Table 2.

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

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

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)