Figure 1: Shoot length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 1: Continue...
Table 1: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for shoot length
Table 1: Continue...
Figure 2: Root length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 2: Continue...
Table 2: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for root length
Table 2: Continue...
Figure 1: Shoot length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 1: Continue...
Table 1: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for shoot length
Table 1: Continue...
Figure 2: Root length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 2: Continue...
Table 2: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for root length
Table 2: Continue...
Figure 1: Shoot length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 1: Continue...
Table 1: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for shoot length
Table 1: Continue...
Figure 2: Root length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 2: Continue...
Table 2: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for root length
Table 2: Continue...
Figure 1: Shoot length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 1: Continue...
Table 1: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for shoot length
Table 1: Continue...
Figure 2: Root length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 2: Continue...
Table 2: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for root length
Table 2: Continue...
Figure 1: Shoot length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 1: Continue...
Table 1: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for shoot length
Table 1: Continue...
Figure 2: Root length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 2: Continue...
Table 2: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for root length
Table 2: Continue...
Figure 1: Shoot length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 1: Continue...
Table 1: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for shoot length
Table 1: Continue...
Figure 2: Root length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 2: Continue...
Table 2: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for root length
Table 2: Continue...
Figure 1: Shoot length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 1: Continue...
Table 1: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for shoot length
Table 1: Continue...
Figure 2: Root length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 2: Continue...
Table 2: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for root length
Table 2: Continue...
Figure 1: Shoot length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 1: Continue...
Table 1: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for shoot length
Table 1: Continue...
Figure 2: Root length in Fagopyrum esculentum on different days treated with IAA (A), BAP (B), ABA (C), GA (D), IAA+BAP (E), IAA+ABA (F), IAA+GA (G), ABA+BAP (H), BAP+GA (I) and ABA+GA (J). Values are mean±SE; n=3, analysed by Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05) compared with control
Figure 2: Continue...
Table 2: Bonferroni post-test for comparison between treated and untreated plants of Fagopyrum esculentum for root length
Table 2: Continue...
People also read
Review Article
Red Rice in Himachal Pradesh: History, Tradition and Uses
Ashok K. Thakur, Himangini and Neelam KumariAgriculture, Himachal Pradesh, red rice, varieties
Published Online : 21 Apr 2020
Review Article
Status of Bamboo in India
Salil Tewari, Harshita Negi and R. KaushalArea, bamboo, cultivation, diversity, India, species
Published Online : 28 Feb 2019
Full Research
Carbon Stock of Pinus roxburghii Sarg. in Siwalik Foot Hills of Jammu
Kuldeep Joshi, Sandeep Sehgal, Meenakshi Gupta, Lalit Upadhyay and Varun ShrivastavaBiomass, carbon stock, breast height, quadrate, regression
Published Online : 03 Aug 2022
Review Article
Seed Biopriming– A Review
Amol J. Deshmukh, R. S. Jaiman, R. P. Bambharolia and Vijay A. PatilBiopriming, bioagent, PGPR, seed
Published Online : 23 Feb 2020
Review Article
Conventional Genetic Improvement Methods in Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: A Review
Ravi Bhardwaj, Kamal Sharma, Dushyant Kumar Sharma and Prem PrakashHybridization, medicinal and aromatic plants, selection
Published Online : 07 Oct 2020
Studies on Leaf Blight Disease of Sissoo (Dalbergia sissoo Roxb.) in Bangladesh
S. Chowdhury, H. Rashid, R. Ahmed and M. M. U. HaqueConidia, lesions, morphology, pathogenicity, sissoo
Published Online : 16 Oct 2020
.jpg)
.jpg)
