Figures (9)  Tables (3)
    • Figure 1. 

      The effect of natural drought stress on the relative soil moisture content of different apple rootstocks over the duration of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 d. Error bars refer to the average value ± SD from three biological replicates. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05.

    • Figure 2. 

      Morphological changes of leaves among eight genotypes of apple rootstocks. Samples were taken when the relative soil water content reached 65%–75% (mild drought stress), 45%–55% (moderate drought stress), and 25%–35% (severe drought stress); the scale bar = 10 cm. From left to right, the same rootstock represents three states of stress. The anatomical structure of different rootstock leaves under severe drought stress (relative soil water content reached 25%–35%); the scale bar = 250 µm.

    • Figure 3. 

      The effect of different levels of drought on the relative water content (RWC) of leaves on different apple rootstocks. Samples were harvested when the relative soil water content reached 65%–75% (mild drought stress), 45%–55% (moderate drought stress), and 25%–35% (severe drought stress). Error bars refer to the average value ± SD from three biological replicates. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05.

    • Figure 4. 

      The effect of different levels of drought on the photosynthetic parameters, such as photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (Tr), intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci), and stomatal conductance (Gs), in different apple rootstocks. Samples were harvested when the relative soil water content reached 65%–75% (mild drought stress), 45%–55% (moderate drought stress), and 25%–35% (severe drought stress). Error bars refer to the average value ± SD from three biological replicates. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05.

    • Figure 5. 

      The effect of different levels of drought on the contents of photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll and carotenoid) in different apple rootstocks. Samples were harvested when the relative soil water content reached 65%–75% (mild drought stress), 45%–55% (moderate drought stress), and 25%–35% (severe drought stress). Error bars refer to the average value ± SD from three biological replicates. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05.

    • Figure 6. 

      The effect of different levels of drought on the chlorophyll fluorescence (photochemical efficiency of PSII reaction centre, ${\text Φ} $PSII and non-photochemical quenching coefficient, NPQ) in leaves of different apple rootstocks. Samples were harvested when the relative soil water content reached 65%–75% (mild drought stress), 45%–55% (moderate drought stress), and 25%–35% (severe drought stress). Error bars refer to the average value ± SD from three biological replicates. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05.

    • Figure 7. 

      The effect of different levels of drought on the water use efficiency (WUE) of different apple rootstocks. Samples were harvested when the relative soil water content reached 65%–75% (mild drought stress), 45%–55% (moderate drought stress), and 25%–35% (severe drought stress). Error bars refer to the average value ± SD from three biological replicates. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05.

    • Figure 8. 

      The effect of different levels of drought on non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) and reducing sugar content in leaves of different apple rootstocks. Samples were harvested when the relative soil water content reached 65%–75% (mild drought stress), 45%–55% (moderate drought stress), and 25%–35% (severe drought stress). Error bars refer to the average value ± SD from three biological replicates. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05.

    • Figure 9. 

      The effect of different levels of drought on the relative electrical conductivity and root vigor of different apple rootstocks. Samples were harvested when the relative soil water content reached 65%–75% (mild drought stress), 45%–55% (moderate drought stress), and 25%–35% (severe drought stress). Error bars refer to the average value ± SD from three biological replicates. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05.

    • Thickness (μm)'M.9-Nic29''MM.106''MM.111''M.26''B.9''GM256''Qingzhen 1''Fupingqiuzi'
      Leaf thickness155.2 ± 9 f226.5 ± 5 b218.7±7 bc155.1 ± 3 e191.8 ± 4 de179.8 ± 4 f202.6 ± 4 cd292.1 ± 13 a
      Upper epidermis thickness18.6 ± 1 ab19.0 ± 1 a17.1 ± 1 ab16.1 ± 1 abcd14.0 ± 1 cd15.7 ± 1 bcd13.4 ± 1 d16.5 ± 1 abc
      Palisade tissue thickness66.1 ± 5 d94.6 ± 1 b86.0 ± 4 bc65.5 ± 5 d71.6 ± 5 cd70.4 ± 4 cd83.1 ± 5 bc114.0 ± 10 a
      Sponge tissue thickness60.4 ± 7 e103.8 ± 3 bc108.8 ± 8 b67.8 ± 6 de100.7 ± 6 bc84.4 ± 3 cd96.7 ± 10 bc148.5 ± 6 a
      Different letters indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level.

