Search
2024 Volume 4
Article Contents
ARTICLE   Open Access    

Comprehensive evaluation of abiotic stress tolerance and graft compatibility of Citrus junos cv. 'Shuzhen No.1'

  • # These authors contributed equally: Wen He, Rui Xie

More Information
  • Received: 03 September 2023
    Accepted: 13 November 2023
    Published online: 01 February 2024
    Fruit Research  4 Article number: e006 (2024)  |  Cite this article
  • Citrus is one of the world's most economically important fruit crops cultivated by grafting. To support the growth of scion cultivars, rootstock is the primary source of resistance to various abiotic stresses. Herein, seedlings of two genotypes of Citrus junos Sieb. ex Tanaka (the novel rootstock 'Shuzhen No.1' and commonly used rootstock 'Ziyang Xiangcheng'), as well as three commonly used rootstocks including citrange (Citrus sinensis Osbeck. × Poncirus trifoliata Raf.), trifoliate orange (P. trifoliata), and red tangerine (Citrus tangerine Hort. Ex Tanaka), were used as testing materials. The seed characteristics were evaluated, and the rootstock seedlings were subjected to flooding, drought, alkaline, and freezing treatments. Over time, the contents of chlorophyll, soluble sugar, proline, malondialdehyde, and the activity of superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, and catalase in the leaves under different treatments were examined. Furthermore, five citrus varieties were grafted as scions onto one-year-old seedlings from the four rootstocks. Graft success, shoot growth, and leaf greenness were measured and compared. The physiological and biochemical changes in 'Shuzhen No.1' were found to be similar to those in 'Ziyang Xiangcheng'. 'Shuzhen No.1' exhibited greater tolerance to flooding, alkaline, and freezing stress compared to the other four widely used citrus rootstocks, as indicated by physiological and biochemical indexes and principal component analysis. Moreover, the five citrus varieties grafted onto 'Shuzhen No.1' demonstrated vigorous growth and tree vigor. These findings provide valuable insights for the application of 'Shuzhen No.1' and future research on citrus rootstock.
  • 加载中
  • [1]

    Wu GA, Terol J, Ibanez V, López-García A, Pérez-Román E, et al. 2018. Genomics of the origin and evolution of Citrus. Nature 554:311−16

    doi: 10.1038/nature25447

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2]

    Xie R, Zheng L, Jiao Y, Huang X. 2021. Understanding physiological and molecular mechanisms of citrus rootstock seedlings in response to root zone hypoxia by RNA-Seq. Environmental and Experimental Botany 192:104647

    doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2021.104647

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3]

    Balfagón D, Rambla JL, Granell A, Arbona V, Gómez-Cadenas A. 2022. Grafting improves tolerance to combined drought and heat stresses by modifying metabolism in citrus scion. Environmental and Experimental Botany 195:104793

    doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2022.104793

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4]

    Primo-Capella A, Forner-Giner MÁ, Martínez-Cuenca M, Terol J. 2022. Comparative transcriptomic analyses of citrus cold-resistant vs. sensitive rootstocks might suggest a relevant role of ABA signaling in triggering cold scion adaption. BMC Plant Biology 22:209

    doi: 10.1186/s12870-022-03578-w

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5]

    Wu J, Cao J, Su M, Feng G, Xu Y, et al. 2019. Genome-wide comprehensive analysis of transcriptomes and small RNAs offers insights into the molecular mechanism of alkaline stress tolerance in a citrus rootstock. Horticulture Research 6:33

    doi: 10.1038/s41438-018-0116-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6]

    Fan Z, Wu Y, Zhao L, Fu L, Deng L, et al. 2022. MYB308-mediated transcriptional activation of plasma membrane H+ -ATPase 6 promotes iron uptake in citrus. Horticulture Research 9:uhac88

    doi: 10.1093/hr/uhac088

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7]

    Habibi F, Liu T, Folta K, Sarkhosh A. 2022. Physiological, biochemical, and molecular aspects of grafting in fruit trees. Horticulture Research 9:uhac32

    doi: 10.1093/hr/uhac032

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8]

    Yang L, Xia L, Zeng Y, Han Q, Zhang S. 2022. Grafting enhances plants drought resistance: current understanding, mechanisms, and future perspectives. Frontiers in Plant Science 13:1015317

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.1015317

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9]

    Warschefsky EJ, Klein LL, Frank MH, Chitwood DH, Londo JP, et al. 2016. Rootstocks: Diversity, domestication, and impacts on shoot phenotypes. Trends in Plant Science 21:418−37

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2015.11.008

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10]

    Raiol-Junior LL, de Carvalho EV, Moreira AS, Marques JPR, Stuchi ES, et al. 2022. Graft compatibility classification within Aurantioideae based on biometric traits and the anatomy of graft union. Agriculture 12:76

    doi: 10.3390/agriculture12010076

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11]

    Shimada T, Endo T, Fujii H, Nakano M, Sugiyama A, et al. 2018. MITE insertion-dependent expression of CitRKD1 with a RWP-RK domain regulates somatic embryogenesis in citrus nucellar tissues. BMC Plant Biology 18(1):166

    doi: 10.1186/s12870-018-1369-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12]

    Wang X, Xu Y, Zhang S, Cao L, Huang Y, et al. 2017. Genomic analyses of primitive, wild and cultivated citrus provide insights into asexual reproduction. Nature Genetics 49:765−72

    doi: 10.1038/ng.3839

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    Peng Z, Bredeson JV, Wu GA, Shu S, Rawat N, et al. 2020. A chromosome-scale reference genome of trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata) provides insights into disease resistance, cold tolerance and genome evolution in Citrus. The Plant Journal 104:1215−32

    doi: 10.1111/tpj.14993

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14]

    He W, Xie R, Luo L, Chai J, Wang H, et al. 2022. Comparative transcriptomic analysis of inarching invigorating rootstock onto incompatible grafts in Citrus. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23:14523

    doi: 10.3390/ijms232314523

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15]

    He W, Xie R, Wang Y, Chen Q, Wang H, et al. 2022. Comparative transcriptomic analysis on compatible/incompatible grafts in Citrus. Horticulture Research 9:uhab72

    doi: 10.1093/hr/uhab072

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16]

    He W, Wang Y, Chen Q, Sun B, Tang H, et al. 2018. Dissection of the mechanism for compatible and incompatible graft combinations of Citrus grandis (L.) Osbeck ('Hongmian Miyou'). International Journal of Molecular Sciences 19:505

    doi: 10.3390/ijms19020505

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17]

    Zhu S, Nong J, Luo G, Li Q, Wang F, et al. 2021. Varied tolerance and different responses of five citrus rootstocks to acid stress by principle component analysis and orthogonal analysis. Scientia Horticulturae 278:109853

    doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109853

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18]

    Balfagón D, Terán F, de Oliveira TDR, Santa-Catarina C, Gómez-Cadenas A. 2022. Citrus rootstocks modify scion antioxidant system under drought and heat stress combination. Plant Cell Reports 41:593−602

    doi: 10.1007/s00299-021-02744-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19]

    Zhu S, Chen J, Ma Y, Yan S, Zhong G. 2013. Advances in the studies on citrus rootstock evaluation and application. Acta Horticulturae Sinica 40:1669−78

    Google Scholar

    [20]

