Rootstock and Grafting Effects on Tomato Fruit Yield and Quality in an organic, multiharvest

Transcription

1 Rootstock and Grafting Effects on Tomato Fruit Yield and Quality in an organic, multiharvest system Matt Kleinhenz & Natalie Bumgarner Vegetable Production Systems Laboratory The Ohio State University- OARDC USDA SCRI Grafting Symposium Nov. 8 th, 2012

2 Grafting in the Midwest Multiple potential areas of impact Fertility mgt. Water stress Disease Multi-harvest production systems Quality Yield Salinity stress Target populations of growers Temp stress Vigor

3 OSU Grafting- Looking Backward and Forward Involvement of multiple disciplines Varied sources of support Primarily tomato, but some cucurbits USDA SCRI OVSFRDP Support Full Count OREI-Integrated Organics Program OARDC competitive grants program

4 Outline IOP project objectives and experiments Overview of OREI-IOP data USDA-SCRI project activities and overview of data to date

5 Central Themes and Goal Facilitate rootstock development and evaluation Investigate grafted plant response and interaction with production systems and management Contribute to increases in grafting knowledge and optimize usage

6 OREI- IOP Project Central Questions Does grafting or rootstock impact yield? Does grafting impact timing of yield? Does grafting impact fruit quality?

7 The Question of Quality Quality Yield Key for adoption Initial Hippocratic orientation Overall picture inconclusive Underreported in organic systems

8 Experimental Site x year x rootstock OSU, UMinn, NCState (WVState, Penn State) A total of 33 lines were used as RS, all Celebrity SC All organic management Data collected centered on plant growth, yield and timing of yield, and fruit quality

9 Plant Preparation All seedlings produced in OH SC and RS seeded from late Feb. to early Apr. Grafting was carried out over several weeks to supply different sites Cleft grafts were used

10

11 Marketable Yields from 3 Sites Celebrity SC Kg/plant Ungrafted Celebrity Selfgrafted Celebrity over 2 Years (2008,2009) Minnesota Ohio North Carolina 1.96± ± ± ± ± ±0.29 Maxifort 1.83± ± ±0.50 Beaufort 1.77± ± ±0.17 SG ± ± ±0.46 SG ± ± ±0.24

12 Timing of Yield- OH Harvests 2008 Marketable yield per plant by harvest date 7 kg/plant Ungrafted Celebrity Selfgrafted Celebrity Beaufort RS Maxifort RS SG RS SG RS SG RS /26 9/3 9/10 9/16 9/23 9/30 10/6

13 Timing of Yield- OH Harvests 2009 Marketable yield per plant by harvest date Ungrafted Celebrity Selfgrafted Celebrity Beaufort RS Maxifort RS SG RS SG RS kg/plant /13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17

14 Timing of Yield- OH Harvests 2010 Marketable yield per plant by harvest date 7 kg/plant Ungrafted Celebrity Selfgrafted Celebrity Beaufort RS Maxifort RS SG RS SG RS SG RS /18 8/25 9/1 9/8 9/15 9/23 10/6

15 Quality Parameters Options ph, TA, Brix Volatiles Visual Organoleptic Nutritional quality Decision Process Scale of project and other goals Resources/time available Building for the future- baseline data

16 Tomato fruit quality (OH data only) Soluble Solids in Celebrity Scions with Multiple Rootstocks Brix UngrftCeleb SelfgrftCeleb Beaufort Maxifort SG SG SG07-319

17 Tomato fruit quality(oh) Titratable Acidity in Fruits from Celebrity Scions on Multiple Rootstocks Titratable acidity (ml) UngrftCeleb SelfgrftCeleb Beaufort Maxifort SG SG SG07-319

18

19 HT Grafting x irrigation volume kg Total yield/plant Ungrafted standard 8.4± ±2.1 Ungrafted deficit 6.2± ±0.3 Grafted standard 11.6± ±1.1 Grafted deficit 10.9± ±1.3

20 USDA SCRI Grafting Project Optimizing grafted plant management High tunnel plant density Field and high tunnel irrigation levels High tunnel soil management- history of compost management Conventional and organic/multiple sites

21 HT Plant Density

22 HT Density Study-2012 Moskvich SC 3 RS x 2 densities Total yield Kg/plot ± SE Total yield Kg/plant Maxifort- 4 spacing 54.1± ±1.2 Emperador- 4 spacing 64.9± ±1.9 FG spacing 49.0± ±1.0 Maxifort- 2 spacing 67.2± ±0.3 Emperador- 2 spacing 76.6± ±0.6 FG spacing 70.5± ±0.8

23 HT Historical Soil Management Study

24 HT Soil Management History-2012 Moskvich SC 4 RS x 2 soil histories Without compost history Total yield kg/plant ± SE With compost history Total yield kg/plant ± SE Maxifort 6.0± ±0.9 Emperador 6.5± ±0.7 FG ± ±0.9 Ungrafted Moskvich 3.7± ±0.9

25 Field Irrigation Volume Study

26 Field Irrigation Volume BHN 589 SC 4 RS x 2 Irrigation trt Total yield Kg/plant ± SE Maxifort ±2.5 Emperador ±0.8 FG ±0.7 Ungrafted BHN ±0.5 Maxifort ±0.9 Emperador ±0.8 FG ±0.3 Ungrafted BHN ±1.3

27 General Conclusions Grafting effects on yield and quality were inconsistent As an explanation, lack of disease, strong scion, growing conditions (natural, experimental) Some results warrant further investigation

28