMY UNDERGRADUATE THESIS TITLE: EFFECT OF SALT STRESS AND DROUGHT STRESS ON GROWTH OF SUGAR CANE PLANTS UNDER GREENHOUSE CONDITIONS Supervisor: Ph.D LE THI TUYET CHAM Department: Plant Genetics and breeding Student: VU KHANH LINH Class: K61 - KHCTT Course: 2016 – 2021 Major: CROP SCIENCE Ha Noi - 2020 i DECLARATION I hereby declare that this paper is my own work All results and data in this thesis are absolutely honest and have not been used in a different thesis All sources used in this paper were cited in references Hanoi, January 25th ,2021 Student Vu Khanh Linh ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To complete this thesis, I am deeply indebted to people who have been providing me with precious support and advice Firstly, I would like to send my gratitude to my supervisor, Ph.D Le Thi Tuyet Cham, Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agronomy, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, for their enthusiastic support, helpful advice and considerable encouragement in the completion of my thesis I would also like to express sincere thanks to Ph.D Vu Ngoc Thang from Industrial and Medicinal Plants and all the lectures from Faculty of Agronomy, who taught and created best conditions for students during learning process and research Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family and my friends who have alwaay beens by my side, give me support and strength to complete this graduattion thesis Hanoi, January 25th , 2021 Student Vu Khanh Linh iii CONTENT Contents CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1.Introduction 1.2 Objectives and requirements 1.2.1 Objectives .2 1.2.2 Requirements .2 CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Origin, classification and distribution of sugarcane 2.1.1 Origin of sugarcane .3 2.1.2 Classification of sugarcane 2.1.3 Nutritional values of sugarcane 2.2 Situation of Sugarcane production on the world and in Vietnam 2.2.1 Situation of Sugarcane production in the world 2.2.2 Situation of Sugarcane production in Vietnam 2.2.3 Some research results on drought tolerance on some crops in the world and Vietnam .12 2.2.4 Some research results on drought tolerance of sugarcane in the world and Vietnam 16 2.2.5 Some research results on salt tolerance on some crops in the world and Vietnam 19 2.2.6 Some research results on salt tolerance on Sugarcane in the world and Vietnam 22 CHAPTER MATERIAL AND METHOD 24 3.1 Object 24 Figure 1: Sugarcane seedlings before transplanting to pots 24 3.2 Materials .25 3.3 Location and time .25 3.3 Experimental design 26 3.4 Methods .26 CHAPTER RESULT AND DISCUSSION 29 4.1 The effect of salinity stress and drought stress on growth and development of sugarcane 29 4.1.1 The effect of salinity stress and drought stress on plant height of sugarcane 29 4.1.2.The effect of salinity stress and drought stress on the plant diameter of sugarcane 32 4.1.3 The effects of salinity stress and drought stress on the number of leaves of Sugarcane 34 4.1.4 The effect of salinity stress and drought stress on leaf length growth of sugarcane 35 4.1.5 The effect of salinity stress and drought stress on leaf width growth of sugarcane 37 4.1.6 Effect of Salinity stress- drought stress on root length 38 4.1.7 Effect of salinity stress and drought stress to leaf area 40 4.2 The effect of salinity stress and drought stress on physiology of sugarcane 41 4.2.1 Effect of salinity stress and drought stress on SPAD index of sugarcane 41 iv 4.2.2 The effect of salinity and drought stress to chlorophyll fluorescence performance indices (Fv/Fm) 43 4.2.3 The effect of salinity stress - drought stress to water saturation deficit (WSD) 45 4.2.4 Evaluate of significant differences in the fresh and dry weight of roots between each treatment 46 4.2.5 Evaluate of significant differences in the fresh and dry weight of stem between each treatment 50 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 53 5.1 Conclusion 53 5.2 Suggestions 53 REFERENCES 55 Vietnamese references: 55 Foreign references: 55 APPENDIX 63 Some pictures in the experiment course 63 v LIST OS TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES AND CHARTS vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATION MEANING % Percentage CV Coefficient of variation DM Dry mass DW Dry weight Et al et alii FAO FM Food and Agriculture Organization The Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database Fresh mass FW Fresh weight TW Turgid weight LA Leaf area WSD Water saturation deficit LSD Least significant difference SPAD Soil Plant Analysis Development AS After salinity stress AD After drought