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;