Linge Li

Chapter 4 158 WL Mock WL 25μM BZ WL 50μM BZ WL+FR Mock WL+FR 25μM BZ WL+FR 50μM BZ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Stem length(mm) a a b b b b WL Mock WL 25μM BZ WL 50μM BZ WL+FR Mock WL+FR 25μM BZ WL+FR 50μM BZ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Hypocotyl length(mm) a a a b b c WL Mock WL 25μM BZ WL 50μM BZ WL+FR Mock WL+FR 25μM BZ WL+FR 50μM BZ 0 10 20 30 40 Internode 1 length(mm) a a c b b b WL Mock WL 25μM BZ WL 50μM BZ WL+FR Mock WL+FR 25μM BZ WL+FR 50μM BZ 0 1 2 3 4 5 Hypocotyl diameter (mm) ns WL Mock WL 25μM BZ WL 50μM BZ WL+FR Mock WL+FR 25μM BZ WL+FR 50μM BZ 0 1 2 3 4 Internode 1 diameter (mm) a b ab ab ab ab (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure S4.10. Stem response to different concentration BZ. We brushed the first internode of 13 dag tomatoes with different concentration BZ (or mock) in FR conditions one day in advance of one week FR treatment. Brushing was applied 3 times over one week treatment period. The data include measurements of (a) Stem length, (b) Hypocotyl length, (c) Hypocotyl diameter, (d) Hypocotyl diameter, (e) Internode 1 diameter. Data are presented as mean ± SEM, and different letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on ANOVA analysis with Tukey’s post hoc test (P<0.05). There are 6 biological replicates. .

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw