Shading Reduces Water Deficits in Strawberry (Fragaria X Ananassa) Plants during Vegetative Growth

Figures & data

Table 1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for physiological variables of leaf water potential (Ψ_lw), stomatal conductance (g_s), intracellular CO₂ concentration (C_i), photosynthetic rate (Pn), intrinsic water use efficiency (WUE_i), SPAD values, maximum quantum efficiency of PSII photochemistry (F_v/F_m), electrolyte leakage percentage (EL), leaf area (LA), specific leaf area (SLA), shoot dry weight (SDW), root dry weight (RDW), crown dry weight (CDW), leaf dry weight (LDW), and total dry weight (TDW) of strawberry plants cv. Sweet Ann under shading and water deficit. Averages and significance are shown for each level and factor.

Source of variation	Ψlw (Mpa)	gs (mol m^−2 s^−1)	Ci (µmol mol^−1)	Pn (µmol m^−2 s^−1)	WUEi (µmol CO2/mol H2O)	RCC (SPAD)	Fv/Fm	EL (%)	LA (cm^2)	SLA (cm^2 g^−1)	RDW (g)	SDW (g)	CDW (g)	LDW (g)	TDW (g)
Well watered	−1.41	0.509	368.74	10.52	21.15	45.79	0.80	21.13	338.29	186.86	1.60	2.90	1.06	1.65	4.58
Water deficit	−1.85	0.155	367.81	5.94	50.89	44.36	0.74	22.95	198.96	203.29	1.74	2.20	1.16	1.11	3.88
Non-shaded	−1.87	0.362	368.06	5.79	15.56	42.10	0.74	22.29	227.60	191.47	1.37	2.21	1.01	1.27	3.68
Shaded	−1.39	0.303	368.49	10.65	51.44	48.05	0.80	21.53	304.89	198.69	1.96	3.00	1.20	1.55	4.88
ANOVA
Water deficit (WD)	***	***	n.s.	***	***	n.s.	***	**	***	n.s.	n.s.	***	n.s.	***	***
Shading (S)	***	***	n.s.	***	***	***	***	*	**	n.s.	*	***	*	**	***
WD x S	**	**	n.s.	**	**	n.s.	**	**	n.s.	**	**	**	**	*	***

*, **, and *** significantly different at the 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 probability levels, respectively, according to Tukey’s test. n.s., not significant at P ≤ 0.05.

ANOVA: *, **, and *** significantly different at the 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 probability levels, respectively, according to the Tukey’s test. n.s., not significant at p ≤ 0.05.

Figure 1. Substrate volumetric water content (SVWC) during 0–30 DAT (a) and leaf water potential (Ψ_lw) at 24 DAT (b) of ‘Sweet Ann’ strawberry plants grown under non-shaded and shading conditions. DAT: days after treatment. Values are the means of four replicates, with error bars representing the standard error. Means denoted by the same letter do not significantly differ at p ≤ .01 according to the Tukey’s test.

Figure 2. Stomatal conductance (g_s) (a), net photosynthesis rate (Pn) (b) and intrinsic water-use efficiency (WUE_i) (c) at 24 DAT of ‘Sweet Ann’ strawberry plants grown under non-shaded and shading conditions. DAT: days after treatment. Values are the means of four replicates, with error bars representing the standard error. Means denoted by the same letter do not significantly differ at p ≤ .01 according to the Tukey’s test.

Figure 3. SPAD values (a) and maximum quantum efficiency of PSII photochemistry (F_v/F_m) (b) at 24 DAT of ‘Sweet Ann’ strawberry plants grown under non-shaded and shading conditions. DAT: days after treatment. Values are the means of four replicates, with error bars representing the standard error. Means denoted by the same letter do not significantly differ at p ≤ .01 according to the Tukey’s test.

Figure 4. Electrolyte leakage (EL) at 24 DAT of ‘Sweet Ann’ strawberry plants grown under non-shaded and shading conditions. DAT: days after treatment. Values are the means of four replicates, with error bars representing the standard error. Means denoted by the same letter do not significantly differ at p ≤ .01 according to the Tukey’s test.

Figure 5. Specific leaf area (SLA) (a), root dry weight (RDW) (b), shoot dry weight (SDW) (c), crown dry weight (CDW) (d), leaves dry weight (LDW) (e), and total dry weight (TDW) (f) at 24 DAT of ‘Sweet Ann’ strawberry plants grown under non-shaded and shading conditions. DAT: days after treatment. Values are the means of four replicates, with error bars representing the standard error. Means denoted by the same letter do not significantly differ at P ≤ .01 according to the Tukey’s test. For LDW differences are given at p ≤ .05.