    Jiang J, Hou R, Yang N, Li L, Deng J, et al. 2021. Physiological and TMT-labeled proteomic analyses reveal important roles of sugar and secondary metabolism in Citrus junos under cold stress. Journal of Proteomics 237:104145

    doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2021.104145

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21]

    Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Alam MM, Roychowdhury R, Fujita M. 2013. Physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms of heat stress tolerance in plants. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 14:9643−84

    doi: 10.3390/ijms14059643

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22]

    Dumanović J, Nepovimova E, Natić M, Kuča K, Jaćević V. 2021. The significance of reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense system in plants: a concise overview. Frontiers in Plant Science 11:552969

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.552969

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23]

    Gill SS, Tuteja N. 2010. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 48:909−30

    doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24]

    Ozgur R, Uzilday B, Sekmen AH, Turkan I. 2013. Reactive oxygen species regulation and antioxidant defence in halophytes. Functional Plant Biology 40:832−47

    doi: 10.1071/FP12389

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25]

    Jiang M, Zhang J. 2002. Water stress - induced abscisic acid accumulation triggers the increased generation of reactive oxygen species and up - regulates the activities of antioxidant enzymes in maize leaves. Journal of Experimental Botany 53:2401−10

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/erf090

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26]

    Xie R, He W, Chai J, Luo L, Wang Y, et al. 2022. A study of scion phenotypes in pummelo grafted onto a new citrus rootstock Citrus junos 'Pujiang Xiangcheng'. Horticulturae 8:1039

    doi: 10.3390/horticulturae8111039

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27]

    Fu X, Huang X, Chen T, Zhang J, Wang Y, et al. 2017. A new citrus rootstock 'Pujiang Xiangcheng' (Citrus junos). Journal of Fruit Science 34:917−20

    doi: 10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.20170069

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28]

    Wellburn AR, Lichtenthaler H. 1984. Formulae and program to determine total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. In Advances in Photosynthesis Research. Advances in Agricultural Biotechnology, ed. Sybesma C, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. pp 9−12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6368-4_3

    [29]

    Shahid MA, Balal RM, Khan N, Simón-Grao S, Alfosea-Simón M, et al. 2019. Rootstocks influence the salt tolerance of Kinnow mandarin trees by altering the antioxidant defense system, osmolyte concentration, and toxic ion accumulation. Scientia Horticulturae 250:1−11

    doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.02.028

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30]

    Landi M. 2017. Commentary to: "Improving the thiobarbituric acid-reactive-substances assay for estimating lipid peroxidation in plant tissues containing anthocyanin and other interfering compounds" by Hodges et al., Planta (1999) 207:604–611. Planta 245:1067

    doi: 10.1007/s00425-017-2699-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31]

    Zaher-Ara T, Boroomand N, Sadat-Hosseini M. 2016. Physiological and morphological response to drought stress in seedlings of ten citrus. Trees 30:985−93

    doi: 10.1007/s00468-016-1372-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32]

    Ko D, Helariutta Y. 2017. Shoot–root communication in flowering plants. Current Biology 27:R973−R978

    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.054

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33]

    Dong D, Shi Y, Mou Z, Chen S, Zhao D. 2022. Grafting: a potential method to reveal the differential accumulation mechanism of secondary metabolites. Horticulture Research 9:uhac50

    doi: 10.1093/hr/uhac050

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34]

    Mahmoud LM, Huyck PJ, Vincent CI, Gmitter FG Jr, Grosser JW, et al. 2021. Physiological responses and gene expression patterns in open-pollinated seedlings of a pummelo-mandarin hybrid rootstock exposed to salt stress and Huanglongbing. Plants 10:1439

    doi: 10.3390/plants10071439

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35]

    Ziogas V, Tanou G, Filippou P, Diamantidis G, Vasilakakis M, et al. 2013. Nitrosative responses in citrus plants exposed to six abiotic stress conditions. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 68:118−26

    doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2013.04.004

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36]

    Lawson T, Blatt MR. 2014. Stomatal size, speed, and responsiveness impact on photosynthesis and water use efficiency. Plant Physiology 164:1556−70

    doi: 10.1104/pp.114.237107

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37]

    García-Caparrós P, De Filippis L, Gul A, Hasanuzzaman M, Ozturk M, et al. 2021. Oxidative stress and antioxidant metabolism under adverse environmental conditions: a review. The Botanical Review 87:421−66

    doi: 10.1007/s12229-020-09231-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [38]

    Yang C, Wang P, Li C, Shi D, Wang D. 2008. Comparison of effects of salt and alkali stresses on the growth and photosynthesis of wheat. Photosynthetica 46:107−14

    doi: 10.1007/s11099-008-0018-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39]

    Pietrini F, Chaudhuri D, Thapliyal AP, Massacci A. 2005. Analysis of chlorophyll fluorescence transients in mandarin leaves during a photo-oxidative cold shock and recovery. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 106:189−98

    doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2004.10.007

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40]

    Khan M, Hu J, Dahro B, Ming R, Zhang Y, et al. 2021. ERF108 from Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf. functions in cold tolerance by modulating raffinose synthesis through transcriptional regulation of PtrRafS. The Plant Journal 108:705−24

    doi: 10.1111/tpj.15465

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41]

    Zhang Y, Ming R, Khan M, Wang Y, Dahro B, et al. 2022. ERF9 of Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf. undergoes feedback regulation by ethylene and modulates cold tolerance via regulating a glutathione S-transferase U17 gene. Plant Biotechnology Journal 20:183−200

    Google Scholar

    [42]

    Geng J, Wei T, Wang Y, Huang X, Liu J, et al. 2019. Overexpression of PtrbHLH, a basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor from Poncirus trifoliata, confers enhanced cold tolerance in pummelo (Citrus grandis) by modulation of H2O2 level via regulating a CAT gene. Tree Physiology 39:2045−54

    doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpz081

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43]

    Arbona V, Hossain Z, López-Climent MF, Pérez-Clemente RM, Gómez-Cadenas A. 2008. Antioxidant enzymatic activity is linked to waterlogging stress tolerance in citrus. Physiologia Plantarum 132:452−66

    doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2007.01029.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44]

    De Carvalho DU, Leite RP Junior, Yada IFU, Tazima ZH. 2022. Trifoliate orange-related rootstocks enhance the horticultural performance of 'Shamouti' sweet orange under humid subtropical condition. Agriculture 12:1782

    doi: 10.3390/agriculture12111782

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [45]

    Zhu S, Huang T, Yu X, Hong Q, Xiang J, et al. 2020. The effects of rootstocks on performances of three late-ripening navel orange varieties. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 19:1802−12

    doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63212-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [46]

    Cantuarias-Avilés T, Mourão Filho FDAA, Stuchi ES, Da Silva SR, Espinoza-Nuñez E. 2011. Horticultural performance of 'Folha Murcha' sweet orange onto twelve rootstocks. Scientia Horticulturae 129:259−65

    doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.03.039

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    He W, Xie R, Chai J, Wang H, Wang Y, et al. 2023. Comprehensive evaluation of abiotic stress tolerance and graft compatibility of Citrus junos cv. 'Shuzhen No.1'. Fruit Research 4: e006 doi: 10.48130/frures-0023-0042
    He W, Xie R, Chai J, Wang H, Wang Y, et al. 2023. Comprehensive evaluation of abiotic stress tolerance and graft compatibility of Citrus junos cv. 'Shuzhen No.1'. Fruit Research 4: e006 doi: 10.48130/frures-0023-0042