stress WB Watering back T1 Without salinity - without drought T2 Without salinity - Drought T3 Salinity - without drought T4 Salinity - Drought FAOSTAT viii CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1.Introduction Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), perennial grass of the family Poaceae is a major sugar producing crop in the tropical and subtropical regions (Cordeiro et al.2007) The plants are two to six meters (six to twenty feet) tall with stout, jointed, fibrous stalks Sucrose, was accumulated in the stalk internodes Sugarcane is the world's largest crop by production quantity, with 1.8 billion tonnes produced in 2017, with Brazil accounting for 40% of the world total In 2012, the Food and Agriculture Organization estimated it was cultivated on about 26 million hectares (64 million acres), in more than 90 countries In Vietnam, sugarcane is also a highly economical tree and is grown in many regions such as Thanh Hoa, Nghe An and some provinces in the North and Tay Nguyen In particular, Vietnam is assessed to have many favorable conditions to increase the productivity and output of sugarcane, thereby meeting the large sugar processing demand for domestic and export purposes, bringing a significant source of foreign currency (Trinh Minh Chau, 2003) Currently, sugarcane is considered as an important crop actively participating in the work of transforming the crop structure, increasing economic efficiency and improving the ecological environment Drought is one of the most important abiotic factors affecting plant growth, development and production on a global scale (Boyer, 1982) Drought reduces productivity, output and affects the economy of many countries Faced with increasing droughts besides the development of irrigation systems, zoning for irrigation water management, the use of cultivars that are able to adapt well to drought is essential Therefore, drought is one of the factors that clearly affect the productivity and yield of sugarcane in sugarcane growing regions in the world in general and Vietnam in particular Meanwhile, there are not many specific researches on the effects of artificial drought conditions on the growth and development of some popular sugarcane varieties grown in production Salinity is another one vital limiting factor for sus-tainable agriculture with depressing crop growth and production worldwide (Zinselmeier C, 2009) Globally,more than 70 countries have been characterized as existing large areas of salinity-affected land sand over 6% of the world’s total land is affected by salinity stress (AminiS 2017) Salinity stress could not only reduce crop yield through affecting leaf physiological growth (Starvridou, 2015), but also could reduce the ability of plant roots to take up water and nutrition (e.g.,N) from soil (Munns R, 2017) While other studies showed that salinity could increase transgenic barley growth and yield in both glass house and field conditions, but the mechanisms were un- clear (Schilling R, 2014) Following the fact mentioned above, we a research on: “Interactive effect of salt and drought stresses on growth of sugarcane plants under glasshouse conditions ” 1.2 Objectives and requirements 1.2.1 Objectives Evaluating the effect of salt stress and drought stress on growth of sugarcane plants 1.2.2 Requirements - Evaluating the effect of salt stress and drought tolerant to growth characteristics in sugarcane plants - Evaluating the effect of salt stress and drought tolerant to physiological characteristics in sugarcane plants “Redox” and abscisic acid-mediated controls Plant Physiol 129:460–468 61 Patade Y V., Bhargava S & Suprasanna P (2011) Salt and drought tolerance of sugarcane under iso-osmotic salt and water stress: growth, osmolytes accumulation, and antioxidant defense Journal of Plant Interactions Vol 06 (4) pp 275-282 Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17429145.2011.5575 13 62 Pettigrew W T & Meredith W R (1994) Leaf gas exchange parameters vary among cotton genotypes Crop Sci 34:700–705 63 Promila K & Kumar S (2000) Vigna radiata seed germination under salinity Biol Plant 43:423–426 64 Rasheed R (2009) Salinity and extreme temperature effects on sprouting buds of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.): Some histological and biochemical studies Ph.D thesis, Dept of Botany, Univ of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan 65 Rehman S., Harris P J C., Bourne W F & Wilkin J (2000) The relationship between ions, vigour and salinity tolerance of Acacia seeds Plant Soil 220:229–233 66 Rogers M E & Noble C L (1992) Variation in growth