Grafting and Rootstock Effects on Fruit Yield and Composition in Organic, Field-grown Tomato

Transcription

1 Grafting and Rootstock Effects on Fruit Yield and Composition in Organic, Field-grown Tomato Matt Kleinhenz Extension Vegetable Specialist Horticulture and Crop Science

2 D. Francis tomato breeding, genetics tomato/

3 N. Bumgarner Chief Horticulturalist

4 B. Hu J. Moyseenko

5

6 Sponsors CSREES - IOP NIFA - SCRI

7 Background

8 conventional = organic

9 In-house List of References + Online Database Search including ISI Web of Knowledge (October 2013) example terms: vegetable grafting, Cucurbit, Solanaceae, grafted cucumber, grafted eggplant, grafted melon, pepper, grafted pepper, grafted tomato, grafted tomato, grafted watermelon, rootstock >300 Filter remove genetic and mechanistic articles lacking a direct relation to grafted plant or crop production 220 Categorize (greenhouse or field/ht systems) remove articles specific to only greenhouse systems = 144 vegetable; applied; field; English (90% or more of articles indexed since 1946)

10 Percent of organic (32) Grafting Articles* (68) conventional, unspecified by Keyword * vegetable; applied; field; English; of 144 indexed since 1946

11 (10) Cucurbitaceae (3) Cucurbitaceae & Solanaceae Percent of Grafting Articles* by Crop (87) Solanaceae Group * vegetable; applied; field; English; of 144 indexed since 1946

12 Percent of prepare (32) Grafting Articles* (68) by Topic perform * vegetable; applied; field; English; of 144 indexed since 1946

13 Africa, Australia, South America (1 each) Europe (69; 49 authors) North America (34; 19 authors) Asia (38; 30 authors) Number of Grafting Articles* by Location of Corresponding Author (101 unique authors) * vegetable; applied; field; English; of 144 indexed since 1946

14 25 Number of Vegetable Grafting-related Journal Articles Published by Year Kyoto, Montreal Protocols, Clean Air Act, shift in USDA funding

15 Number Grafting Articles* by Publisher, Journal Total APS ASHS ISHS Scientia Hort J Sci Food & Agric Other * vegetable; applied; field; English; N (since 2009) = 78

16 Testing of RSs in soil-based and organic production systems using contemporary hybrid scions has been limited in the U.S. We set out to test grafting and RS effects on fruit yield, quality.

17 3-year, multi-site study of up to 32 RSs/year

18 OSU Grafting Project NCSU U MN WVSU PSU Grafting to Improve Organic Vegetable Production in Field and High Tunnel Systems

19 Variables Studied at OARDC Rootstock pre-germination seedling emergence, vigor grafting success

20 Variables Studied at OARDC Grafted Plants vigor disease foliar nutrient levels fruit yield and quality seed traits

21 The Focus Today Fruit yield (total, marketable) with time ph, soluble solids, TA

22 Materials and Methods

23 Annual Rootstock List 21 experimental lines from OARDC 2 commercial RSs (Beau-, Maxifort) 7 other lines, varieties ungrafted, self-grafted scion Seven RSs used in all study years in all sites Celebrity grafted to all as scion

24 Annual Rootstock List Seven RSs used in all study years in all sites Celebrity grafted to all as scion experimental commercial control SGH Beaufort SGH Maxifort SGH un-, self- grafted

25 seedlings cleft-grafted per Grafting Guide

26

27

28 Grafting Process Stats 3 mo annually approx. 300 groups/year total of >10,000 grafts attempted and recorded most years approx people-hours per year

29

30 RCB Design in all years

31 2, 1-3, and 4 reps/genotype in 2008, 2009, 2010, respectively

32 typical (ungrafted plant) management protocol vigor assessment

33 up to 7 harvests annually

34 annual organic certification

35 Beau Maxi self un

36 Harvests 4-6 annually, composite samples for each plot

37 three measures soluble solids of fruit quality titratable acidity ph

38 Primary Objective Describe the influence of grafting and RS on yield and specific aspects of fruit quality across and within seasons.

39 Statistical Approach Proc Mixed RS a fixed effect; Y and R(Y) random effects protected mean separation

40 Results

41 Overall, results obtained here agree with a portion of the literature.

42 Beaufort 16 Buller et al., HortSci. 48(8): Nicolleto et al., J. Sci. Food Agric. 93: Organic 5 Field 4 Yield 4 Quality 3 Disease 4 Self-grafted 2 Buller et al., (2013) no yield differences among self-grafted, ungrafted and grafted combinations of Beaufort RS as a result of the grafting process. Also, no difference in total soluble solids or BRIX. (No disease observed.) Nicolleto et al., (2013) grafting with Beaufort RS did not affect ph nor titratable acids. However, sugars were found to be higher in self-grafted control plants.

43 Maxifort 14 Buller et al., HortSci. 48(8): Di Giois et al., HortSci. 48(7): Organic 9 Field 4 Yield 4 Quality 4 Disease 4 Self-grafted 2 Buller et al., (2013) no yield differences among self-grafted, ungrafted and grafted combinations of Maxifort RS as a result of the grafting process. Also, no difference in total soluble solids or BRIX. (No disease observed.) Di Gioia et al., (2013) no difference in yield between Maxifort grafted plants and ungrafted controls as a result of the grafting process. Yields did increase in grafted plants under moderate salinity levels but decreased at higher levels. Maxifort demonstrated higher yields compared to other RS or ungrafted plants regardless of salinity level. Total soluble solids and titratable acidity were unaffected by grafting.

44 Grafting negligible effects on yield (by harvest, total annual) true whether yearly data were pooled or kept separate for analysis.

45 2008

46 2009

47 2010

48 Grafting, Rootstock Effects on Fruit Quality do no harm; improve, if possible RS effects on ph in all years and on soluble solids ( Brix) in 2008, 2009 inconsistent effects on titratable acidity

49 Brix ph TA Brix ph TA Brix ph TA Ungrafted Celebrity Self-grafted Celebrity 4.5 a 4.19 c a 4.19 ab 6.44 b a bc 4.25 abc ab 4.13 c 7.07 a b 7.07 Beaufort RS 4.0 bc 4.23 bc ab 4.18 bc 6.17 c a 6.77 Maxifort RS 3.6 c 4.26 ab b 4.16 bc 6.67 abc a 7.01 SGH RS 3.9 c 4.26 ab ab 4.18 ab 6.45 bc a 7.06 SGH RS 4.1 abc 4.28 ab b 4.16 bc 6.91 ab a 7.25 SGH RS 4.5 a 4.32 a a 4.24 a 6.27 bc a 6.66 P value

50 Discussion

51 Modest Treatment Effects - Explanation 1 Plots were disease-free. Thus, a potentially significant benefit of grafting Celebrity was immaterial.

52 Modest Treatment Effects - Explanation 2 Celebrity is determinate or semi-determinate. Thus, all other factors aside, its yield potential is not increased by grafting it to indeterminate RSs.

53 Modest Treatment Effects - Explanation 3 Sub-lethal incompatibility limited the performance of grafted plants.

54 Modest Treatment Effects - Explanation 4 Grafted and ungrafted plants may require different management protocols. Thus, using protocols optimal for ungrafted plants penalized grafted ones.

55 THANK-YOU and GOOD LUCK! QUESTIONS?

56 Dr. Matt Kleinhenz Assoc. Professor, Extension Vegetable Specialist Dept. of Horticulture and Crop Science, The OSU-OARDC phone: Web: