E drought episode. WT BMS-8 Autophagy plants that experienced three successive drought cycles compared with controls Table 1. Leaf, stem and total shot fresh (FW) and dry weight (DW) per plant, leaf region and particular or R1 plants exhibited growth retardation of leaves plus a slight boost in stem biomass leaf location (SLA) of WT and flacca tomato genotypes at the end in the experiment. R1 represents plants in the finish of the experiment (Table 1). Around the contrary, flacca showed smaller but however exposed to the 1st drought cycle and after that optimally watered for the subsequent 15 days. R3 represents important increases in leaf dry weight in comparison with R1 plants, accompanied by a decrease YC-001 medchemexpress 3-days re-watered plants following the 3rd drought cycle, whilst C represents respective control plants. in leaf area and, consequently, by a decrease in SLA (Table 1).Values are presented as suggests SE (n = 4). Diverse letters denote significant variations between indicates in each genotype separately, according to Tukey HSD post hoc test p 0.05. Table 1. Leaf, stem and total shot fresh (FW) and dry weight (DW) per plant, leaf region and specific leaf location (SLA) of WT and flacca tomato genotypes at the end of the experiment. R1 represents WT plants exposed towards the 1st drought cycle and after that optimally watered for the next 15 days. R3 repreC R1 R3 sents 3-days re-watered plants right after the 3rd drought cycle, even though C represents respective control Leaves FW (g) 31.86 SE 40.75 1.97 c 19.89 differences plants. Values are presented as means0.94 b (n = 4). Unique letters denote substantial 1.63 a Stem FW (g)every single genotype separately, as outlined by Tukey HSD post hoc33.47p1.65 b 26.14 0.59 ab 23.84 2.63 a involving indicates in test 0.05. Plant FW (g) 58.01 1.53 a 64.59 four.60 a 53.37 3.three a Leaves DW (g) 2.08 0.02 b 2.36 0.05 c 1.63 0.07 a WT Stem DW (g) 2.10 0.06 a 2.17 0.30 a 1.70 0.19 a C R1 R3 Plant DW (g) five.78 0.11 ab 6.09 0.41 b four.50 0.36 a Leaves(cm2 )(g) 31.86 63.1 ab 40.75 five.9 b 19.89 1.63 a 1019. 9 0.94 b 1137.9 1.97 c 880.eight 13.9 a LA FW Stem 2 g-1 DW) 26.14 0.59 ab 23.84 2.63a 33.47 1.65 a 490.6 26.eight a 483.two 7.7 a 541.5 16.1 b SLA (cmFW (g) Plant FW (g) 58.01 1.53 a flacca 64.59 4.60 a 53.37 3.three a C R0.05 c R3 1 Leaves DW (g) two.08 0.02 b 2.36 1.63 0.07 a Leaves FW (g) Stem DW (g) Stem FW (g) Plant DW (g) 27.260.06 a two.10 0.63 a 15.84 0.60 b five.78 0.11 ab 43.ten 0.1 ab 1.13 0.01 a 1.05 0.02 a 38.49 0.30 a 2.17 two.07 b 15.55 0.41 b six.09 0.71 ab 54.1 1.six b two.23 0.01 b 1.56 0.01 b 27.08 0.19 a 1.70 3.69 a 13.01 0.36 a 4.50 0.50 a 40.1 4.two a 1.97 0.16 b 0.88 0.09 aPlant FW (g) Leaves DW (g) Stem DW (g)Plants 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW7 ofPlants 2021, 10,7 ofLA (cm ) SLA (cm2 g-1DW)1019. 9 63.1 ab 490.6 26.eight a1137.9 five.9 b 483.2 7.7 a880.eight 13.9 a 541.5 16.1 aTable 1. Cont.flacca C R1 R3 Plant DW (g) 2.91 0.01 aa five.28 0.02 bb 4.16 0.46 ba Leaves FW (g) 27.26 0.63 38.49 2.07 27.08 three.69 2 630.1 3.eight 963.9 eight.7 544.1 41.7 LA Stem (cm 1(g) FW ) 15.84 0.60ab 15.55 0.71 b ab 13.01 0.50 a a 557.7 3.eight c 433.1 3.2 b 276.7 1.1 a SLA (cm2 g- DW) Plant FW (g) 43.ten 0.1 ab 54.1 1.6 b 40.1 4.two a Leaves DW (g) 1.13 0.01 a 2.23 0.01 b 1.97 0.16 b WT plants that Stem DW (g) knowledgeable 0.02successive drought0.01 b compared with 0.09 a or 1.05 three a 1.56 cycles 0.88 controls R1 plants exhibited growth retardation of leaves in addition to a slight improve in stem biomassb the Plant DW (g) two.91 0.01 a 5.28 0.02 b four.16 0.46 at finish from the experiment (Table 1). Around the contrary, flacca showed smaller but but important LA (cm2) 630.1 3.8.