Figure Captions
Figure 1. Location of water reservoir relative to the plant
tanks to achieve waterlogging. Upper diagram: watering of control
plants; lower diagram, waterlogged treatments.
Figure 2. Effect of waterlogging treatments on grain yield.
WL1: waterlogging exposed at ZS12.5 for one month; WL2: waterlogging
exposed at ZS12.5 for two months; WL3: waterlogging exposed at ZS15 for
two months; WL4: waterlogging exposed at ZS59 for 15 days. WL4 treatment
was not conducted on Franklin and Westminster. Vertical bars indicate ±
standard error of the mean.
Figure 3. Effect of waterlogging treatments on yield
components. WL1: waterlogging exposed at ZS12.5 for one month; WL2:
waterlogging exposed at ZS12.5 for two months; WL3: waterlogging exposed
at ZS15 for two months; WL4: waterlogging exposed at ZS59 for 15 days.
WL4 treatment was not conducted on Franklin and Westminster. Vertical
bars indicate ± standard error of the mean.
Figure 4. Grain dimensions of six barley genotypes in response
to waterlogging. Vertical bars indicate ± standard error of the mean.
WL1: waterlogging exposed at ZS12.5 for one month; WL2: waterlogging
exposed at ZS12.5 for two months; WL3: waterlogging exposed at ZS15 for
two months; WL4: waterlogging exposed at ZS59 for 15 days. WL4 was not
conducted on Franklin or Westminster.
Figure 5 . Relative to control biomass of each genotype after
waterlogging (a) and relative to control biomass at harvest of each
genotype (b) under different waterlogging treatments. WL1: waterlogging
exposed at ZS 12.5 for one month; WL2: waterlogging exposed at ZS12.5
for two months; WL3: waterlogging exposed at ZS 15 for two months; WL4:
waterlogging exposed at ZS59 for 15 days. WL4 was not conducted on
Franklin or Westminster.
Figure 6. Delay phenology at the end of waterlogging treatments
(a), and delay maturity (b) under different waterlogging treatments.
WL1: waterlogging exposed at ZS 12.5 for one month; WL2: waterlogging
exposed at ZS12.5 for two months; WL3: waterlogging exposed at ZS 15 for
two months;