Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Grafting and Green Manure Treatments on Postharvest Quality of Tomatoes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effects of green manures (Vicia faba) incorporated into the soil at different growth stages (FS (green manure mixed into the soil at flower stage) and SAH (green manure mixed into the soil at a stage after harvest)) on quality attributes of grafted and ungrafted tomatoes during cold storage were investigated. Fruit obtained from plants fertilized with different green manures were stored at 8 ± 0.5 °C and 90 ± 5% RH for 7, 14, and 21 days. At the end of each storage period, weight loss, respiration rate, firmness, soluble solids content, titratable acidity, vitamin C, and bioactive compounds of the fruit were determined. At the end of the storage periods, fruit of ungrafted plants had lower weight loss, respiration rate, and phenolic acids (except for caffeic acid), but greater firmness, soluble solids content (SSC), vitamin C, total phenolics (TPs), and antioxidant activity (AA). Green manure–treated fruit had greater weight loss, firmness, total flavonoids (TFs) (except for FS), and AA, but lower respiration rate, hue angle, SSC (except for SAH), acidity, vitamin C, and TPs (except for FS). Grafting × green manure interactions had significant effects on quality attributes of tomatoes. In ungrafted plants, as compared with the control, green manure yielded lower weight loss, hue angle, vitamin C, and TPs (except for FS), but greater respiration rate, firmness, SSC (except for FS), and AA. On the other hand, in grafted plants, again as compared with the control, green manure yielded greater weight loss, TPs (except for FS), TFs, and AA, but lower respiration rate, firmness, SSC, acidity (except for SAH), and vitamin C. At the end of storage, green manure–treated fruit had greater protocatechuic and 4-hydroxybenzoic acids than the control fruit. In terms of changes in fruit quality attributes during storage, the responses elicited by green manure treatments were dependent on whether or not plants were grafted. For instance, while green manure treatments increased weight loss of the fruit from grafted plants, they decreased weight loss of fruit from ungrafted plants at the end of 21-day storage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abanto-Rodriguez C, Pinedo-Panduro M, Alves-Chagas E, Cardoso-Chagas P, Tadashi-Sakazaki R, Santos de Menezes PH, Farias-Araújo W, Murga-Orrillo H (2016) Relation between the mineral nutrients and the vitamin C content in camu-camu plants (Myrciria dubia) cultivated on high soils and flood soils of Ucayali. Peru Sci Agrop 7:297–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Harbi A, Hejazi A, Al-Omran A (2017) Responses of grafted tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L) to abiotic stresses in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Biol Sci 24:1274–1280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Amodio ML, Colelli G, Hasey JK, Kader AA (2007) A comparative study of composition and postharvest performance of organically and conventionally grown kiwifruit. J Sci Food Agric 87:1228–1236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arah IK, Amaglo H, Kumah EK, Ofori H (2015) Preharvest and postharvest factors affecting the quality and shelf life of harvested tomatoes: a mini review. Intern J Agron 6:478041. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/478041

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett DM, Weakley C, Diaz JV, Watnik M (2007) Qualitative and nutritional differences in processing tomatoes grown under commercial organic and conventional production systems. J Food Sci 72:441–455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beckles DM (2012) Factors affecting the postharvest soluble solids and sugar content of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L) fruit. Postharvest Biol Technol 63:129–140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bertin N, Genard M (2018) Tomato quality as influenced by preharvest factors. Sci Hortic 233:264–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blois MS (1958) Antioxidant determinations by the use of a stable free radical. Nature 26:1199–1200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonaro M, Mattera M (2001) Polyphenoloxidase activity and polyphenol levels in organically and conventionally grown peach (Prunus persica L, cv Regina bianca) and pear (Pyrus communis L, cv Williams). Food Chem 72:419–424

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ceglie FG, Amodio ML, Colelli G (2016) Effect of organic production systems on quality and postharvest performance of horticultural produce. Horticulturae 2016(2):4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang CC, Yang MH, Wen HM, Chern JC (2002) Estimation of total flavonoid content in propolis by two complementary colorimetric methods. J Food Drug Anal 10:178–182

