Table 1.

Water contents in substrate

Experiment Substrate Weeks Treatment Water in Hydric

(Weeks under substrate potential*
stress) (ml)/(g) (Bars)
Celaya Soil 8 (2) Watered 0,58 +/- 0,05 -3,19 +/- 1,9
Rain-fed 0,33 +/- 0,08 -8,35 +/- 1,5
Drought 0,31 +/- 0,07 -8,11 +/- 1,3
Zacatepec Soil 9 (1) Watered 0,64 +/- 0,02 ND
Drought 0,35 +/- 0,05 ND
Greenhouse Vermiculte: 10 (6) Control 1,81 +/- 0,18 -0,90 +/- 0,4
metromix I. Drought 0,40 +/- 0,06 -5,41 +/- 0,2
T. Drought 0,40 +/- 0,09 -5,42 +/- 0,3

*In Celaya experiment water potential was measured in soil at 20 cm deep. In

greenhouse experiments water potential was estimated using a calibration curve of
water potential in the substrate in relationship to its water content. I. Drought:
intermediate drought. T. Drought: terminal drought.
 Figure 1. Drought
effect over harvest
index in (A) Celaya
experiment (B)
Zactepec experiment.
(C) greenhouse
experiment . (C60)
Canario 60, a drought
a b b ab b b susceptible cv. And
(PV) Pinto Villa a
drought resistant cv.
Columns show average
and bars show standard
error. Different letters
show significant
differences at 5% error.
n = 5 plants

a b a c

a b a ab
Figure 2. Relative Water Content in Calaya field experiment. The RWC was
measure in leaves of eight-week-old plants of a drought susceptible cv (Canario 60),
and, a drought resistant cv (Pinto Villa). The experiment was caring out in Experimental
Field Bajio at Celaya Mexico. At sampling time the plans were under two weeks of
water restriction (see Materials and methods). The samples were collected in morning
between 7 and 9 am and in afternoon between 2 and 4 pm. Columns shows average of 5
plants per treatment and bars shows standard error. Different letters show significant
differences between treatments at 5% error and different symbols show significant
differences between treatments at 10% error
Figure 3. Relative Water Content in Zacatepec field experiment. The RWC was
measure in leaves of nine-week-old plants of Canario 60 (C60), a drought susceptible
cv, and Pinto Villa (PV), a drought resistant cv. The experiment was caring out in
Experimental Field Zacatepec at Jojutla, Mexico. At sampling time the plans were
under one week of treatments (see Materials and methods). The samples were collected
at afternoon between 2 and 4pm. Columns shows average of 4 plants per treatment and
bars shows standard error. Asterisk show significant differences between treatments at
5%
Figure 4. Relative Water Content in greenhouse experiment. The RWC was
measure in leaves of eight-week-old plants of Canario 60 (C60), a drought susceptible
cv, and Pinto Villa (PV), a drought resistant cv. At sampling time the plans were under
tree week of treatments (see Materials and methods). The samples were collected at
afternoon between 2 and 4pm. Columns shows average of 5 plants per treatment and
bars shows standard error. Asterisk show significant differences between treatments at
5%
Figure 5. Stomatal conductivity in Calaya field experiment. The stomatal
conductivity was measure using a steady state Licor Porometer in leaves of eight-week-
old plants of Canario 60, a drought susceptible cv, and Pinto Villa, a drought resistant
cv. At sampling time the plans were under two weeks of treatments in (see Materials
and methods). The measures were done at noon between 12 and 2 pm. Columns shows
average of 5 plants per treatment (average of two different leaves in each plant), bars
shows standard error. Different letters show significant differences between treatments
at 5% error.
Figure 6. Stomatal conductivity in a greenhouse experiment. The stomatal
conductivity was measure using a steady state Licor Porometer in leaves of eight-week-
old plants of Canario 60 (C60), a drought susceptible cv, and Pinto Villa (PV), a
drought resistant cv. At sampling time the plans were under tree week of treatments (see
Materials and methods). The measures were done at noon between 12 and 2 pm. I.
Drought: Intermediate drought. T. Drought: Terminal drought. Columns shows average
of 5 plants per treatment (average of two different leaves in each plant), bars shows
standard error. Different letters show significant differences between treatments at 5%
error