Evaluation of WorldVeg rootstock lines for grafted tomato production in Uzbekistan

Bakhtiyor Akromovich Karimov; Ravza Fazliddinovna Mavlyanova

doi:10.30574/gscbps.2019.8.2.0115

Authors

Bakhtiyor Akromovich Karimov Junior Researcher, Laboratory of Vegetable Melon Crops Selection, Scientific Research Institute of Vegetable, Melon Crops and Potato, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Ravza Fazliddinovna Mavlyanova World Vegetable Center, Doctor of Agricultural Sciences, Coordinator of Central Asia and the Caucasus, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30574/gscbps.2019.8.2.0115

Keywords:

Tomato, Scion, Rootstock, Grafting, Yield, Chemical composition

Abstract

Tomato is consumed year-round in Central Asia. The crop is sown on a larger area than any other vegetable in the region, and tomato production levels exceed that of all other vegetables. However, local tomato varieties lack tolerance to biotic and abiotic stress. To address these concerns, the World Vegetable Center’s (WorldVeg) tomato grafting technology was introduced and WorldVeg rootstock lines were evaluated in Uzbekistan. Grafting can help overcome some soil-borne diseases, flooding, and saline soils. Following WorldVeg’s standard practices for grafting and cultivation, local variety Gulkand was grafted onto four rootstock lines with non-grafted Gulkand seedlings as the check. Experiment design was in four replications. Gulkand scions grafted onto three rootstocks flowered earlier (96-98 days) and ripened earlier (131-133 days) compared to the non-grafted Gulkand plants and treatment 1. Yield of non-grafted Gulkand plants from two harvests was 11.08 kg/m². All four grafted plants had a higher yield than the check. The highest yield at 116% was observed in treatment 2. In comparison with the check fruit weight (109 g), heavier fruit (126-128 g) was observed in treatments 2 and 4. Plants in treatment 2 accumulated less nitrate nitrogen than the check. Nitrate nitrogen levels were slightly higher in treatment 1. Based on these indicators, treatments 2 and 4 were the best performers, characterized by strong plant development, high yield and fruit weight. Treatments 1 and 2 showed the highest accumulation of chemical content in tomato fruit. Lines in treatments 1, 2 and 4 are recommended as rootstocks for tomato grafting.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Colla G, Schwarz D and Perez-Alfacea F. (2017). Vegetable grafting principles and practices. CABI, 298.

Cassaniti C, Giuffrida F, Leonardi C, Causarano G, Marcellino F, Longombardo S and Tumino V. (2015). Lateral stem development in tomato according to rootstock vigour and seedling management practices. Acta Hortic. 1086:205-211.

Introducing our first crop ever of grafted tomatoes! Garden News. #33 (June 2, 2010).

Huang Y, Kong QS, Chen F and Bie ZL. (2015). The history, current status and future prospects of vegetable grafting in China. Acta Hortic. 1086, 31-39.

Black LL, Wu DL, Wang JF, Kalb T, Abbass D and Chen JH. (2003). Grafting Tomatoes for Production in the Hot-Wet Season. International Cooperators Guide. AVRDC pub 03-551, 6.

Palada MC and Wu DL. (2010). Grafting techniques for tomato and pepper under rice-based cropping system. In: IPM in vegetables: enhancing its implementation in rice-based cropping systems. (Metro Manila: Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Agricultural Research), 91-123.

Albacete A, Andújar C, Dodd I, Giuffrida F, Hichri I, Lutts S, Thompson A and Asins M. (2015). Rootstock-mediated variation in tomato vegetative growth under drought, salinity and soil impedance stresses. Acta Hortic. 1086, 141-146.

Suchoff D, Gunter C, Schultheis J and Louws FJ. (2015). On-farm grafted tomato trial to manage bacterial wilt. Acta Hortic. 1086, 119-127.

Polizzi G, Guarnaccia V, Vitale A, Marra M, Rocco M, Arena S, Scaloni A, Giuffrida F, Cassaniti C and Leonardi C. (2015). Scion/rootstock interaction and tolerance expression of tomato to FORL. Acta Hortic. 1086:189-194.

Edelstein M and Ben-Hur M. (2015). Grafting: a useful tool to increase tolerance to toxic elements in vegetables under arid and semiarid conditions. Acta Hortic. 1086, 133-140.

UNIDO. Phasing - out of methyl bromide in horticulture of Romania. Progress report: May 2003 to March 2004.

Rysin O, Rivard C and Louws FJ. (2015). Is vegetable grafting economically viable in the United States: evidence from four different tomato production systems. Acta Hortic. 1086, 79-86.

Guidelines for the study of the tomato world collection. (1977). Leningrad, 14-19.

Oda M. (1999). Grafting of vegetables to improve greenhouse production. Food & Fertilizer Technology Center Extension Bulletin 480, 1-11.

Black L, Wu D, Wang J, Kalb T, Abbass D and Chen J. (2003). Grafting tomatoes for production in the hot-wet season. Asian Vegetable Research & Development Center. AVRDC Publication (03-551), 6.

Dospekhov BA. (1985). Field Experience methods. 5th edition. Moscow: Agropromizdat, 49-69.