Fig.1

Effect of drought stress on biomass accumulation of P. yunnanensis seedlings Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different drought stress treatments (P<0.05). CK:Suitable moisture, 75% to 85% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 19.45% to 22.05%; LD: Mild drought stress, 60% to 70% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 15.56% to 18.16%; MD: 45% to 55% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 11.67% to 17.27%; SD: 30% to 40% of the water holding capacity in the field, and the actual water content was maintained at 7.78% to 10.38%."

Fig.2

Effect of drought stress on biomass allocation of P. yunnanensis seedlings Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different drought stress treatments (P<0.05). CK:Suitable moisture, 75% to 85% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 19.45% to 22.05%; LD: Mild drought stress, 60% to 70% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 15.56% to 18.16%; MD: 45% to 55% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 11.67% to 17.27%; SD: 30% to 40% of the water holding capacity in the field, and the actual water content was maintained at 7.78% to 10.38%."

Fig.3

Soluble sugar content of various organs of P. yunnanensis seedlings under drought stress Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different drought stress treatments (P<0.05). CK:Suitable moisture, 75% to 85% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 19.45% to 22.05%; LD: Mild drought stress, 60% to 70% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 15.56% to 18.16%; MD: 45% to 55% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 11.67% to 17.27%; SD: 30% to 40% of the water holding capacity in the field, and the actual water content was maintained at 7.78% to 10.38%."

Fig.4

Starch content of various organs of P. yunnanensis seedlings under drought stress Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different drought stress treatments (P<0.05). CK:Suitable moisture, 75% to 85% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 19.45% to 22.05%; LD: Mild drought stress, 60% to 70% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 15.56% to 18.16%; MD: 45% to 55% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 11.67% to 17.27%; SD: 30% to 40% of the water holding capacity in the field, and the actual water content was maintained at 7.78% to 10.38%."

Fig.5

NSC content of various organs of Pinus yunnanensis seedlings under drought stress Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different drought stress treatments (P<0.05). CK:Suitable moisture, 75% to 85% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 19.45% to 22.05%; LD: Mild drought stress, 60% to 70% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 15.56% to 18.16%; MD: 45% to 55% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 11.67% to 17.27%; SD: 30% to 40% of the water holding capacity in the field, and the actual water content was maintained at 7.78% to 10.38%."

Fig.6

Ratio of soluble sugar content to starch content in various organs of P. yunnanensis seedlings under drought stress Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different drought stress treatments (P<0.05). CK:Suitable moisture, 75% to 85% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 19.45% to 22.05%; LD: Mild drought stress, 60% to 70% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 15.56% to 18.16%; MD: 45% to 55% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 11.67% to 17.27%; SD: 30% to 40% of the water holding capacity in the field, and the actual water content was maintained at 7.78% to 10.38%."

Fig.7

Nonstructural carbohydrate partitioning patterns of individual components of P. yunnanensis seedlings under different drought stresses Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different drought stress treatments (P<0.05). CK:Suitable moisture, 75% to 85% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 19.45% to 22.05%; LD: Mild drought stress, 60% to 70% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 15.56% to 18.16%; MD: 45% to 55% of field water holding capacity, and the actual water content was maintained at 11.67% to 17.27%; SD: 30% to 40% of the water holding capacity in the field, and the actual water content was maintained at 7.78% to 10.38%."

Fig.8

Phenotypic plasticity indices for each parameter of morphology, growth index and non-structural carbohydrate index of P. yunnanensis"

Fig.9

Correlation analysis between seedling growth and non-institutional carbohydrates in P. yunnanensis under drought stress"

Fig.10

Principal component analysis of morphological characteristics, growth of each organ and NSC characteristics of P. yunnanensis seedlings under different drought stress intensities The colors of the dots in the figure represent different drought stress intensities; the ellipse is the confidence interval of each parameter under different drought stress intensities; the arrows represent the relationship between each index and the principal components."

Table 1

Effect of persistent drought on the growth index of Pinus yunnanensis seedlings"