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chassy AW, Bui L, Renaud ENC, van Horn M, Mitchell AEA (2006) Three-year comparison of the content of antioxidant micro-constituents and several quality characteristics in organic and conventionally managed tomatoes and bell peppers. J Agric Food Chem 54:8244–8252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colla G, Rouphael Y, Cardarelli M, Massa D, Salerno A, Rea E (2006) Yield, fruit quality and mineral composition of grafted melon plants grown under saline conditions. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 81:146–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crino P, Lo Bianco C, Rouphael Y, Colla G, Saccardo F, Paratore A (2007) Evaluation of rootstock resistance to Fusarium wilt and gummy stem blight and effect on yield and quality of a grafted ‘Inodorus’ melon. Hortscience. 42:521–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisosto CH, Johnson RS, DeJong T, Day KR (1997) Orchard factors affecting postharvest stone fruit quality. Hortscience. 32:820–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AR, Perkins-Veazie P, Sakata Y, Lopez-Galarza S, Maroto JV, Lee SG (2008) Cucurbit grafting. Crit Rev Plant Sci 27:50–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Amor FM, Serrano-Martinez A, Fortea I, Nunez-Delicado E (2008) Differential effect of organic cultivation on the levels of phenolics, peroxidase and capsidiol in sweet peppers. J Sci Food Agric 88:770–777

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Demirtas I, Erenler R, Elmastas M, Goktasoglu A (2013) Studies on the antioxidant potential of flavones of Allium vineale isolated from its water-soluble fraction. Food Chem 136:34–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gioia F, Serio F, Buttano D, Ayala O, Santamaria P (2010) Influence of rootstock on vegetative growth., fruit yield and quality in ‘Cuore di Bue’, an heirloom tomato. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 85:477–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Garcia N, Martinez V, Cerda A, Carvajal M (2004) Fruit quality of grafted tomato plants grown under saline conditions. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 79:995–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores FB, Sanchez-Bel P, Estan MT, Martinez-Rodriguez MM, Moyano E, Morales B (2010) The effectiveness of grafting to improve tomato fruit quality. Sci Hortic 125:211–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell M, Smith R (2007) Nitrogen sources for organic vegetable crops. Horttechnology. 17:431–441

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kacar B, İnal A (2008). Plant analyses. Nobel publishing, Ankara, Turkey 1241

  • Kaffka SR, Bryant DC, Denison RF (2005) Comparison of organic and conventional maize and tomato cropping systems from a long-term experiment in California in Proceedings of the First Scientific Conference of the International Society for Organic Farming Research; Koepke., U., Neuhoff., D., Cornish., P., Lockeretz., W., Wiler., H., Eds; Institute of Organic Agriculture: Bonn., Germany., pp 218-221

  • Koleska I, Hasanagic D, Todorovic V, Murtic S, Maksimovic I (2018) Grafting influence on the weight and quality of tomato fruit under salt stress. Ann Appl Biol 172:187–196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krejcova A, Navesnik J, Jicinska J, Cernohorsky T (2016) An elemental analysis of conventionally, organically and self-grown carrots. Food Chem 192:242–249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriacou MC, Rouphael Y, Colla G, Zrenner R, Schwarz D (2017) Vegetable grafting: the implications of a growing agronomic imperative for vegetable fruit quality and nutritive value. Front Plant Sci 8:741

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Kubota C, Tsao SJ, Bie Z, Echevarria PH, Morra L, Oda M (2010) Current status of vegetable grafting: diffusion, grafting techniques, automation. Sci Hortic 127:93–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzi A, Antichi D, Bigongiali F, Mazzoncini M, Migliorini P, Tesi R (2009) Effect of different cover crops on organic tomato production. Renew Agr Food Syst 24:92–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthria D, Singh AP, Wilson T, Vorsa N, Banuelos GS, Vinyard BT (2010) Influence of conventional and organic agricultural practices on the phenolic content in eggplant pulp: plant-to-plant variation. Food Chem 121:406–411

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Valverde I, Periago MJ, Provan G, Chesson A (2002) Phenolic compounds., lycopene and antioxidant activity in commercial varieties of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). J Sci Food Agric 82:323–330

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RG (1992) Reporting of objective color measurements. Hortscience. 27:1254–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mditshwa A, Magwaza LS, Tesfay SZ, Mbili N (2017) Postharvest quality and composition of organically and conventionally produced fruit: a review. Sci Hortic 216:148–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell AE, Hong YJ, Koh E, Barrett DM, Denison RF, Kaffka S (2007) Ten-year comparison of the influence of organic and conventional crop management practices on the content of flavonoids in tomatoes. J Agric Food Chem 55:6154–6159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mozafar A (1993) Nitrogen fertilizers and the amount of vitamins in plants: a review. J Plant Nutr 16:2479–2506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletto C, Tosini F, Sambo P (2013) Effect of grafting on biochemical and nutritional traits of ‘Cuore di bue’ tomatoes harvested at different ripening stages. Acta Agric Scand Sect B 63:114–122