and ion accumulation between two selected populations of Trifolium repens L differing in salt tolerance Plant Soil 146:131–136 67 Rogers M E., Grieve C M & Shannon M C (2003) Plant growth and ion relations in lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) in response to the combined effects of NaCl and P Plant Soil 253:187–194 68 Romero-Aranda R., Soria T & Cuartero S (2001) Tomato plant-water uptake and plant-water relationships under saline growth conditions Plant Sci 160:265–272 69 Shekhar S (2010) Drought tolerance Available from: http://www.slideshare.net/Sudhanshu-0001/drought-tolerance-agri-p pt 70 Sinha N K., Hui H Y., Evranuz E., Siddiq M & Ahmed J (2010) Handbook of Vegetables and Vegetable Processing Wiley-Blackwell, a John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., publication 71 Steudle E (2000) Water uptake by roots: effects of water deficit J Exp Bot 51:1531–1542 72 Sudhir P & Murthy S D S., (2004) Effects of salt stress on basic processes of photosynthesis Photosynthetica 42:481–486 61 73 Tester M & Davenport R (2003) Na+ tolerance and Na+ transport in higher plants Ann Bot 91: 503–527 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcg058 74 TNAU- TamilNadu Agricultural University (2008) Response of plants to drought stress Retrieved from http://agritech.tnau.ac.in/agriculture/agri_drought_tolerent_mechanis m.html 62 APPENDIX Some pictures in the experiment course Picture 1: Picture 2:Sugarcane sprouted after week Picture 3:Sugarcane seedlings in plastic trays Picture 4:Transplanting in plastic pots Picture 5: sugarcane during salinity stress Picture 6: plan during saline - drought stress 63 Picture 7: The root length between the control and the remaining three treatments 64 Data processing Fresh and dry mass of roots After salinity stress BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLTR FILE LINH13 19/ 2/21 15:35 :PAGE VARIATE V003 KLTR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 33.6485 11.2162 16.46 0.023 NL 199991E-03 199991E-03 0.00 0.985 * RESIDUAL 2.04400 681334 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 35.6928 5.09896 BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLKR FILE LINH13 19/ 2/21 15:35 :PAGE VARIATE V004 KLKR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 272437 908125E-01 2.97 0.197 NL 630125E-01 630125E-01 2.06 0.246 * RESIDUAL 916374E-01 305458E-01 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 427087 610125E-01 TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE LINH13 19/ 2/21 15:35 :PAGE MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ CT$ control salinity drought salinity + d NOS 2 2 KLTR 15.6750 11.5750 10.2950 13.6850 KLKR 2.72000 2.66000 2.39000 2.90500 SE(N= 2) 0.583667 0.123584 5%LSD 3DF 2.61562 0.553823 MEANS FOR EFFECT NL NL NOS 4 KLTR 12.8025 12.8125 KLKR 2.75750 2.58000 SE(N= 4) 0.412715 0.873868E-01 5%LSD 3DF 1.84952 0.391612 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE LINH13 19/ 2/21 15:35 :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE KLTR KLKR GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |CT$ |NL | (N= 8) SD/MEAN | | | NO BASED ON BASED ON % | | | OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS | | | 12.807 2.2581 0.82543 6.4 0.0228 0.9848 2.6688 0.24701 0.17477 6.5 0.1971 0.2464 65 After drought stress BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLTR FILE LINH12 19/ 2/21 15:31 :PAGE VARIATE V003 KLTR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 131.608 43.8692 23.19 0.014 NL 1.37780 1.37780 0.73 0.459 * RESIDUAL 5.67611 1.89204 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 138.662 19.8088 BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLKR FILE LINH12 19/ 2/21 15:31 :PAGE VARIATE V004 KLKR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 1.17174 390579 14.25 0.028 NL 781249E-02 781249E-02 0.28 0.631 * RESIDUAL 822375E-01 274125E-01 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 1.26179 180255 TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE LINH12 19/ 2/21 15:31 :PAGE MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ CT$ control salinity drought salinity + d NOS 2 2 KLTR 11.4450 14.7200 4.86000 5.81500 KLKR 2.81000 1.99000 1.99000 1.83500 SE(N= 2) 0.972635 0.117074 5%LSD 3DF 4.35873 0.524650 MEANS FOR EFFECT NL NL NOS 4 KLTR 9.62500 8.79500 KLKR 2.18750 2.12500 SE(N= 4) 0.687756 0.827836E-01 5%LSD 3DF 3.08209 0.370983 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE LINH12 19/ 2/21 15:31 :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE KLTR KLKR GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |CT$ |NL | (N= 