Effect of Different Grafting Methods on Vegetative Growth and Yield of Tomato Fruit

علوم باغبانی

Article 2, Volume 34, Issue 2 - Serial Number 46, September 2020, Pages 207-219   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jhorts4.v34i2.76358

Authors

B. Zahedi^* ; Fatemeh Moradipour;

Lorestan

Abstract

Introduction: Today in order to produce vegetable fruits tolerant to adverse environmental conditions and increase growth, yield and fruit quality, grafting methods have been created. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is one of the most important greenhouse products. Heirloom tomato cultivars lack disease genetic resistance and are particularly susceptible to epidemics in the field. Grafting can be used to unite the soil borne disease resistance and enhanced vigor of hybrid tomato cultivars with the high fruit quality of heirloom cultivars. There are deficiencies in vegetable grafting including skills for grafting operation performance and after the grafting, having enough knowledge to select rootstock, farm management in application of required fertilizers, graft incompatibility, excessive vegetative growth of grafting plant and physiological abnormalities, and fruit quality reduction. For grafting herbaceous plants such as vegetables, depending on the type of plant, plant size, grafting purpose, available equipment, preference and experience of the grafting plant producer and  post-grafting management, different grafting methods have been introduce which is for different species and the used method is completely different. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages, which are effective in the survival and development of grafting plants. This experiment was conducted in order to evaluate the effect of grafting methods on yield and vegetative growth of tomato plants.  
Material and Methods: Three common grafting methods, splice, cleft and approach grafting were evaluated for tomato "SV 8320" cultivar grafted on "Rimac" rootstock. Executive operations were conducted in a completely randomized design with three replications at greenhouse of Lorestan Agriculture Faculty. Plant height, number of auxiliary shoot, number and length of internodes, number of fruit cluster, number of flower in cluster, root fresh and dry weight, number of fruit cluster, number of fruit in cluster, width and diameter of fruit, fruit weight, fruit fresh and dry weight, length of fruit tail, fruit tissue firmness, total soluble solid, pH, diameters of hypocotyl, pre, middle and total yield , ratio of the marketable fruits to second degree fruits, and fruit tissue firmness were recorded. Data was analyzed using SPSS software and  means were compared by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Results and Discussion: Grafting method had significantly effect on plant height, number and length of internode, root fresh and dry weight, number of fruit cluster, width and diameter of fruit, fruit weight, fruit fresh and dry weight, length of fruit tail, fruit tissue firmness, pH, pre, middle and total yield, the ratio of the marketable fruits to second degree fruits at 5% of probability level. Vegetative characteristics and yield in grafted plants were higher compared to non-grafted plants.
Conclusion: According to results of this experiment using different grafting methods lead to stimulate growth in grafting plants, increasing production and product quality. Changes caused by the rootstock are controlled through water absorption, synthesis and transition of water, minerals and herbal hormones. Signal generation in the rootstocks and transition of them to the scion, causes changes in the physiology and morphology of the grafted plant. Grafting success varied between grafting methods, so that splice grafting is better than other methods. Graft compatibility was shown by the ability of tissue to regenerate and the vessels ability in wound tissues to rejoint together then grow and develop as a vigorous composite plant. Attempts to increase the productivity of grafted plant should be followed by the application of good agricultural practices.

Keywords

Splice grafting; Approach grafting; Clef grafting; Scion; increasing growth

References

1- Abdemishani S., and Shahnejat-booshehri E. 1992. Plant breeding suplymentary. First cover, second edition. Tehran Uniersity Publication center. PP: 384

2- Akbari Cheshme-Manesh A., Kashi A., and Memar-Moshrefi M. 2003. Effect of grafting two-greenhouse cucumber cv. Royal24198 & Vilmorian onto fig leaf squash rootstock. Journal of Seed and Seedling Researches 19(4): 435- 456.

3- Albacete A., Martinez-Andujar C., and Perez-Alfocea F. 2014. "Hormonal and metabolic regulation of source–sink relations under salinity and drought: From plant survival to crop yield stability", Biotechnology Advances 32: 12-30.

4- Cohen R., Burger Y., Horev C., Porat A., and Edelstein M. 2005. Performance of Galia-type melons grafted on to cucurbita rootstock in Monosporscus cannoballus infested and non-infested soils. Annual of Applied Biology 146: 381-387.

5- Edelstein M. 2004. Grafting vegetables – crop plants: pros and cons. Acta Horticulturae 659: 235-237.

6- Food and Agriculture Organization (2010) http://faostat.fao.org.

7- Garigourian V. 2002. Graftinh physiologr and grafting methods. Publication of Iranian Horticulture Science Society 290-351.

8- Hee-Don C., Youn S.J., and Choi Y.J. 1997. Effect of rootstocks on yield, quality and components of tomato fruits. J. Kor. Soc. Hort. Sci. 38: 603-607.

9- Heidary Zofreh A., Kashi A., Safari Z., Kalateh Jary S., and Farhadi A. 2013. Effect of Rootstocks and different grafting methods on vegetative growth, yield and some qualitative characteristics of greenhouse cucumber. Journal of Horticultural Science 44(2): 137-147.

10- Henareh M., Dursum A., and Abdoullahi Mandoulakani B. 2015. Genetic diversity in tomato landraces collected from Turkey and Iran revealed by morphological characters. Acta Scientiarumpolonorum-Hortorumcultus 14(2): 87-96. (In Persian)

11- Hi Y., Zhu Z., Yang J., Ni X., and Zhu B. 2009. Grafting increases the salt tolerance of tomato by improvement of photosynthesis and enhancement of antioxidant enzymes activity. Environmental and Experimental, Botany 66: 270–278.

