Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 115–119 | Cite as

Effect of grafting on growth, yield and fruit quality of single and double stemmed tomato plants grown hydroponically

  • Amir Rahmatian
  • Mojtaba Delshad
  • Reza SalehiEmail author
Research Report Protected Horticulture


Vegetative growth traits, and fruit yield and quality of ‘Synda’ tomato plants were compared with those grafted onto ‘King Kong’ rootstock or self-grafted. All experimental plants were trained to have either one stem (single stemmed) or two stems (double stemmed). Values of stem diameter, leaf area, leaf and root fresh weight (FW), and root dry matter (DM) increased with grafting onto ‘King Kong’. Stem length, stem and root FW, and stem DM in double stemmed plants increased. Mean fruit weight, number of fruits, and yield were significantly increased by 11, 17.8, and 27%, respectively, in the grafted plants. Number of fruits and fruit yield increased, while mean fruit weight decreased by 12%, in double stemmed plants. Contents of total soluble solids (TSS) and vitamin C increased in the fruits harvested from the grafted plants. Grafted and double stemmed plants resulted in significant increase in dry matter allocation to different tomato organs.

Additional key words

dry matter greenhouse rootstock training method 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Ahn, S.J., Y.J. Im, G.C. Chung, B.H. Cho, and S.R. Suh. 1999. Physiological response of grafted-cucumber leaves and rootstock roots by low root temperature. Sci. Hort. 81:397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Besri, M. 2002. Tomato grafting as an alternative to methyl bromide in Morocco. Institut Agronomieque et Veterinaire Hasan II, Morocco.Google Scholar
  3. Bletsos, F., C. Thanassoulopoulos, and D. Roupakias. 2003. Effect of grating on growth, yield and verticillium wilt of eggplant. HortScience 38:183–186.Google Scholar
  4. Canizares, K.A.L. and R. Goto. 1998. Growth and hybrid produce of cucumber as a function of grafting. Hort. Brasil 16:110–113.Google Scholar
  5. Chouka, A.S. and H. Jebari. 1999. Effect of grafting on watermelon on vegetative and root development, production and fruit quality. Acta Hort. 492:85–93.Google Scholar
  6. Den Nijs, A.P.M. and L. Smeets. 1987. Analysis of difference in growth of cucumber genotypes under low light conditions in relation to night temperature. Euphytica 36:19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelstein, M., Y. Burger, C. Horev, A. Porat, A. Meir, and R. Cohen. 2004. Assessing the effect of genetic and anatomic variation of Cucurbita rootstocks on vigor, survival and yield of grafted melons. J. Hort. Sci. Biotechnol. 79:370–374.Google Scholar
  8. Estan, M.T., M.M. Martinez-Rodrigues, F. Perez-Alfoce, T.J. Flowers, and M.C. Bolarin. 2005. Grafting raises the salt tolerance of tomato through limiting the transport of sodium and chloride to the shoot. J. Exp. Bot. 56:703–712.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernandez-Garcia, N., V. Martinez, A. Cerda, and M. Carvajal. 2004. Fruit quality of grafted tomato plants grown under saline conditions. J. Hort. Sci. Biotechnol. 79:995–1001.Google Scholar
  10. Flores, F., B.P. Sanchez-Bell, M.T. Estan, M.M. Martinez-Rodriguez, E. Moyano, B. Morales, J.F. Campos, J.O. Garcia-Abellán, M.I. Egea, N. Fernández-Garcia, F. Romojaro, and M.C. Bolarín. 2010. The effectiveness of grafting to improve tomato fruit quality. Sci. Hort. 125:211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heuvelink, E. 1995. Growth, development and yield of a tomato crop: Periodic destructive measurements in a greenhouse. Sci. Hort. 61:77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heuvelink, E. 1996. Tomato growth and yield: Quantitative analysis and synthesis. Diss., Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Heuvelink, E. 2005. Tomatoes. Cabi Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ioannou, N., M. Ioannou, and K. Hadjiparaskevas. 2002. Evaluation of watermelon rootstocks for off-season production in heated greenhouses. Acta Hort. 579:501–506.Google Scholar
  15. Kacjan Marsic, N., and J. Osvald. 2004. The influence of grafting on yield of two tomato cultivars (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in a plastic house. Acta Agric. Slovenica 82–83.Google Scholar
