Short communication: morphophysiological response of kaffir lime (Citrus hystrix DC) subjected to defoliation and drought stress

Figures & data

Figure 1. Morphological appearance of kaffir lime at 4 WATs subjected to various treatments: defoliation and drought stress (A); only defoliation (B); only drought stress (C); control (D). Note: The yellow line in the figure is equal to 100 cm.

Figure 2. Morphological appearance of kaffir lime flush at 4 WATs subjected to various treatments: defoliation and drought stress (A); only defoliation (B); only drought stress (C); control (D). Note: The yellow line in the figure is equal to 30 cm.

Figure 3. The leaves drop occurrence leaving several old leaves on undefoliated kaffir lime seedlings during the post-drought stress period (4 WATs): the percentage of drop and old leaves (A) and the number and weight of old leaves (B). Note: Two compared seedlings experiencing leaf drop: drought stress (C); and control (D). Mean values above the bar inside the right chart followed by similar alphabet are not significantly different based on the Duncan Multiple Range Test at α = 0.05.

Table 1. Flushing characteristics of kaffir lime subjected to defoliation and drought condition.

Treatment	Flush number (flush per plant)	Flush length (cm)	The fresh weight of flush (g)	The dry weight of flush (g)
A	1.80 b	17.86 a	5.22 b	2.1 b
B	2.40 b	15.70 a	6.27 b	2.0 b
C	2.20 b	17.78 a	9.09 b	5.21 b
D	4.60 a	22.12 a	22.68 a	8.17 a

Note: Four compared treatments: defoliation and drought stress (A); only defoliation (B); only drought stress (C); control (D). Mean values followed by similar alphabet are not significantly different based on the Duncan Multiple Range Test at α = 0.05.

Figure 4. The proportion of leaf and branch in newly emerged flush at 4 WATS. Note: Four compared treatments: defoliation and drought stress (A); only defoliation (B); only drought stress (C); control (D).

Table 2. Individual leaf size of kaffir lime subjected to defoliation and drought condition.

Treatment	Individual leaf length (cm)	Individual leaf area (cm^2)	Individual leaf fresh weight (g)
A	8.84 b	19.65 b	0.58 b
B	8.48 b	18.24 b	0.54 b
C	11.76 a	32.99 a	1.00 a
D	13.02 a	39.80 a	1.22 a

Note: Four compared treatments: defoliation and drought stress (A); only defoliation (B); only drought stress (C); control (D). Mean values followed by similar alphabet are not significantly different based on the Duncan Multiple Range Test at α = 0.05.

Table 3. Leaf production of kaffir lime subjected to defoliation and drought condition.

Treatment	Leaf number (leaf per plant)	The fresh weight of leaves (g)	The dry weight of leaves (g)	The water content of leaves (%)
A	15.00 c	3.63 c	1.34 c	63 a
B	11.80 c	3.79 c	1.19 c	69 a
C	38.40 b	18.03 b	8.07 b	55 b
D	69.40 a	41.46 a	14.48 a	65 a

Note: Four compared treatments: defoliation and drought stress (A); only defoliation (B); only drought stress (C); control (D). Mean values followed by similar alphabet are not significantly different based on the Duncan Multiple Range Test at α = 0.05.

Table 4. Physiological properties of kaffir lime subjected to defoliation and drought condition.

Treatment	Pn	Sc	ICO	Tr	WUE	Lt
A	23.5 a	0.15 b	112.43 b	2.59 a	9.07 a	21.13 b
B	25.54 a	0.17 a	114.69 b	2.87 a	8.9 a	21.08 b
C	15.91 b	0.11 b	143.99 a	2.76 a	5.76 b	23.51 a
D	25.54 a	0.17 a	112.19 b	2.95 a	8.66 a	21.26 b

Note: Four compared treatments: defoliation and drought stress (A); only defoliation (B); only drought stress (C); control (D). Mean values followed by similar alphabet are not significantly different based on the Duncan Multiple Range Test at α = 0.05. Pn – Photosynthetic rate (μmol CO₂ m⁻² s⁻¹), Sc – Stomatal conductance (mol H₂O m⁻² s⁻¹), ICO – Intercellular CO₂ (μmol CO₂ mol⁻¹), Tr – Transpiration rate (mmol H₂O m⁻² s⁻¹), WUE – Water use efficiency (μmol CO₂ mmol H₂O⁻¹), Lt – Leaf temperature (°C)

Data availability statement

The data in the present finding are available from the corresponding author [RB] upon reasonable request.