Table 3.
Effect of ECM fungi on some indicators of Pinus tabulaeformis seedlings under different drought intensity treatments. (mean ± standard error)
| Drought intensity treatments (T) | ECM fungi (E) | Stem biomass (mg) | Stem water content (%) | Stomatal conductance (mmol H2O m−2 s−1) | Intercellular CO2 concentration (μmol CO2 mol− 1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Non-ECM | 108 ± 10 a | 56 ± 15 b | 0.28 ± 0.10 a | 362 ± 19 a |
| ECM | 195 ± 77 a | 56 ± 3.6 b | 0.29 ± 0.10 a | 357 ± 11 a | |
| T2 | Non-ECM | 110 ± 58 a | 61 ± 10 a | 0.04 ± 0.01 b | 315 ± 66 a |
| ECM | 168 ± 91 a | 63 ± 4.3 a | 0.12 ± 0.05 b | 325 ± 26 a | |
| T3 | Non-ECM | 119 ± 10 a | 32 ± 6.2 c | 0.02 ± 0.01 c | 308 ± 67 a |
| ECM | 191 ± 20 a | 37 ± 7.3 c | 0.04 ± 0.01 b | 329 ± 48 a | |
|
Effect (P value) |
T | ns | ** | ** | * |
| E | ns | ns | * | ns | |
| T & E | 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)