Skip to main content

Table 2 Effect of ECM fungi on root indicators of Pinus tabulaeformis seedlings under different drought intensity treatments. (mean ± standard error)

From: Effects of ectomycorrhizal fungi (Suillus variegatus) on the growth, hydraulic function, and non-structural carbohydrates of Pinus tabulaeformis under drought stress

Drought intensity treatments (T)

ECM fungi (E)

Length (cm)

Surface area (cm2)

Average diameter (mm)

Root volume (cm3)

Tips

Forks

T1

Non-ECM

338.6 ± 13.91 b

55.95 ± 1.28 b

0.54 ± 0.02 c

0.74 ± 0.06 b

845 ± 284 ab

1398 ± 113 a

ECM

460.94 ± 59.85 a

76.55 ± 12.07 a

0.53 ± 0.01 c

1.01 ± 0.19 a

1009 ± 197 a

1728 ± 322 a

T2

Non-ECM

194.59 ± 29.15 c

40.76 ± 8.37 c

0.66 ± 0.05 a

0.68 ± 0.18 b

572 ± 25 bcd

835 ± 127 b

ECM

346.8 ± 43.1 b

56.75 ± 6.9 b

0.53 ± 0.02 c

0.74 ± 0.08 bc

826 ± 126 abc

1500 ± 296 a

T3

Non-ECM

107.95 ± 5.18 d

20.9 ± 1.6 d

0.63 ± 0.01 ab

0.32 ± 0.03 c

299 ± 57 c

487 ± 41 b

ECM

173.74 ± 26.92 c

31.83 ± 3.92 c

0.59 ± 0.02 bc

0.47 ± 0.04 cd

409 ± 98 cd

708 ± 127 b

Effect (P value)

T

**

**

**

**

**

**

E

**

**

**

*

*

**

T & E

ns

ns

**

ns

ns

ns

  1. Note: T1 = non-drought stress, T2 = moderate drought stress, T3 = severe drought stress. Data expressed as mean ± standard error (n = 6). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the means by Tukey (HSD) test (P < 0.05); “*” indicates that the interaction is significant (P<0.05); “**” indicates that the interaction is extremely significant (P<0.01); “ns” indicates no interaction (P ≥ 0.05)