      Table 1. 

      The anatomical structure index values of leaves of different rootstocks.

    • IndexesMembership function value
      'M.9-Nic29''MM.106''MM.111''M.26''B.9''GM256''Qingzhen 1''Fupingqiuzi'
      Pn0.3400.4050.0000.9180.8690.6880.1831.000
      Gs0.6380.4890.9730.2590.9340.5081.0000.000
      Ci0.3070.3900.2050.2370.1800.5221.0000.000
      Tr0.5000.0000.8210.0000.5000.3211.0000.071
      WUE0.5890.0000.2680.6400.8320.6171.0000.404
      Chlorophyll0.7550.5770.0000.4780.7700.4760.6741.000
      Carotenoid0.8290.4290.0000.0350.6280.1630.7041.000
      Soluble sugar0.0000.5420.7640.3820.1120.6310.1001.000
      Starch0.6840.2880.3370.9470.5450.7840.0001.000
      NSC0.1710.4200.5960.5380.2020.6590.0001.000
      Reducing sugar0.0000.0491.0000.3050.1720.2640.3050.586
      Relative water content of leaves0.2210.4850.7210.3670.0370.0001.0000.668
      Root relative Conductivity0.1780.0001.0000.5550.9990.4060.7970.561
      Root vitality0.1000.7080.0000.3011.0000.1190.7680.558
      Leaf thickness0.0040.5210.4640.0000.2680.1800.3461.000
      Upper epidermis thickness0.9271.0000.6590.4930.0510.4190.0000.554
      Palisade tissue thickness0.0120.6010.4240.0000.1260.1000.3631.000
      Sponge tissue thickness0.0000.4930.5500.0840.4570.2730.4121.000
      ${\text Φ} $PSII0.1190.5000.0000.6570.9480.1380.5191.000
      NPQ1.0000.1450.0000.7180.7610.9520.5640.892
      Average score0.3690.4020.4390.3960.5200.4110.5370.715
      Rank86473521
      Photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (Tr), intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci), stomatal conductance (Gs), water use efficiency (WUE), non-structural carbohydrate (NSC), photochemical efficiency of PSII reaction centre (ΦPSII), and non-photochemical quenching coefficient (NPQ).

      Table 2. 

      Membership function value of drought resistance of different apple rootstock.

    • GenotypeSpeciesDwarfing classOriginParents
      'M.9-Nic29'Malus domestica Borkh.DwarfingBelgian Nursery Rene Nicolai N.V.M9
      'MM.106'Malus domestica Borkh.Semi-vigorousEast Malling Research, UKJunxiu × M1
      'MM.111'Malus domestica Borkh.VigorousEast Malling Research, UKJunxiu × M1
      'M.26'Malus domestica Borkh.Semi-DwarfingEast Malling Research, UKM.16 × M.9
      'B.9'Malus domestica BorkhDwarfingMichurin University of former the Soviet UnionM.8 × Red Standard
      'GM256'Malus domestica Borkh.Semi-dwarfingFruit Tree Institute of Jilin Academy of Agricultural SciencesMalus Prunifolia (Willd.) Borkh. × M.9
      'Qingzhen 1'No species nameSemi-dwarfingQingdao Agricultural Academy, ChinaMalus domestica Borkh. × Malus hupehensis Rehd.
      'Fupingqiuzi'Malus prunifolia (Willd.) Borkh.VigorousChinaNatural seedlings of Malus prunifolia Borkh.

      Table 3. 

      Background information about rootstocks used in this study.