Multiple major QTL lead to stable yield performance of rice cultivars across varying drought intensities

BMC Genomic Data

Table 1 Details of experiments conducted under upland and lowland drought stress and non-stress conditions for the identification of QTL

Population size	Season	Environment	GY (kg ha^-1)			DTF			PH (cm)			YR
Population size	Season	Environment	M	H	P^a	M	H	P	M	H	P	YR
365	DS2011	LSS	1556 ± 357	0.80	****	86 ± 2	0.88	****	97 ± 5	0.82	****	70^b
365	DS2012	LMS I	2547 ± 537	0.46	****	79 ± 3	0.86	****	91 ± 6	0.65	****	51
365	DS2013	LMS II	2116 ± 466	0.65	****	83 ± 4	0.56	****	92 ± 8	0.37	****	57
365	DS2012	LNS I	5237 ± 789	0.67	****	74 ± 4	0.14	*	119 ± 7	0.74	****
365	DS2013	LNS II	4965 ± 629	0.78	****	74 ± 2	0.87	****	109 ± 7	0.71	****
100	WS2012	UMiS	3528 ± 673	0.93	****	84 ± 2	0.98	****	107 ± 5	0.81	****	33^b

LSS: lowland severe stress; LMS: lowland moderate stress; LNS: lowland non-stress, UMiS: upland mild stress.
means ± SED (M), broad-sense heritability (H), P values (P), and percentage yield reduction (YR) for grain yield (GY, in kg ha^-1), days to 50% flowering (DTF), and plant height (PH, in cm).
^a: probability of difference between genotypes; *, ****: significant at 5%, and 0.01% P levels, respectively; ^b: compared with the DS2012 LNS trial.

ISSN: 2730-6844