12- Huang H., Tang R., Cao Q., and Bie Z. 2009. Improving the fruit yield and quality of cucumber by grafting onto the salt tolerant rootstock under NaCl stress. Scientia Horticulturae 122: 26-31.

13- Huang Y., Bie Z., HE S., Hua B., Zhen A., and Liu Z. 2010. Improving cucumber tolerance to major nutrients induced salinity by grafting onto Cucurbita ficifolia. Environmental and Experimental Botany 69: 32–38

14- Kacjan Marsic N., and Osvald J. 2004. The influence of grafting on yield of two tomato cultivars (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in a plastic house. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica 83-2: 243-249.

15- Kashi A., Salehi R., and Javanpour R. 2009. The grafting technique in training and produce vegetable. Principles of Publishing Center Agricultural Education 190-212.

16- Khosh-khui M. 2012. Plants propagation, Principles and methods. Shiraz Uniersity Publication center. PP: 850-904.

17- Khosh-khui M., Shaybany B., Rouhani I., and Tafazoli E. 1997. Principles of Horticulture Science. Shiraz University Press. PP: 100-200.

18- Kubota C. 2008. One cotyledon grafting method. The University of Arizona.

19- Lee J.M. 1994. Cultivation of grafted vegetables. I. status, grafting methods, and benefits. Hort Science 29: 235-239.

20- Lee J.M., and Oda M. 2003. "Grafting of herbaceous vegetable and ornamental crops" Hort. Rev. 28: 61-124.

21- Lee J.M., Kubota C., Tsao S.J., Bie Z., Hoyos Echevarria P., Morra L., and Oda M. 2010. "Current status of vegetable grafting: Diffusion, grafting techniques, automation", Scientia Horticulturae 127: 93–105.

22- Lee J.M. 2011. Cultivation of grafted vegetables I.Current status, grafting methods, and benefits. HortScience 29: 235-239

23- Lee J.M., and Oda M. 2003. Advances in vegetable grafting. Chron. Hort. 43: 13-19.

24- Lee S.G., Choi J.U., Kim K.Y., Chung J.H., and Lee Y.B. 1997. Effect of rootstocks and grafting methods on the growth and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). RDA. J. Hort. Sci. 39: 15-20.

25- Marota J.V., Pascual B., Miguel A., Bautista A.B., Lopez-Galarza S., Baixauli C., and Aguilar J.M. 2004. Influence of different rootstocks and Cycles on Serpent Melon (Cucumis melo var flexueses) Productin in Soiless Cultivation. Acta Horticulture 614: 319-322.

26- Miguel A., Morato J.V., San-Bautsita A., Biagxauli C., Cebplla V., Pascual B., Lopez S., and Guardiola J.L. 2004. The grafting of triploid watermelon is an advantageous alternative to soil fumigation by methyl bromide for control of fusarium wilt. Scientica Horticulturae 103(1): 9-17.

27- Miller Y.C., and Tanksley S. 1990. RFLP analysis of phylogenic relationship and genetic variation the genus lycopersicum, Theor Appl Genet 80: 437-310.

28- Mohamed H., El-Hamed K.E., Elwan Abd M.W.M., M.N.E H. 2014. Evaluation of different grafting methods and rootstocks in watermelon grown in Egypt. Scientia Horticulturae 168: 145–150

29- Perez-Alfocea F. 2014. "why should we investigate vegetable grafting.Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Vegetables Grafting, Wuhan, China, 17-21 March 2014.

30- Salehi R., Kashi A., and Lesani H. 2004. Study of the effects of different cucurbit rootstocks on vegetative and control of soil-borne diseases and physiological disorders in cucumber, watermelon and muskmelon. Iranian Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology 5(1): 59-69.

31- Salehi, R., Kashi, A., Babalar, M. & Delshad, M. (2009). Identification of cytokinins in xylem sap of grafted and ungrafted melon under different train treatments. Proccedings of the 6th Iranian Horticultural Science Congress. Guilan University, Rasht, Iran.

32- Salehi R., Kashi A., Lee J., M., Bablar M., Delshad M., Lee S.G., and Huh Y.C. 2010. "Leaf gas exchanges and mineral ion composition in xylem sap of iranian melon affected by rootstocks and training methods", Journal of Horticultural Science 45(5): 766-770.

33- Salehi-Mohammadi R., Kashi A., Lee S.G., Hou Y.C., Lee J.M., Babalar M., and Delshad M. 2009. Assessing the survival and growth performance of Iranian Melon to Grafting onto Cucurbita Rootstocks.Korean Journal of Horticulture Science and Technology 27(1): 1-6.

34- Tanksley, S.D. and S.R. Mc couch, (1997). Seed banks and molecular maps; unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science 277: 1063-1066.

35- Traka-Mavrona E., Koutsika-Sotiriou M. and Pritsa T. 2000. Response of squash (Cucurbita spp.) as rootstock for melon (Cucumis melo L.). Sci. Hort. 83: 353-362.

36- Turhan A., Ozmen N., Serbeci M.S., Seniz V. 2011. Effect of grafting on different rootstocks on tomatoe fruit yield and quality. Sci (Prague) 38: 142-149.

37- Yamakata B. 1983. Grafting vegetable handbook. Yokendo book co Tokyo. PP: 141-153.

38- Zhou Y., Zhou J., Huang L., Ding X., Shi K., and Yu J. 2009. Grafting of Cucumis sativus onto Cucurbita ficifolia leads to improved plant growth, increased light utilization and reduced accumulation of reactive oxygen species in chilled plants. Journal of plants Research 122: 529-540.

39- Zi-kun Z., Shi-qi L., Shu-qin H., and Su-hui L. 2010. Grafting increases the copper tolerance of cucumber seedlings by improvement of polyamine contents and enhancement of antioxidant enzymes activity. Agricultural Sciences in China 9(7): 985-994.