Figures(2)  /  Tables(6)

Article Metrics

Article views(2828) PDF downloads(315)

ARTICLE   Open Access    

Comprehensive evaluation of abiotic stress tolerance and graft compatibility of Citrus junos cv. 'Shuzhen No.1'

Fruit Research  4 Article number: e006  (2024)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Citrus is one of the world's most economically important fruit crops cultivated by grafting. To support the growth of scion cultivars, rootstock is the primary source of resistance to various abiotic stresses. Herein, seedlings of two genotypes of Citrus junos Sieb. ex Tanaka (the novel rootstock 'Shuzhen No.1' and commonly used rootstock 'Ziyang Xiangcheng'), as well as three commonly used rootstocks including citrange (Citrus sinensis Osbeck. × Poncirus trifoliata Raf.), trifoliate orange (P. trifoliata), and red tangerine (Citrus tangerine Hort. Ex Tanaka), were used as testing materials. The seed characteristics were evaluated, and the rootstock seedlings were subjected to flooding, drought, alkaline, and freezing treatments. Over time, the contents of chlorophyll, soluble sugar, proline, malondialdehyde, and the activity of superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, and catalase in the leaves under different treatments were examined. Furthermore, five citrus varieties were grafted as scions onto one-year-old seedlings from the four rootstocks. Graft success, shoot growth, and leaf greenness were measured and compared. The physiological and biochemical changes in 'Shuzhen No.1' were found to be similar to those in 'Ziyang Xiangcheng'. 'Shuzhen No.1' exhibited greater tolerance to flooding, alkaline, and freezing stress compared to the other four widely used citrus rootstocks, as indicated by physiological and biochemical indexes and principal component analysis. Moreover, the five citrus varieties grafted onto 'Shuzhen No.1' demonstrated vigorous growth and tree vigor. These findings provide valuable insights for the application of 'Shuzhen No.1' and future research on citrus rootstock.

    • Citrus is the world's most economically important fruit crop, and the majority of citrus is grown in mountainous regions with barren soil[1]. Citrus productivity can be greatly affected by environmental changes, such as brief periods of flooding, drought, or cold[24]. Moreover, citrus is susceptible to alkaline soils and exhibits leaf/shoot chlorosis, limiting its geographical distribution[5,6]. Citrus is cultivated through grafting, and rootstock can modify scion architecture and act as the core source of resistance to various stresses, allowing the upper section growth of scion cultivars to thrive[7,8]. With growing interest in perennial crops as valuable components of sustainable agriculture, rootstocks provide an approach for improving and expanding citrus perennial cultivation under various environmental conditions[9].

      Generally, rootstock selection and use are mainly determined by compatibility, orchard soil conditions, and local citriculture practice[10]. Germplasm with polyembryonicity, which can develop one or more somatic embryos that are genetically identical to the mother tree, is often selected for citrus rootstock due to genetically uniform rootstocks which can feasibly be prepared solely by sowing seeds[11,12]. Many rootstocks are used in citrus cultivation. Trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf) is widely used in citrus breeding owing to its cold hardiness and disease resistance[13]. However, trifoliate orange is sensitive to alkalinity and mineral deficiency and is incompatible with some citrus cultivars[5,1416]. Citrange (Citrus sinensis × P. trifoliata) is drought tolerant yet susceptible to salt and alkalinity[17,18]. Red tangerine (Citrus reticulata Blanco) is resistant to B-deficiency and citrus exocortis viroid (CEVd); however, the fruit quality of scion degrades when red tangerine is used as a rootstock[19]. Citrus junos Sieb. Ex Tanaka is an iron-deficient, alkaline-, cold- and acid-tolerant citrus rootstock native to southwest China[5,17,20]. Abiotic stresses can alter osmotic equilibrium and induce oxidative stress in plants through excessive generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS)[21,22]. Plants neutralize these ROS through different mechanisms, which can be classified as non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidant systems, including antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidases (POD), and catalase (CAT)[2325]. Tolerant species or genotypes exhibit higher antioxidant enzyme activities than sensitive genotypes. Investigating tolerance to different abiotic stresses is critical for identifying the genetic resource for abiotic stress tolerance. Although rootstock can influence the agronomic performance of citrus trees, some widely used rootstocks may still demonstrate graft incompatibility in the orchard[9, 10]. Graft compatibility of intergeneric and intrafamilial species represents a tremendous agronomic potential for genetic improvement and improved crop management by combining unique traits from wild relative rootstocks with commercial citrus scion varieties[7].

      In our previous citrus rootstock breeding effort, we reported a novel rootstock cultivar, C. junos cv. Shuzhen No.1, with vigorous growth, spherical crown, upright and dense hard branches, cold resistance, and robust adaptation to basic soil conditions[26, 27]. Therefore, this study compared the differences in seed germination characteristics, abiotic tolerance (drought, flooding, alkaline, and freezing), and grafted plant performance between 'Shuzhen No.1' and other common citrus rootstocks. This study determined the polyembryony and seedling emergence traits of five citrus rootstocks, comprehensively evaluated the tolerance responses of different genotypes of citrus rootstock, and provided information on the performances of five citrus varieties on rootstocks. Our findings provide insights into rootstock selection and promote the utilization of the new citrus rootstock 'Shuzhen No.1'.

    • Mature fruits of 'Shuzhen No.1' (abbreviated CjSz), trifoliate orange (Pt), red tangerine (Ct), citrange (Cp), and 'Ziyang Xiangcheng' (CjZy) were harvested for collecting seeds from the Citrus Germplasms Repository of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, China. Isolated seeds were surface sterilized using 0.5 M NaOH as described previously[17]. Uniform-sized seedlings were selected and grown in a growth chamber in perlite-filled pots. All seedlings were cultured for approximately six months with normal watering and fertilization.

    • Two hundred viable seeds (not replicated) were selected from each rootstock, and the following parameters were assessed: (1) cumulative seedling number, (2) percentage of single seed emergence, and (3) polyembryony. CitRWP plays a principal role in regulating somatic embryogenesis in citrus nucellar tissues, and its alleles were divided into two types and polyembryonic alleles with a MITE insertion[11,12]. The absence or presence of the MITE insertion was evaluated with genomic PCR using the following primer set: forward 5ʹ-GTTACTTGGAGACGGCCTAACG-3ʹ and reverse 5'-TCGATCATGTAATGCTGACTC-3ʹ[11].

    • Abiotic stress treatments included flooding (roots submerged in water with only stem and leaves exposed to the environment for 6 and 7 weeks), drought (20% soil water content for 1 and 2 weeks), alkalinity (watering distilled water with pH 8.0 and 9.0 for 8 weeks), and freezing (–10 °C for 1 and 2 h) were performed. Three biological replicates (five seedlings per replicate) were set randomly for each treatment. All leaves were sampled from five rootstocks, frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at –80 °C.

    • The total chlorophyll and carotenoid contents were measured using the method reported by Lichtenthaler & Buschmann[28]. Fresh leaves (1 g) were ground in a freezing mortar and pestle with 10 mL of 80% acetone. Following filtering, the pigment solution's optical density (OD) was measured at 470, 645, and 663 nm to determine carotenoid, chlorophyll (Chl) a, Chl b, and total Chl content, respectively. The assessed photosynthetic pigments were presented in mg/g fresh weight (FW). Antioxidant enzyme activities of SOD (EC 1.15.1.1), guaiacol peroxidase (POD, EC 1.11.1.7), and CAT (EC 1.11.1.6) were determined as previously described[29]. Malondialdehyde (MDA) content was measured using the thiobarbituric acid (TBA) method[30]. Soluble sugars and proteins were analyzed as previously described[31]. To minimize the differences between different genotypes, the data were expressed as ratios relative to the values of control groups.

    • 'Chunjian' (C. reticulata × (C. reticulata × C. sinensis)), 'Buzhihuo' (C. unshiu × C. sinensis), 'Mingrijian' ((C. unshiu × C. hassaku) × C. sinensis), 'Dafen' (C. unshiu), and 'Tarocco' (C. sinensis) were grafted onto four rootstocks, including CjSz, CjZy, Ct, and Pt. Ninety seedlings were cultured for 1 month with normal watering and fertilization, and their survival rates were measured on March 30th, 2019. Tree growth and leaf greenness were assessed in 5–10 grafted trees in each cultivar. Stem thicknesses below and above the graft joint were measured using a vernier caliper on October 30th, 2020. Shoot length and longitudinal and horizontal growth of trees were recorded using a tape measure from summer shoots on October 30th, 2020. Ten mature leaves from summer shoots were selected from each tree to measure soil-plant analysis development (SPAD) with a SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter.

    • Microsoft Excel was used to prepare the collected data. Significant differences between grafted combinations were analyzed using Tukey's method, and Pearson correlation and principal component analyses were performed using SPSS 20.0 software. All figures were drawn using GraphPad Prism (v. 7.04).

    • Compared with CjZy, CjSz has a spherical crown and upright and dense hard branches (Fig. 1a, b). CjSz and CjZy had solitary flowers (Fig. 1c, d). However, the lateral petals of CjSz are purple from bud to bloom, with a flower diameter of 2.0 cm (Fig. 1c). The fruits of both CjSz and CjZy were orange in color at maturity (Fig. 1c, d) and both were polyembryonic (Fig. 1c, d). Citrus rootstock seeds germinated 40–45 d after seeding and stopped germinating 95–100 d later (Fig. 1e). CjSz had the greatest emergence rate and polyembryonic ratio among the tested rootstocks, reaching 160.77% and 70.69%, respectively (Fig. 1e, f). The germination potential was 25.50%, which was lower than that of trifoliate orange (29.00%) but higher than that of CjZy, citrange, and red tangerine (Fig. 1e). According to statistics on single seed emergences, CjSz had the most single seed emergences (two, up to 44.83%), slightly lower than CjZy (46.76%) but higher than Pt, Ct, and Cp. The proportion of CjSz was highest among the five tested rootstocks, at 18.72% (three seedlings), 4.39% (four seedlings), 1.48% (five seedlings), and 0.49% (six seedlings). Additionally, the maximum number of seedlings per grain was seven (Fig. 1f). These results are consistent with the MITE insertion detection results (Fig. 1g). Apomixis in citrus is sporophytic and highly stable across commercial varieties. Citrus junos fruits were densely seeded, with most of the seeds being plump and polyembryonic, which can generate large numbers of uniform rootstocks from seeds[12,31].

      Figure 1. 

      Comparison of morphology between two genotypes of Citrus junos. (a), (b) Six year old trees; (c), (d) flowers, fruits and seeds; (e) cumulative number of seedlings; (f) percentage of single seed emergence; (g) MITE insertion in five rootstock germplasms. CjSz: Shuzhen No.1 (Citrus. junos Sieb. Tanaka); CjZy: Ziyang Xiangcheng (C. junos Sieb. Tanaka); Cp: citrange (C. sinensis Osbeck. × Poncirus trifoliate Raf.); Pt: trifoliate orange (P. trifoliate [L.] Raf) and Ct: Red tangerine (C. tangerine Hort. Ex Tanaka). Scale bars = 1 cm.

    • All genotypes developed leaf chlorosis at the end of the abiotic stress treatments (Fig. 2). Almost all treatments reduced the content of leaf photosynthetic pigments in all rootstocks (Table 1). Comparing the pigment content data among the different rootstocks, it is evident that CjSz demonstrated better adaptability to alkaline and freezing stresses (Table 1, Fig. 2). Specifically, under alkaline treatment with a pH of 8.0, CjSz exhibited the smallest decrease in leaf photosynthetic pigments content. In the case of alkaline treatment with a pH of 9.0, CjSz displayed similar levels of leaf chlorina compared to Cp, followed by CjZy, Pt and Ct. Similarly, under freezing treatment for 1 h, the ratios of Chl a, total Chl and total carotenoids in CjSz were higher than in other rootstocks, although the differences were not statistically significant. More specifically, among the different treatments, CjSz experienced the greatest decrease in Chl a, Chl b, and total Chl under 2 weeks of drought treatment, with ratios of 0.48, 0.64, and 0.53, respectively. Conversely, CjSz demonstrated the least decrease under freezing treatment for 1 h, with ratios of 0.96, 1.05, and 0.99, respectively (Table 1). The total carotenoid content in CjSz experienced the most significant decrease after 2 weeks of drought treatment, while the least decrease occurred under alkaline treatment with a pH of 8.0 (Table 1).

      Figure 2. 

      Growth state of five rootstocks under abiotic stresses. (a) Flooding stress; (b) drought stress; (c) alkaline stress (pH = 8.0 and pH = 9.0); (d) freezing stress.

      Table 1.  Statistics for chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, total chlorophyll and total carotenoid compared with controls.