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pieper JR, Barrett DM (2009) Effects of organic and conventional production systems on quality and nutritional parameters of processing tomatoes. J Sci Food Agric 89:177–194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pogonyi A, Pek Z, Helyes L, Lugasi A (2005) Effect of grafting on the tomato’s yield., quality and main fruit components in spring forcing. Acta Aliment 34:453–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proietti S, Rouphael Y, Colla G, Cardarelli M, De Agazio M, Zacchini M (2008) Fruit quality of mini-watermelon as affected by grafting and irrigation regimes. J Sci Food Agric 88:1107–1114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Riahi A, Hdider C, Sanaa M, Tarchoun N, Ben Kheder M, Guezal I (2009). Effect of conventional and organic production systems on the yield and quality of field tomato cultivars grown in Tunisia. J Sci Food Agric 89: 2275-2282.

  • Riga P, Benedicto L, Garcia-Flores L, Villano D, Medina S, GilIzquierdo A (2016) Rootstock effect on serotonin and nutritional quality of tomatoes produced under low temperature and light conditions. J Food Compos Anal 46:50–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi F, Godani F, Bertuzzi T, Trevisan M, Ferrari F, Gatti S (2008) Health-promoting substances and heavy metal content in tomatoes grown with different farming techniques. Eur J Nutr 47:266–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rouphael Y, Schwarz D, Krumbein A, Colla G (2010) Impact of grafting on product quality of fruit vegetables. Sci Hortic 127:172–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Rodriguez E, Moreno DA, Ferreres F, Rubio-Wilhelm MM, Ruiz JM (2011) Differential responses of five cherry tomato varieties to water stress: changes on phenolic metabolites and related enzymes. Phytochemistry. 72:723–729

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton VL, Rossi JL (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Vitic 16:144–158

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slimestad R, Verheul M (2009) Review of flavonoids and other phenolics from fruit of different tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) cultivars. J Sci Food Agric 89:1255–1270

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Spangler C, Brandeau ML, Hunter GE, Bavinger JC, Pearson M, Eschbach PJ, Sundaram V, Liu H, Schirmer P, Stave C (2012) Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives? A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 157:348–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sönmez K, Ellialtıoğlu ŞŞ (2014) An investigation on factors affected carotenoids in tomato. Derim. 31:107–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steward AJ, Bozonnet S, Mullen W, Jenkins GI, Lean MEJ, Crozier A (2000) Occurrence of flavonols in tomatoes and tomato-based products. J Agric Food Chem 48:2663–2669

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tomas-Barberan FA, Espin JC (2001) Phenolic compounds and related enzymes as determinants of quality in fruit and vegetables. J Sci Food Agric 81:853–876

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toor RK, Savage GP, Heeb A (2006) Influence of different types of fertilisers on the major antioxidant components of tomatoes. J Food Compos Anal 19:20–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turhan A, Ozmen N, Serbeci MS, Seniz V (2011) Effects of grafting on different rootstocks on tomato fruit yield and quality. Hortic Sci 38:142–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuzel Y, Oztekin GB (2016) Recent developments of vegetables protected cultivation in Turkey. Acta Hortic 1142:435–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (1991) Crop production: USDA., NASS., ASB., Cr Pr 2-1 (91). January., Washington., DC., 28 pp.

  • Wadano A, Azeta M, Itotani S, Kanda A, Iwaki T, Taira T (1999) Change of ascorbic acid level after grafting of tomato seedlings. Z Naturforsch 54:830–833

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao X, Guo Y, Huber DJ, Lee J (2011) Grafting effects on postharvest ripening and quality of 1-methylcyclopropene-treated muskmelon fruit. Sci Hortic 130:581–587

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zeki Gökalp (a certified English translator and an expert in biosystems engineering) for his critical reading and through syntactic corrections of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey

    Burhan Ozturk

  2. Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

    Harun Ozer

Authors
  1. Burhan Ozturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harun Ozer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Burhan Ozturk. Planning, design, and data analysis of postharvest experiments, and writing of the manuscript

Harun Ozer. Planning and design of experiment in field

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Burhan Ozturk or Harun Ozer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozturk, B., Ozer, H. Effects of Grafting and Green Manure Treatments on Postharvest Quality of Tomatoes. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 19, 780–792 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-019-00077-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-019-00077-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation