Skip to main content
. 2020 Aug 7;11:1213. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.01213

Table 4.

The effect of rootstock and crop load interaction on the accumulation of phytohormones in “Auksis” buds (ng g−1. FW).

Treatment Promoters Inhibitors
Zeatin JA IAA ABA GA7 GA3 GA1
M.26 (75) 9.04 c* 278.2 cd 166.1 cde 8.59 de 188.7 d 18.8 g 2.78 gh
M.26 (113) 10.9 b 358.1 b 238.1 b 11.0 b 213.1 c 35.2 b 12.2 cd
M.26 (150) 12.8 a 438.0 a 310.1 a 13.5 a 237.4 b 51.5 a 21.6 a
M.9 (75) 3.83 hi 157.3 e 94.3 i 3.38 hi 147.9 f 8.99 i 4.59 efg
M.9 (113) 8.20 cd 326.2 bc 148.8 efg 5.01 gh 189.2 d 36.9 b 3.87 fgh
M.9 (150) 6.64 ef 256.6 d 124.3 h 2.82 i 127.2 g 20.2 g 9.74 d
B.396 (75) 6.56 ef 330.7 b 144.9 fg 8.01 de 174.2 e 18.8 g 5.83 ef
B.396 (113) 5.51 fg 251.5 d 150.8 efg 7.12 ef 172.3 e 31.6 c 6.60 e
B.396 (150) 8.77 c 361.8 b 172.4 cd 9.78 bcd 354.4 a 29.1 d 22.5 a
P 67 (75) 5.08 gh 179.2 e 88.4 ij 5.49 fg 166.0 e 15.1 h 1.86 h
P 67 (113) 3.72 i 151.8 e 75.8 j 3.20 hi 96.0 h 15.0 h 2.95 gh
P 67 (150) 7.04 de 312.6 bc 163.2 cdef 3.50 ghi 135.3 fg 28.4 de 10.4 d
P 22 (75) 6.06 efg 327.3 bc 176.8 c 10.8 bc 167.3 e 32.3 c 14.8 bc
P 22 (113) 5.54 fg 247.6 d 156.5 def 7.37 ef 136.1 fg 24.6 f 15.5 b
P 22 (150) 6.31 efg 239.8 d 133.8 gh 8.97 cde 132.1 g 26.2 ef 15.7 b
Effect of rootstock
M.26 10.9 a 358.1 a 238.1 a 11.0 a 213.1 b 35.2 a 12.2 b
M.9 6.22 c 246. 7 c 122.5 c 3.74 d 154.8 c 22.02 d 6.07 c
B.396 6.95 b 314.7 b 156.0 b 8.30 c 233.7 a 26.5 c 11.7 b
P 67 5.28 d 214.5 d 109.1 d 4.06 d 132.4 e 19.5 e 5.07 c
P 22 5.97 c 271.6 c 155.7 b 9.05 b 145.1 d 27.7 b 15.3 a
Effect of crop load
75 6.12c 254.5 b 134.1 c 7.25 ab 168.8 b 18.8 c 5.97 c
113 6.78 b 267.0 b 154.0 b 6.74 b 161.4 c 28.7 b 8.22 b
150 8.32 a 321.8 a 180.8 a 7.70 a 197.3 a 31.1 a 16.0 a

*The different letters on the same column indicate significant differences between treatments, rootstock and crop load separately. The analysis was conducted with all data resulting from 9 trees of “Auksis” apple tree grafted on M.26, M.9, B.396, P 67, and P 22, with crop-load adjusted to 75, 113, and 150 fruits per tree. The data were processed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), the Turkey (HSD) multiple range test at the confidence level p = 0.05.

JA, jasmonic acid; IAA, indolyl-3 acetic acid; ABA, abscisic acid; GA7, GA3, GA1, gibberellins.