      SpeciesFlooding stressDrought stressAlkaline stressFreezing stress
      6 weeks7 weeks1 week2 weekspH = 8.0pH = 9.01 h2 h
      Chl aCjSz0.72 ± 0.12a0.60 ± 0.04a0.53 ± 0.08a0.48 ± 0.15a0.86 ± 0.26a0.74 ± 0.35ab0.96 ± 0.24a0.83 ± 0.11a
      CjZy0.67 ± 0.22a0.68 ± 0.09a0.59 ± 0.16a0.45 ± 0.22a0.79 ± 0.14a0.69 ± 0.19ab0.85 ± 0.17a0.79 ± 0.19a
      Cp0.77 ± 0.26a0.69 ± 0.26a0.66 ± 0.28a0.61 ± 0.16a0.83 ± 0.26a0.77 ± 0.20a0.88 ± 0.12a0.85 ± 0.18a
      Pt0.63 ± 0.06ab0.63 ± 0.19a0.63 ± 0.03a0.60 ± 0.08a0.72 ± 0.03ab0.68 ± 0.07ab0.91 ± 0.20a0.88 ± 0.05a
      Ct0.44 ± 0.10b0.38 ± 0.09b0.28 ± 0.05b0.23 ± 0.07b0.48 ± 0.04b0.47 ± 0.07b0.92 ± 0.06a0.69 ± 0.15a
      Chl bCjSz0.78 ± 0.12a0.70 ± 0.08a0.67 ± 0.14a0.64 ± 0.15a0.87 ± 0.26a0.77 ± 0.31a1.05 ± 0.22a1.00 ± 0.12a
      CjZy0.70 ± 0.20a0.65 ± 0.09a0.72 ± 0.09a0.52 ± 0.20a0.76 ± 0.11a0.74 ± 0.13a0.86 ± 0.11ab0.92 ± 0.17ab
      Cp0.76 ± 0.24a0.68 ± 0.25a0.71 ± 0.25a0.68 ± 0.15a0.85 ± 0.18a0.78 ± 0.16a0.82 ± 0.09b0.83 ± 0.11b
      Pt0.71 ± 0.13a0.66 ± 0.20a0.66 ± 0.05a0.68 ± 0.11a0.69 ± 0.09ab0.66 ± 0.08ab0.86 ± 0.19ab0.87 ± 0.11ab
      Ct0.47 ± 0.09b0.50 ± 0.12a0.39 ± 0.04b0.33 ± 0.06b0.51 ± 0.04b0.47 ± 0.05b1.00 ± 0.10ab0.64 ± 0.12c
      TotalCjSz0.74 ± 0.12a0.63 ± 0.05ab0.57 ± 0.10a0.53 ± 0.15a0.86 ± 0.26a0.75 ± 0.33a0.99 ± 0.23a0.89 ± 0.12a
      ChlCjZy0.68 ± 0.21a0.67 ± 0.09a0.63 ± 0.14a0.47 ± 0.21a0.78 ± 0.13a0.71 ± 0.17ab0.85 ± 0.15a0.84 ± 0.19ab
      Cp0.76 ± 0.25a0.68 ± 0.26a0.67 ± 0.27a0.63 ± 0.16a0.84 ± 0.23a0.77 ± 0.19a0.86 ± 0.11a0.84 ± 0.15ab
      Pt0.65 ± 0.08ab0.64 ± 0.19a0.63 ± 0.03a0.63 ± 0.09a0.71 ± 0.05ab0.67 ± 0.07ab0.89 ± 0.19a0.87 ± 0.07a
      Ct0.45 ± 0.10b0.42 ± 0.10b0.32 ± 0.04b0.27 ± 0.07b0.49 ± 0.03b0.47 ± 0.06b0.95 ± 0.08a0.67 ± 0.14b
      TotalCjSz0.83 ± 0.12a0.65 ± 0.10a0.68 ± 0.11a0.55 ± 0.18ab0.96 ± 0.30a0.71 ± 0.27a0.96 ± 0.20a0.95 ± 0.13a
      CarCjZy0.62 ± 0.15bc0.65 ± 0.08a0.56 ± 0.14a0.51 ± 0.25ab0.68 ± 0.11bc0.69 ± 0.12ab0.77 ± 0.14a0.76 ± 0.12bc
      Cp0.76 ± 0.24ab0.67 ± 0.23a0.63 ± 0.19a0.69 ± 0.13a0.79 ± 0.15ab0.75 ± 0.17a0.92 ± 0.06a0.86 ± 0.14ab
      Pt0.69 ± 0.08ab0.62 ± 0.16ab0.64 ± 0.04a0.65 ± 0.09a0.73 ± 0.04b0.63 ± 0.05ab0.91 ± 0.23a0.95 ± 0.05a
      Ct0.45 ± 0.12c0.43 ± 0.13b0.38 ± 0.05b0.37 ± 0.10b0.47 ± 0.03c0.49 ± 0.05b0.89 ± 0.14a0.67 ± 0.14c
      Note: Chl: chlorophyll, Car: carotenoids. Data shown in the table are expressed as ratios relative to the values obtained on control seedlings. Three biological replicates (five seedlings per replicate) were set randomly for each treatment. Significance was tested for indicators of different rootstocks in the same treatment, and different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
    • The levels of MDA, and the activities of SOD, POD, and CAT were significantly influenced by abiotic stresses (Table 2). CAT activity decreased under flooding, alkaline, and freezing stress, but slightly increased under drought stress. MDA levels and SOD and POD activities increased under flooding, drought, alkaline, and freezing stresses in all citrus rootstock genotypes (Table 2). However, CAT activity decreased under abiotic stress. Among the genotypes, CjSz exhibited the highest increase in MDA levels during 7 weeks of flooding treatment, and the lowest increase during 1 h of freezing treatment. SOD activity in CjSz showed the greatest increase after 7 weeks of flooding treatment and the smallest increase after alkaline stress treatment at pH 8.0. CjSz had the highest POD activity ratio of 1.62 under freezing stress, and the lowest value of 1.25 under 2 weeks of drought treatment. In comparison to the other four rootstocks, CjSz had the highest SOD ratio value (1.71) under 7 weeks of flooding stress. Additionally, CjSz exhibited the highest POD ratio value under alkaline (1.37 and 1.46) and freezing stresses (1.62). Under drought stress, CjSz had significantly lower MDA and POD ratio values than the other four rootstocks.

      Table 2.  Mean comparison of malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and peroxidase (POD).

      SpeciesFlooding stressDrought stressAlkaline stressFreezing stress
      6 weeks7 weeks1 week2 weekspH = 8.0pH = 9.01 h2 h
      MDACjSz1.42 ± 0.30bc2.02 ± 0.16ab1.07 ± 0.11d1.90 ± 0.26b1.11 ± 0.11b1.50 ± 0.13c1.02 ± 0.22b1.24 ± 0.39b
      CjZy1.45 ± 0.17bc1.81 ± 0.30b1.79 ± 0.22b2.10 ± 0.14a1.47 ± 0.30ab1.75 ± 0.28bc1.02 ± 0.13b1.15 ± 0.27b
      Cp1.67 ± 0.20ab1.84 ± 0.41b1.31 ± 0.23cd2.25 ± 0.61a1.33 ± 0.39ab1.36 ± 0.20c1.49 ± 0.29a1.92 ± 0.63a
      Pt1.26 ± 0.16c1.48 ± 0.34b1.45 ± 0.31bc2.03 ± 0.43a1.84 ± 0.40a2.41 ± 0.42a0.91 ± 0.34b1.01 ± 0.54b
      Ct1.75 ± 0.25a2.42 ± 0.66a2.30 ± 0.36a2.29 ± 0.37a1.36 ± 0.10ab1.92 ± 0.36b1.00 ± 0.17b1.46 ± 0.26ab
      SODCjSz1.60 ± 0.26a1.71 ± 0.03a1.53 ± 0.02ab1.63 ± 0.11a1.25 ± 0.08a1.31 ± 0.15ab1.31 ± 0.06ab1.35 ± 0.16a
      CjZy1.65 ± 0.10a1.70 ± 0.07a1.62 ± 0.07a1.71 ± 0.06a1.31 ± 0.29a1.36 ± 0.29a1.12 ± 0.27b1.54 ± 0.21a
      Cp1.25 ± 0.18c1.19 ± 0.18b1.18 ± 0.16c1.15 ± 0.15b1.12 ± 0.05ab1.26 ± 0.02ab1.25 ± 0.17ab1.05 ± 0.23b
      Pt1.56 ± 0.10ab1.50 ± 0.46ab1.69 ± 0.16a1.51 ± 0.28a0.94 ± 0.30b0.94 ± 0.39c1.39 ± 0.19a1.56 ± 0.11a
      Ct1.36 ± 0.10bc1.61 ± 0.18a1.35 ± 0.17bc1.23 ± 0.18b1.08 ± 0.07ab1.04 ± 0.09bc1.18 ± 0.24ab1.07 ± 0.08b
      PODCjSz1.40 ± 0.31a1.50 ± 0.10ab1.25 ± 0.38c1.45 ± 0.61b1.37 ± 0.49a1.46 ± 0.22a1.62 ± 0.32ab1.62 ± 0.37a
      CjZy1.61 ± 0.33a1.62 ± 0.38ab2.23 ± 0.68ab2.69 ± 0.72a1.29 ± 0.24a1.38 ± 0.54a1.25 ± 0.66b1.55 ± 0.59a
      Cp1.45 ± 0.16a2.16 ± 0.86a2.59 ± 1.09a2.90 ± 0.70a1.27 ± 0.28a1.31 ± 0.32a1.28 ± 0.44b1.46 ± 0.49a
      Pt0.85 ± 0.17b1.25 ± 0.21b1.40 ± 0.41bc1.57 ± 0.50b0.83 ± 0.22b1.17 ± 0.32a1.85 ± 0.28a1.83 ± 0.23a
      Ct1.00 ± 0.26b1.99 ± 0.65a2.64 ± 0.67a2.25 ± 1.20ab0.80 ± 0.24b1.06 ± 0.32a1.21 ± 0.21b1.25 ± 0.48a
      CATCjSz0.98 ± 0.20ab0.77 ± 0.10a1.14 ± 0.14ab1.00 ± 0.10ab0.91 ± 0.30a0.67 ± 0.09c0.87 ± 0.14a0.67 ± 0.10c
      CjZy0.74 ± 0.03b0.91 ± 0.09a1.52 ± 0.28a0.93 ± 0.08b0.57 ± 0.17a1.08 ± 0.17b0.71 ± 0.09ab1.56 ± 0.24a
      Cp0.90 ± 0.06ab0.79 ± 0.18a0.91 ± 0.04b1.08 ± 0.14ab0.70 ± 0.14a1.59 ± 0.10a0.90 ± 0.08a0.61 ± 0.03c
      Pt1.08 ± 0.11a0.72 ± 0.02a0.47 ± 0.06c1.28 ± 0.08a1.04 ± 0.14a0.84 ± 0.15bc0.53 ± 0.14b0.85 ± 0.10bc
      Ct0.77 ± 0.10 ab0.66 ± 0.12 a1.33 ± 0.44 a1.15 ± 0.15 ab0.79 ± 0.11 a0.88 ± 0.11 bc0.70 ± 0.13 ab1.09 ± 0.19 b
      Note: Data showed in the table are expressed as ratios relative to the values obtained on control seedling. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

