Search

In order to explore the difference and taxonomic significance through the characteristics of the lenticel, stomatal apparatus and lower epidermis of leaf of different kiwifruit species, the optical microscope was used to observe kiwifruit lenticels on one-year-old phloem of nine samples from five different species. Kiwifruit lenticels showed long elliptical or spindle shape. The values of length × width, lenticle density, lenticle area and percentage of lenticle area of different species were different and no obvious rule with species division. However, the four Actinidia chinensis varieties from selected samples could be clearly distinguished by the width of the lenticels. The results of scanning electron microscope showed that the stomatal apparatus only existed in blade back and mesophyll area with wide oval and elliptical shape, and the stomatal apparatus types were actinotytic, cyclocytic, anisocytic and anomocytic. Among these species, the stomatal apparatus shape of A. chinensis was actinotytic, the stomatal apparatus shape of A. deliciosa was cyclocytic, the stomatal apparatuses shapes of A. latifolia and A. eriantha were anisocytic, and the stomatal apparatus shape of A. longicarpa was anomocytic. Guard cells were arranged around stomatal apparatus, horizontal or protruding from the lower epidermis. The lower epidermal cells were papillose or anomocytic with sinuate or sinuolate anticlinal wall. The lower epidermis was granulated with furcal pubescence and bifurcate single cell without glandular trichome. Some germplasm had papillose or flake-like waxy layer. Inner margin of outer stomatal rim were sinuolate with ornamentation. According to the measure of length × width, axis and density of stomatal apparatus, there was no obvious rule with kiwifruit species division. However, the stomatal apparatus type and the species division were consistent well. Four A. chinensis varieties could be distinguished by the length, axis of stomatal and density of stomatal apparatus. In addition, there were significant differences in the microapparent morphology between A. longicarpa and other species, which provides microcosmic basis for its identification [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]