  16. Kato, T. and H. Lou. 1989. Effect of rootstocks on yield, mineral nutrition and hormonal level in xylem sap in eggplant. J. Japan. Soc. Hort. Sci. 58:345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, J.M. 1994. Cultivation of grafted vegetables. I. Current status, grafting methods and benefits. HortScience 29:235–239.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, J.M. and M. Oda. 2003. Grafting of herbaceous vegetable and ornamental crops. Hort. Rev. 28:61–124.Google Scholar
  19. Leonardi, C. and A. Paratore. 1998. Response to salinity of grafted plants of tomato and eggplant. Atti IV Giornate Scientifiche SOI:607-608.Google Scholar
  20. Leoni, S., R. Grudina, M. Cadinu, B. Madeddu, and M.C. Garletti. 1990. The influence of four rootstocks on some melon hybrids and a cultivar in greenhouse. Acta Hort. 287:127–134.Google Scholar
  21. Lopez-Perez, J.M, I. Le Strange, A. Kaloshiana, and T. Ploega. 2006. Differential response of Mi gene-resistant tomato rootstocks to root knot nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita). Crop Protection 25:382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Majedi, M. 1994. Chemical test procedures of food material. Jahad Daneshgahi, Univ. of Tehran. p. 65.Google Scholar
  23. Oda, M. 1995. New grafting method for fruit-bearing vegetables in Japan. Japan Agricul. Res. Quart. 29:187–194.Google Scholar
  24. Rivero, R.M., J.M. Ruiz, and L. Romero. 2003. Role of grafting in horticultural plants under stress conditions. Food Agricul. Environ. 1:70–74.Google Scholar
  25. Romano, D. and A. Paratore. 2001. Effects of grafting on tomato and eggplant. Acta Hort. 559:149–153.Google Scholar
  26. Ruiz, J.M. and L. Romero. 1999. Nitrogen efficiency and metabolism in grafted melon plants. Sci. Hort. 81:113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruiz, J.M., A. Belakbir, A. Lopez-Cantarero, and L. Romero. 1997. Leaf-macronutrient content and yield in grafted melon plants: A model to evaluate the influence of rootstock genotype. Sci. Hort. 71:227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salehi, R., A. Kashi, and H. Lessani. 2004. The effects of different cucurbit rootstocks on growth and yield of greenhouse cucumber. Iran. J. Hort. Sci. Technol. 5:59–66.Google Scholar
  29. Salehi, R., A. Kashi, J.M. Lee, M. Babalar, M. Delshad, S.G. Lee, and Y.C. Huh. 2010. Leaf gas exchanges and mineral ion composition in xylem sap of Iranian melon affected by rootstocks and training methods. HortScience 45:766–770.Google Scholar
  30. Santa-Cruz, A., M.M. Martinez-Rodriguez, F. Perez-Alfocea, R. Romero-Aranda, and M.C. Bolarin. 2002. The rootstock effect on the tomato salinity response depends on the shoot genotype. Plant Sci. 162:825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tachibana, S. 1989. Respiratory response of detached roots of lower temperature in cucumber and fig leaf gourd grown at 20°C root temperature. J. Japan. Soc. Hort. Sci. 58:33–337.Google Scholar
  32. Teruo, M. and H. Hiromichi. 1994. Mineral contents in melon plants (Cucumis melo L. cv. ‘Prince’) and fruit quality influenced by grafting on squash root stocks and calcium applications in soil. Environ. Cont. Biol. 32:119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Traka-Mavrona, E., M. Koutsika-Sotiriou. and T. Pritsa. 2000. Response of squash (Cucurbita spp.) as rootstock for melon (Cucumis melo L). Sci. Hort. 83:353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White, R.A.J. 1963. Grafted greenhouse tomatoes give heavier crops. New Zealand J. Agric. 106:247–248.Google Scholar
  35. Yetisir, H. and N. Sari. 2004. Effect of hypocotyl morphology on survival rate and growth of watermelon seedlings grafted on rootstocks with different emergence performance at various temperatures. Turk. J. Agric. Forest. 28:231–237.Google Scholar
  36. Zerki, M. and L.R. Parsons. 1992. Salinity tolerance of Citrus rootstocks: Effects of salt on root and leaf mineral concentrations. Plant Soil 147:171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zijlstra, S., S.P.C. Groot, and J. Jansen. 1994. Genotypic variation of rootstocks for growth and production in cucumber: Possibilities for improving the root system by plant breeding. Sci. Hort. 56:185–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Horticultural Science and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Horticultural Sciences, Campus of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesUniversity of TehranKarajIran

Personalised recommendations