      The regulation of soluble protein and sugar contents in response to abiotic stressors varied among the citrus rootstock genotypes (Table 3). Compared with other rootstocks, CjSz had the lowest ratio of soluble proteins during 7 weeks of flooding stress, but the highest ratio under drought, alkaline, and freezing stresses. CjSz exhibited the greatest increase in soluble sugars under 7 weeks of flooding stress and 1 week of drought stress, whereas other rootstocks showed moderate increases. Specifically, the overall ratio of soluble proteins in CjSz was the highest (2.16) under 2 h of freezing stress and the lowest (1.10) during 7 weeks of flooding stress. However, the ratio of soluble sugars displayed opposite trends.

      Table 3.  Mean comparison of soluble proteins and soluble sugars.

      SpeciesFlooding stressDrought stressAlkaline stressFreezing stress
      6 weeks7 weeks1 week2 weekspH = 8.0pH = 9.01 h2 h
      Soluble proteinsCjSz1.11 ± 0.17bc1.10 ± 0.26d1.35 ± 0.36a1.52 ± 0.08ab1.86 ± 0.18a2.04 ± 0.17a2.15 ± 0.18a2.16 ± 0.17a
      CjZy1.01 ± 0.17c1.46 ± 0.28bc1.19 ± 0.19a1.17 ± 0.28b1.81 ± 0.06a1.82 ± 0.31a1.58 ± 0.09c1.77 ± 0.32b
      Cp1.59 ± 0.19a1.88 ± 0.19a1.29 ± 0.32a1.67 ± 0.28a1.62 ± 0.10b1.83 ± 0.18a1.74 ± 0.17bc1.77 ± 0.17b
      Pt1.09 ± 0.07bc1.24 ± 0.17cd1.13 ± 0.19a1.11 ± 0.17b1.13 ± 0.13c1.19 ± 0.26b1.84 ± 0.09b1.93 ± 0.10ab
      Ct1.26 ± 0.02b1.54 ± 0.12b1.21 ± 0.55a1.35 ± 0.51ab1.23 ± 0.15c1.30 ± 0.15b1.28 ± 0.23d1.36 ± 0.17c
      Soluble sugarsCjSz2.78 ± 0.48a3.24 ± 0.40a2.50 ± 0.62a1.87 ± 0.71bc1.77 ± 0.23ab2.08 ± 0.51b1.37 ± 0.20a1.25 ± 0.21b
      CjZy1.52 ± 0.45c1.79 ± 0.10b1.36 ± 0.37b1.62 ± 0.13bc1.42 ± 0.37bc2.32 ± 0.44ab1.29 ± 0.13a1.53 ± 0.23ab
      Cp2.80 ± 0.15a2.83 ± 0.53a1.96 ± 0.30ab2.76 ± 0.92a2.22 ± 0.63a2.77 ± 0.37a1.14 ± 0.41a1.74 ± 0.22a
      Pt2.12 ± 0.49b2.13 ± 0.33b1.86 ± 0.13ab1.26 ± 0.43c0.98 ± 0.16c1.15 ± 0.16c1.23 ± 0.28a1.41 ± 0.32ab
      Ct3.06 ± 0.26a3.16 ± 0.64a2.44 ± 0.93a2.25 ± 0.17ab1.01 ± 0.24c1.18 ± 0.25c1.17 ± 0.33a1.63 ± 0.31a
      Note: Data shown in the table were expressed as ratios relative to the values obtained on control seedling. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
    • To provide a comprehensive assessment of the tolerance of different rootstocks, we conducted a principal component analysis to calculate various physiological and biochemical parameters. By comparing the comprehensive evaluation values of all citrus rootstocks, we observed that the ranking of tolerance for each rootstock varied with treatment time. The comprehensive evaluation values were determined using a membership function and weight calculation, which allowed us to assess the performance of each rootstock under each different abiotic stress treatment (Table 4).

      Table 4.  Comprehensive evaluation of five genotypes citrus rootstocks under different stresses.

      TreatmentVarietyComprehensive evaluationMembership functionComprehensive evaluation valueOrder
      F1F2F3U1U2U3
      Flooding 6 weeksCjSz2.778−0.1450.1541.0000.3970.6770.7101
      CjZy−0.703−1.6780.9980.1300.0001.0000.2294
      Cp−1.2220.6200.5690.0000.5960.8360.3753
      Pt−0.2702.180−0.1080.2381.0000.5770.5922
      Ct−0.582−0.978−1.6140.1600.1810.0000.1415
      Weights0.4400.3880.172
      Flooding 7 weeksCjSz2.2611.4810.1191.0001.0000.6210.9661
      CjZy0.985−1.1060.8660.7150.0001.0000.5652
      Cp−1.878−0.4640.2690.0750.2480.6980.1745
      Pt−2.2151.047−0.1460.0000.8320.4870.2494
      Ct0.847−0.957−1.1080.6840.0580.0000.4683
      Weights0.6630.2460.091
      Drought 1 weekCjSz−0.4681.5810.3030.2391.0000.5040.5162
      CjZy−1.5450.762−0.9460.0000.7550.0000.2284
      Cp0.003−1.758−0.9430.3430.0000.0010.1785
      Pt2.9640.3490.0501.0000.6310.4010.7811
      Ct−0.954−0.9341.5350.1310.2471.0000.3213
      Weights0.5190.3020.179
      Drought 2 weeksCjSz−0.0051.3861.2510.3861.0001.0000.6722
      CjZy−1.7870.898−1.0240.0000.8640.0000.2874
      Cp0.0050.146−0.1500.3880.6540.3840.4763
      Pt2.826−0.236−0.4921.0000.5470.2340.7471
      Ct−1.039−2.1940.4150.1620.0000.6320.1715
      Weights0.5350.3320.133
      Alkaline pH = 8.0CjSz0.4921.8310.8730.6741.0001.0000.8101
      CjZy2.0560.273−0.9411.0000.5510.0000.7612
      Cp1.059−1.0870.2260.7920.1600.6430.5743
      Pt−2.7490.626−0.5980.0000.6530.1890.2295
      Ct−0.859−1.6430.4400.3930.0000.7610.3014
      Weights0.5820.3230.094
      Alkaline pH = 9.0CjSz0.1781.765−0.9920.6811.0000.0000.6992
      CjZy1.2440.9690.6890.9410.7700.9900.8851
      Cp1.484−1.1540.5901.0000.1560.9320.6763
      Pt−2.6140.1150.7060.0000.5231.0000.3424
      Ct−0.292−1.695−0.9930.5670.0000.0000.2725
      Weights0.4810.3720.148
      Freezing 1 hCjSz−0.1270.6001.8420.3300.6441.0000.5682
      CjZy−1.364−1.396−0.1330.0210.0000.2840.0685
      Cp2.5490.457−0.4471.0000.5980.1700.7011
      Pt−1.4471.702−0.9160.0001.0000.0000.3243
      Ct0.389−1.364−0.3460.4590.0100.2070.2634
      Weights0.4730.3240.203
      Freezing 2 hCjSz1.2790.579−0.0310.9070.6500.4160.7491
      CjZy−1.9461.7080.6030.0001.0000.7140.4434
      Cp0.900−1.4261.2090.8000.0291.0000.5673
      Pt1.6090.661−0.9151.0000.6760.0000.7462
      Ct−1.843−1.521−0.8660.0290.0000.0230.0185
      Weights0.5160.3400.144

      The results showed that CjSz had the highest comprehensive evaluation values during 6 and 7 weeks of flooding (0.710 and 0.966), at pH 8.0 (0.810), and after 2 h of freezing treatment (0.749). On the other hand, Ct exhibited the lowest comprehensive evaluation values during 6 weeks of flooding (0.141), and 2 weeks of drought (0.171), at pH 9.0 (0.272), and after 2 h of freezing treatment (0.018) (Table 4).

    • Among the different graft combinations, the success rate of grafting 'Chunjian' and 'Mingrijian' onto Pt rootstocks wad below 80%, with success rates of 70.67% and 79.33%, respectively (Table 5). The highest survival rates of 100% were observed in 'Buzhihuo' was grafted onto CjSz and 'Dafen' grafted onto Ct. In terms of graft joint thickness (Ta), 'Dafen' grafted onto CjSz had the highest value of 20.13 mm, while 'Mingrijian' grafted onto Pt had the lowest value of 6.65 mm. The stem thickness below the graft joint (Tb) was the highest in 'Mingrijian' grafted onto CjSz (28.62 mm) and the lowest in 'Buzhihuo' grafted onto Pt (11.80 mm). The Ta/Tb ratio, which indicates the relative thickness above the blow the graft joint, was the highest in 'Tarocco' grafted onto CjZy and 'Tarocco' grafted onto Ct (0.82 for both), followed by 'Dafen' and 'Buzhihuo' grafted onto Ct (0.81 and 0.80, respectively). The lowest Ta/Tb ratio was observed in 'Mingrijian' and 'Chunjian' grafted onto Pt (0.52 and 0.58, respectively).

      Table 5.  Survival rate and graft union situation of different graft combinations.

      Graft combinationSurvival rate (%)Diameter of scion (mm)Diameter of rootstock (mm)Ration of scion to rootstock
      RootstockScion
      CjSzChunjian95.6718.81 ± 0.35ab26.52 ± 2.75b0.70 ± 0.03ab
      Buzhihuo100.0018.31 ± 2.34ab23.96 ± 2.49c0.77 ± 0.02a
      Mingrijian91.3317.87 ± 1.95b28.62 ± 2.88a0.63 ± 0.06c
      Dafen90.6720.13 ± 2.52a28.40 ± 3.42ab0.70 ± 0.06ab
      Tarocco95.5020.10 ± 1.68a30.12 ± 2.74a0.67 ± 0.01bc
      CjZyChunjian86.3311.92 ± 0.94b16.00 ± 0.46b0.75 ± 0.05ab
      Buzhihuo95.5012.59 ± 1.87b16.05 ± 1.39b0.78 ± 0.06ab
      Mingrijian81.6711.26 ± 1.28b16.01 ± 1.52b0.71 ± 0.01b
      Dafen95.5014.78 ± 1.99a20.48 ± 2.29a0.74 ± 0.12ab
      Tarocco90.6714.82 ± 2.01a17.66 ± 2.85ab0.82 ± 0.05a
      CtChunjian91.3315.94 ± 1.64ab21.17 ± 1.71a0.75 ± 0.03ab
      Buzhihuo95.6714.77 ± 2.50b18.83 ± 2.51ac0.80 ± 0.12ab
      Mingrijian90.6715.02 ± 2.48b20.91 ± 2.27ab0.72 ± 0.05b
      Dafen100.0016.44 ± 0.81ab21.60 ± 3.82a0.81 ± 0.09a
      Tarocco87.3317.37 ± 1.07a21.28 ± 1.65a0.82 ± 0.03a
      PtChunjian70.678.19 ± 0.49bc14.10 ± 2.02abc0.58 ± 0.05ab
      Buzhihuo95.676.66 ± 0.66c11.80 ± 0.44c0.57 ± 0.07ab
      Mingrijian79.336.65 ± 0.76c12.81 ± 1.13bc0.52 ± 0.06b
      Dafen91.6710.94 ± 0.97a17.01 ± 1.67a0.65 ± 0.07a
      Tarocco91.3310.36 ± 1.84ab16.55 ± 0.68ab0.62 ± 0.18a

      The tree growth was significantly affected by different rootstocks (Table 6). The citrus scions grafted onto CjSz rootstock exhibited strong tree vigor, followed by Ct, CjZy, and Pt (Table 6). The leaf greenness, as indicated by the SPAD value, was the highest in trees with 'Tarocco' grafted onto CjZy (86.46) and 'Buzhihuo' grafted onto CjSz (85.79), while it was lowest for 'Mingrijian', 'Chunjian', and 'Buzhihuo' grafted onto Pt (71.43, 75.63, and 75.70, respectively). Overall, the results suggest that CjSz exhibited good graft compatibility with the test scions.

      Table 6.  The growth situation of different graft combinations.

      Graft combinationScion length (cm)Crown breadthLeaf greenness
      (SPAD)
      RootstockScionLongitudinal (cm)Horizontal (cm)
      CjSzChunjian97.54 ± 9.53b87.83 ± 14.42a89.18 ± 16.32b82.98 ± 0.74abc
      Buzhihuo79.11 ± 10.63d73.67 ± 5.78b78.00 ± 17.04c85.79 ±1.85a
      Mingrijian115.78 ± 8.88a91.33 ± 13.53a110.38 ± 19.01a84.97 ± 0.47a
      Dafen88.11 ± 5.98c97.33 ± 20.63a98.00 ± 18.89ab81.34 ± 0.14c
      Tarocco81.11 ± 12.07cd61.56 ± 11.59c65.56 ± 9.19d84.36 ± 1.55ab
      CjZyChunjian69.67 ± 11.15ab66.99 ± 4.20a66.88 ± 15.99a82.16 ± 2.12b
      Buzhihuo55.89 ± 9.71c52.33 ± 3.71b61.11 ± 3.20ab82.93 ± 0.57b
      Mingrijian69.67 ± 5.93ab58.33 ± 14.25ab71.00 ± 13.91a79.54 ± 3.83c
      Dafen73.56 ± 6.00a72.17 ± 16.54a71.33 ± 18.34a84.93 ± 3.30ab
      Tarocco57.56 ± 10.84bc64.22 ± 11.52a52.67 ± 20.54b86.46 ± 0.80a
      CtChunjian96.11 ± 10.24a77.44 ± 12.30a83.33 ± 14.88ab81.37 ± 1.92ab
      Buzhihuo82.44 ± 15.61b62.56 ± 8.55bc69.22 ± 14.34b81.36 ± 1.68abc
      Mingrijian97.89 ± 9.34a76.89 ± 5.43ab77.67 ± 31.56ab78.81 ± 1.97bcd
      Dafen87.33 ± 5.46ab89.22 ± 1.26a92.67 ± 20.85a83.47 ± 1.70a
      Tarocco73.22 ± 13.77c55.22 ± 12.85c53.33 ± 16.68c83.43 ± 1.28a
      PtChunjian41.18 ± 7.44ab38.09 ± 12.96ab42.13 ± 14.27a75.63 ± 2.67b
      Buzhihuo25.56 ± 3.17c18.89 ± 1.92c15.56 ± 1.50bc75.70 ± 2.04b
      Mingrijian32.11 ± 7.93bc20.78 ± 5.23bc15.11 ± 2.12c71.43 ± 4.99c
      Dafen51.44 ± 4.17a50.56 ± 10.40a48.00 ± 6.66a80.92 ± 4.33a
      Tarocco42.13 ± 16.27ab27.89 ± 10.00bc33.89 ± 15.79ab81.71 ± 0.70a
    • Grafting is widely used in citrus propagation and provides many agronomical advantages to scion[32,33]. Rootstock is vital for the citrus industry as it provides resistance to multiple stresses[3,34]. The rootstocks used in citrus have certain issues with stress resistance, disease resistance, or grafting compatibility[1416], rendering them inflexible to the varying soil environment and climatic conditions, and consequently, cannot be widely used in various cultivars[17]. Therefore, citrus rootstock cultivation and evaluation are critical for the industry's healthy, stable, and sustainable development[27].

      In this study, abiotic stress altered the physiological, metabolic, and molecular processes[17,35]. Almost all rootstock leaf photosynthetic pigments (Chl a, Chl b, total Chl, and carotenoid) were decreased under abiotic stress treatments (Table 1), creating an imbalance in the photosynthetic machinery[36]. Under stress conditions, MDA, soluble protein, soluble sugar contents, and antioxidant enzyme activities were in an unbalanced equilibrium state[23, 24,37]. Alkaline stress inhibits plant growth far more than salt stress[38]. CjZy is widely used as an alkaline-tolerant citrus rootstock in calcareous soil areas in China[5]. Under alkaline stress, CjSz performed similarly to CjZy. Low temperatures cause the leaves to wilt and dehydrate, reducing the photosynthesis rate[39]. The disruption of photosynthetic mechanisms causes excessive production of ROS, leading to oxidative stress, one of the most damaging consequences of freezing stress. Pt has shown the highest resistance to cold stress[4042]. CjSz and Pt undergo similar physiological and biochemical changes, indicating that CjSz is also highly resistant to freezing. Flooding is a seasonal stress factor affecting Chinese citrus production areas[2]. Under flooding stress, the MDA content in Ct was the highest, and that in Pt was the lowest. Comprehensive analysis revealed that Cp is the most flood-resistant genotype, correlating with previous research findings[43]. CjSz had reasonable flooding resistance. Cp has been considered drought-resistant citrus rootstocks owing to its higher chlorophyll content and POD activity under drought stress than CjSz. CjSz had less MDA content than Cp but more soluble sugar and soluble protein content. The comprehensive evaluation revealed that CjSz's drought tolerance was second only to Pt and superior to other rootstocks.

      Rootstocks significantly affect tree performance in multiple aspects[9]. Several studies have indicated that rootstocks have a significant effect on shoot growth[3,18]. In this study, the effects of rootstocks on the horticultural performance of scion varieties were investigated. Rootstock genotypes influence compatibility[9]. In our study, the graft success rate of CjSz with five citrus cultivars ranged from 91.33% to 100%. Scions on CjSz developed faster than those on Pt, suggests that graft compatibility is related to the genetic relationship between scion and rootstock. The supply of root-derived nutrients, such as water and minerals, to the shoots may be limited due to incompatibility, leading to poor shoot growth and leaf function[44]. Scions on Pt exhibited a much smaller canopy size and lower SPAD value than those on other rootstocks, consistent with the findings in three late-ripening navel oranges[45] and Folha Murcha sweet oranges[46]. These results suggest that Pt can be used for dense planting and that two genotypes of C. junos are preferable for sparse planting, consistent with previous findings[45]. Therefore, scion-rootstock compatibility based on graft success and tree vigor supports that 'Shuzhen No.1' has a high potential for usage as a citrus rootstock.

    • The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: conceptualization and supervision: Wang X; methodology: He W; investigation: Chai J, Wang Y, Wu Z, Li M, Lin Y, Luo Y, Yong Zhang, Yunting Zhang, Wang H; bioinformatic analyses: He W, Chai J; data curation: He W, Xie R, Chai J; manuscript preparation: He W; writing—review and editing: He W, Tang H, Wang X. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    • Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

      • This work was financially supported by Sichuan Provincial Postdoctoral Science Foundation, Sichuan Science and Technology Program (2020ZHCG0027), and Shuangzhi Project Innovation Team of Sichuan Agricultural University (Grant No. P202107).

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • # These authors contributed equally: Wen He, Rui Xie

      • Copyright: © 2024 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (2)  Table (6) References (46)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    He W, Xie R, Chai J, Wang H, Wang Y, et al. 2023. Comprehensive evaluation of abiotic stress tolerance and graft compatibility of Citrus junos cv. 'Shuzhen No.1'. Fruit Research 4: e006 doi: 10.48130/frures-0023-0042
    He W, Xie R, Chai J, Wang H, Wang Y, et al. 2023. Comprehensive evaluation of abiotic stress tolerance and graft compatibility of Citrus junos cv. 'Shuzhen No.1'. Fruit Research 4: e006 doi: 10.48130/frures-0023-0042

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return