8) SD/MEAN | | | NO BASED ON BASED ON % | | | OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS | | | 9.2100 4.4507 1.3755 14.9 0.0139 0.4586 2.1562 0.42456 0.16557 7.7 0.0280 0.6309 66 Watering back BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLTR FILE LINH11 19/ 2/21 15:28 :PAGE VARIATE V003 KLTR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 91.4548 30.4849 202.25 0.001 NL 540800 540800 3.59 0.154 * RESIDUAL 452197 150732 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 92.4478 13.2068 BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLKR FILE LINH11 19/ 2/21 15:28 :PAGE VARIATE V004 KLKR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 1.36734 455779 18.05 0.020 NL 312498E-03 312498E-03 0.01 0.915 * RESIDUAL 757376E-01 252459E-01 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 1.44339 206198 TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE LINH11 19/ 2/21 15:28 :PAGE MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ CT$ control salinity drought salinity + d NOS 2 2 KLTR 9.19500 10.7450 6.40500 15.7150 KLKR 1.65000 1.44500 1.01000 2.16000 SE(N= 2) 0.274529 0.112352 5%LSD 3DF 1.23026 0.503489 MEANS FOR EFFECT NL NL NOS 4 KLTR 10.7750 10.2550 KLKR 1.56000 1.57250 SE(N= 4) 0.194121 0.794448E-01 5%LSD 3DF 0.869928 0.356021 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE LINH11 19/ 2/21 15:28 :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE KLTR KLKR GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |CT$ |NL | (N= 8) SD/MEAN | | | NO BASED ON BASED ON % | | | OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS | | | 10.515 3.6341 0.38824 3.7 0.0005 0.1539 1.5662 0.45409 0.15889 10.1 0.0200 0.9150 67 Fresh and dry mass of stem After salinity stress BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLTR FILE LINH13 19/ 2/21 15:35 :PAGE VARIATE V003 KLTR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 33.6485 11.2162 16.46 0.023 NL 199991E-03 199991E-03 0.00 0.985 * RESIDUAL 2.04400 681334 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 35.6928 5.09896 BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLKR FILE LINH13 19/ 2/21 15:35 :PAGE VARIATE V004 KLKR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 272437 908125E-01 2.97 0.197 NL 630125E-01 630125E-01 2.06 0.246 * RESIDUAL 916374E-01 305458E-01 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 427087 610125E-01 TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE LINH13 19/ 2/21 15:35 :PAGE MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ CT$ control salinity drought salinity + d NOS 2 2 KLTR 15.6750 11.5750 10.2950 13.6850 KLKR 2.72000 2.66000 2.39000 2.90500 SE(N= 2) 0.583667 0.123584 5%LSD 3DF 2.61562 0.553823 MEANS FOR EFFECT NL NL NOS 4 KLTR 12.8025 12.8125 KLKR 2.75750 2.58000 SE(N= 4) 0.412715 0.873868E-01 5%LSD 3DF 1.84952 0.391612 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE LINH13 19/ 2/21 15:35 :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE KLTR KLKR GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |CT$ |NL | (N= 8) SD/MEAN | | | NO BASED ON BASED ON % | | | OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS | | | 12.807 2.2581 0.82543 6.4 0.0228 0.9848 2.6688 0.24701 0.17477 6.5 0.1971 0.2464 68 After drought stress BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLTR FILE LINH12 19/ 2/21 15:31 :PAGE VARIATE V003 KLTR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 131.608 43.8692 23.19 0.014 NL 1.37780 1.37780 0.73 0.459 * RESIDUAL 5.67611 1.89204 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 138.662 19.8088 BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLKR FILE LINH12 19/ 2/21 15:31 :PAGE VARIATE V004 KLKR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 1.17174 390579 14.25 0.028 NL 781249E-02 781249E-02 0.28 0.631 * RESIDUAL 822375E-01 274125E-01 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 1.26179 180255 TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE LINH12 19/ 2/21 15:31 :PAGE MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ CT$ control salinity drought salinity + d NOS 2 2 KLTR 11.4450 14.7200 4.86000 5.81500 KLKR 2.81000 1.99000 1.99000 1.83500 SE(N= 2) 0.972635 0.117074 5%LSD 3DF 4.35873 0.524650 MEANS FOR EFFECT NL NL NOS 4 KLTR 9.62500 8.79500 KLKR 2.18750 2.12500 SE(N= 4) 0.687756 0.827836E-01 5%LSD 3DF 3.08209 0.370983 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE LINH12 19/ 2/21 15:31 :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE KLTR KLKR GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |CT$ |NL | (N= 8) SD/MEAN | | | NO BASED ON BASED ON % | | | OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS | | | 9.2100 4.4507 1.3755 14.9 0.0139 0.4586 2.1562 0.42456 0.16557 7.7 0.0280 0.6309 69 Watering back BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLTR FILE LINH11 19/ 2/21 15:28 :PAGE VARIATE V003 KLTR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 91.4548 30.4849 202.25 0.001 NL 540800 540800 3.59 0.154 * RESIDUAL 452197 150732 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 92.4478 13.2068 BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KLKR FILE LINH11 19/ 2/21 15:28 :PAGE VARIATE V004 KLKR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= CT$ 1.36734 455779 18.05 0.020 NL 312498E-03 312498E-03 0.01 0.915 * RESIDUAL 757376E-01 252459E-01 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 1.44339 206198 TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE LINH11 19/ 2/21 15:28 :PAGE MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ CT$ control salinity drought salinity + d NOS 2 2 KLTR 9.19500 10.7450 6.40500 15.7150 KLKR 1.65000 1.44500 1.01000 2.16000 SE(N= 2) 0.274529 0.112352 5%LSD 3DF 1.23026 0.503489 MEANS FOR EFFECT NL NL NOS 4 KLTR 10.7750 10.2550 KLKR 1.56000 1.57250 SE(N= 4) 0.194121 0.794448E-01 5%LSD 3DF 0.869928 0.356021 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE LINH11 19/ 2/21 15:28 :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE KLTR KLKR GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |CT$ |NL | (N= 8) SD/MEAN | | | NO BASED ON BASED ON % | | | OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS | | | 10.515 3.6341 0.38824 3.7 0.0005 0.1539 1.5662 0.45409 0.15889 10.1 0.0200 0.9150 70 Water saturation deficits (WSD) and length of roots After drought stress VARIATE V002 DTHNBH LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= NL 18.3921 18.3921 4.83 0.114 CT$ 820.954 273.651 71.91 0.002 * RESIDUAL 11.4164 3.80548 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 850.763 121.538 BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE CGR FILE L 20/ 2/21 21:57 :PAGE sau gay han VARIATE V003 CGR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= NL 245001 245001 0.03 0.864 CT$ 577.470 192.490 24.74 0.013 * RESIDUAL 23.3450 7.78167 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 601.060 85.8657 TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE L 20/ 2/21 21:57 :PAGE Sau gay han MEANS FOR EFFECT NL NL NOS 4 DTHNBH 36.3000 39.3325 CGR 96.5750 96.2250 SE(N= 4) 0.975382 1.39478 5%LSD 3DF 4.37104 6.25052 MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ CT$ control salinity drought salinity+dro NOS 2 2 DTHNBH 23.2000 33.7950 45.2650 49.0050 CGR 108.500 85.1500 98.7500 93.2000 SE(N= 2) 1.37940 1.97252 5%LSD 3DF 6.18158 8.83957 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE L 20/ 2/21 21:57 :PAGE Sau gay han F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE DTHNBH CGR GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |NL |CT$ | (N= 8) SD/MEAN | | | NO BASED ON BASED ON % | | | OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS | | | 37.816 11.024 1.9508 5.2 0.1145 0.0025 96.400 9.2664 2.7896 2.9 0.8640 0.0126 71 Watering back VARIATE V003 DTHNBH LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= NL 15.5961 15.5961 2.60 0.205 CT$ 522.968 174.323 29.06 0.010 * RESIDUAL 17.9950 5.99834 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 556.559 79.5084 BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE CGR FILE L 20/ 2/21 21:46 :PAGE Tuoi nuoc lai VARIATE V004 CGR LN SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN F RATIO PROB ER SQUARES SQUARES LN ============================================================================= NL 604994 604994 0.04 0.852 CT$ 1236.34 412.113 25.56 0.012 * RESIDUAL 48.3750 16.1250 * TOTAL (CORRECTED) 1285.32 183.617 TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE L 20/ 2/21 21:46 :PAGE Tuoi nuoc lai MEANS FOR EFFECT NL NL NOS 4 DTHNBH 34.3650 31.5725 CGR 84.9750 84.4250 SE(N= 4) 1.22457 2.00780 5%LSD 3DF 5.48776 8.99766 MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ c s d sd CT$ NOS 2 2 DTHNBH 22.5400 31.6500 32.4400 45.2450 CGR 101.550 66.8500 82.4500 87.9500 SE(N= 2) 1.73181 2.83945 5%LSD 3DF 7.76087 12.7246 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE L 20/ 2/21 21:46 :PAGE Tuoi nuoc lai F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE DTHNBH CGR GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |NL |CT$ | (N= 8) SD/MEAN | | | NO BASED ON BASED ON % | | | OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS | | | 32.969 8.9167 2.4491 7.4 0.2049 0.0099 84.700 13.551 4.0156 4.7 0.8519 0.0120 72 73 74 75