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
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
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
Outline IOP project objectives and experiments Overview of OREI-IOP data USDA-SCRI project activities and overview of data to date
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
OREI- IOP Project 2007-2010 Central Questions Does grafting or rootstock impact yield? Does grafting impact timing of yield? Does grafting impact fruit quality?
The Question of Quality Quality Yield Key for adoption Initial Hippocratic orientation Overall picture inconclusive Underreported in organic systems
Experimental Site x year x rootstock OSU, UMinn, NCState (WVState, Penn State) 2007-2010 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
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
Marketable Yields from 3 Sites Celebrity SC Kg/plant Ungrafted Celebrity Selfgrafted Celebrity over 2 Years (2008,2009) Minnesota Ohio North Carolina 1.96±0.17 6.32±0.40 2.04±0.38 1.71±0.26 6.42±1.50 2.11±0.29 Maxifort 1.83±0.21 6.30±0.71 2.44±0.50 Beaufort 1.77±0.19 6.91±0.57 2.76±0.17 SG07-313 2.10±0.38 6.26±1.10 2.54±0.46 SG07-314 2.15±0.24 6.44±1.08 2.19±0.24
Timing of Yield- OH Harvests 2008 Marketable yield per plant by harvest date 7 kg/plant 6 5 4 3 Ungrafted Celebrity Selfgrafted Celebrity Beaufort RS Maxifort RS SG07-313 RS SG07-314 RS SG07-319 RS 0.04 0.71 0.043 2 0.0011 0.099 0.14 0.65 1 0 8/26 9/3 9/10 9/16 9/23 9/30 10/6
Timing of Yield- OH Harvests 2009 Marketable yield per plant by harvest date 7 6 5 Ungrafted Celebrity Selfgrafted Celebrity Beaufort RS Maxifort RS SG07-313 RS SG07-314 RS kg/plant 4 3 0.072 0.072 2 0.075 0.047 0.34 0.79 1 0 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17
Timing of Yield- OH Harvests 2010 Marketable yield per plant by harvest date 7 kg/plant 6 5 4 3 0.023 0.059 Ungrafted Celebrity Selfgrafted Celebrity Beaufort RS Maxifort RS SG07-313 RS SG07-314 RS SG07-319 RS 2 0.53 0.37 0.32 0.38 0.34 1 0 8/18 8/25 9/1 9/8 9/15 9/23 10/6
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
Tomato fruit quality (OH data only) Soluble Solids in Celebrity Scions with Multiple Rootstocks 6 5 2008 2009 2010 4 Brix 3 2 1 0 UngrftCeleb SelfgrftCeleb Beaufort Maxifort SG07-313 SG07-314 SG07-319
Tomato fruit quality(oh) Titratable Acidity in Fruits from Celebrity Scions on Multiple Rootstocks 10 8 2008 2009 2010 Titratable acidity (ml) 6 4 2 0 UngrftCeleb SelfgrftCeleb Beaufort Maxifort SG07-313 SG07-314 SG07-319
HT Grafting x irrigation volume kg Total yield/plant 2009 2010 Ungrafted standard 8.4±1.4 12.3±2.1 Ungrafted deficit 6.2±1.4 9.7±0.3 Grafted standard 11.6±1.1 11.2±1.1 Grafted deficit 10.9±1.4 11.6±1.3
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
HT Plant Density
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±4.7 13.5±1.2 Emperador- 4 spacing 64.9±7.6 16.2±1.9 FG07-338- 4 spacing 49.0±3.8 12.2±1.0 Maxifort- 2 spacing 67.2±2.5 7.5±0.3 Emperador- 2 spacing 76.6±5.2 8.5±0.6 FG07-338- 2 spacing 70.5±7.5 7.8±0.8
HT Historical Soil Management Study
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±0.8 8.9±0.9 Emperador 6.5±0.6 10.1±0.7 FG07-338 5.5±0.7 7.9±0.9 Ungrafted Moskvich 3.7±0.5 7.4±0.9
Field Irrigation Volume Study
Field Irrigation Volume- 2012 BHN 589 SC 4 RS x 2 Irrigation trt Total yield Kg/plant ± SE Maxifort + 13.1±2.5 Emperador + 15.1±0.8 FG07-320 + 11.4±0.7 Ungrafted BHN 589 + 8.7±0.5 Maxifort - 11.9±0.9 Emperador - 13.4±0.8 FG07-320 - 10.4±0.3 Ungrafted BHN 589-10.2±1.3
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