GRAFTING:A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH IN VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION.

13-Nov-19 1Dept. of VSC
International Food Policy Research Institute. GLOBAL FOOD POLICY REPORT (2018)

Grafting : A multidimensional approach in vegetable
crop production
ON
Presented by
Department of Vegetable science
COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, BENGALURU

CONTENt
Introduction on Vegetable grafting
Physiology and genetic aspects of
grafting
Prerequisits for vegetable
grafting
Methods and advances in Vegetable
grafting
Multidimensional approaches with case studies
Tips for successful grafting and their field management
Future thrust
Conclusion
13-Nov-19
4Dept. of VSC

Natural or deliberate fusion of plant parts so that vascular continuity
is established between them and the resulting genetically composite
organism functions as a single plant.
13-Nov-19 5
Grafting is a technique where by tissues of plants i.e. scion and
rootstock are joined so as to continue their growth together.
Or
Pradhan et al. (2017)

• Grafting in vegetables first literature reported by Hong17th
century
• Grafting of vegetable was first started in Japan and Korea were
water melon was grafted onto pumpkin rootstock
1920
• Watermelon were grafted onto rootstocks of bottle gourd against
Fusarium wilt
1930
• Grafting of watermelon on melon against Fusarium wilt1947
• Brinjal were grafted onto Solanum integrifolium against
Verticillium wilt, Fusarium, Bacterial wilt and Nematodes.
1950
• Grafting in cucumber and tomato1960
• Area expansion under grafted vegetables ,59% of the area in Japan
and 81% in Korea
1990
• Grafting work has been started at IIHR, Bengaluru by Dr. R M
Bhatt and his associates
2003
Kumar et al .(2018)
Landmarks in vegetable grafting
13-Nov-19 6
Dept. of VSC

Current status of vegetable grafting
 East Asia is the largest market for vegetable grafting because of high
concentration of cucurbits and other grafted vegetables.
 In Korea(99%), Japan(94%) and China(40%) producing watermelon by using
grafted transplants (Bie et al., 2017). In solanaceous vegetables, about 60-65 %
tomatoes and eggplants and 10-14 % of peppers are produced through grafted
transplants.
 In the Netherlands all the tomato under soilless culture conditions utilize
grafted tomato transplants (Bie et al., 2017).
 In China, over 1500 commercial nurseries are producing grafted transplants.
 Canada exporting grafted transplants to Mexico, (Bie et al., 2017). Thus the
international trading of grafted vegetable transplants is rapidly increasing.
Sinha et al.(2018)13-Nov-19
7
Dept. of VSC

Physiology of graft union formation
Hartmann et al .(2019)13-Nov-19 8Dept. of VSC

Genetic aspects of grafting
Harada (2010)
It makes easy to utilize the genetic potential of rootstock.

Objectives of grafting in different vegetables
Vegetables Objectives Rootstock
Cucumber Tolerance to Fusarium wilt,
Phytophthora melonis, low
temperature
Cucurbita moschata,
Cucurbita ficifolia, Cucurbita
maxima,
Lagenaria siceraria
Watermelon Tolerance to Fusarium wilt
(Fusarium oxysporum), low
temperature, drought tolerance,
wilting due to physiological
disorder
Citrullus lanatus, Cucurbita
maxima, C. moschata,
Lagenaria siceraria
Bitter gourd Tolerance to Fusarium wilt (Fusarium
oxysporum.f.sp. momordicae)
Cucurbita moschata,
Lagenaria siceraria, Luffa
aegyptica

Vegetables Objectives Rootstock
Melon Tolerance to Fusarium wilt
(Fusarium oxysporum), low
temperature, wilting due to
physiological disorder, Phytophthora
disease,
Cucumis melo, Benincasa
hispida, Cucurbita sp.,
C. moschata x C. maxima
Tomato Tolerance to bacterial wilt (Ralstonia
solanacearum), Fusarium
oxysporum, Nematodes
(Meloidogyne sp), Verticillium
dahlia.
Solanum pimpinellifolium,
Solanum nigrum, Solanum
lycopersicum
Eggplant Tolerance to bacterial wilt(Ralstonia
solanacearum), Fusarium
oxysporum, Verticillium alboatrum,
Nematodes, low temperatures,
induction of greater vigour.
Solanum torvum, Solanum
integrifolium, Solanum
melongena, Solanum nigrum,
Solanum
sissymbrifolium, Solanum
khasianum

Essential pre-requisites for vegetable
grafting
1. Selecting the right rootstock/scion
13-Nov-19 12Dept. of VSC Tirupatamma et al. (2019)

2. Graft compatibility:
13-Nov-19 13Dept. of VSC Tirupatamma et al.(2019)

3. Screening house

4. Grafting aids
Grafting clips, Tubes, Pins, and Grafting Blade.

5. Healing of grafts
Temperature should be 28‐29 0C with 95% relative humidity for 5-7
days in partially shaded place (darkness for 1‐2 days) to promotes callus
formation at graft union.

6. Acclimatization of the grafted plants

Methods of grafting
a) Cleft grafting (apical or wedge grafting )
Sinha et al .(2018 )

Root stock & Scion material
Preparing root stock & scion
Securing the joint with a
grafting strip Joining the scion to the rootstock
b) Tongue / approach grafting :
Sinha et al .(2018 )13-Nov-19 19Dept. of VSC

13-Nov-19
20
A 20-day old rootstock (bottle gourd)
with 3-5 mm stem diameter.
Removal of the true leaves leaving the
cotyldonary leaves intact.
Piercing the centre of the rootstock
by a hedge-shape stick.
The stick pierce the stock at a depth of 12
mm.
The shoot (scion) is taken from a 2-week old
seedling or from mature plants.
Scion is cut in a similar shape as the
piercing stick.
Suitable scion is 5 cm long. Woden stick is replaced by the scion
Successful grafts are determined after 24
hours.
c) Hole insertion / Top insertion grafting
Sinha et al . (2018 )

d) Tube grafting
13-Nov-19 21Dept. of VSC Sinha et al .(2018 )

e)Slant grafting
Root stock & Scion material
Securing the joint with the clip Joining the root stock & Scion
Preparing the root stock & Scion
Sinha et al . (2018 )13-Nov-19
22
Dept. of VSC

f) Pin grafting
Kumar and Sanket (2017)

Scion plant Rootstock Method
Eggplant Solanum torvum Tongue and Cleft methods
Tomato S. pimpinellifolium Only Cleft method
S. nigrum Tongue and Cleft methods
Cucumber Cucurbita moschata Hole insertion and tongue methods
C. maxima Tongue method
Watermelon Benincasa hispida Hole insertion and tongue methods
Cucumis melo Cleft method
Bottle gourd C. moschata Hole insertion and tongue methods
Table 1: Grafting methods and rootstocks used in Vegetables
crops
Sinha et al .(2018 )13-Nov-19 24Dept. of VSC

Recent innovations
Table 2: Some robots developed for grafting vegetables
Sinha et al . (2018 )
 The first semiautomatic cucumber grafting system was commercialized in
1993.
 A simple semiautomatic grafting machine can produce 350–600 grafts/hour
with 2 operators, whereas manual grafting techniques produce about 1,000
grafts / person / day
 A fully automated grafting robot performing 750 grafts/hour with a 90-93%
success rate.

Micro-grafting:
In vitro micrografting of watermelon.
Micrografted seedlings after
20 days of transplant
Micrografted plant
growing in greenhouse.
In-vitro grafted seedling
Growth of micrografted watermelon on
MS media
Rootstock Scions
10 days after transplanting
Zhang et al. (2015)13-Nov-19 27
Dept. of VSC

Watermelon and bottle gourd
Cucumber and pumpkin
Melon and wax gourd
Popular interactions
Inter-Generic:
Tirupatamma et al. (2019)

Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformae Solanum pimpinellifolium
Solanum sisymbrifolium
Inter-Specific
Solanum indicumSolanum torvum
Tomato and tomato
Eggplant and eggplant
Solanum incanum
13-Nov-19
29Dept. of VSC Tirupatamma et al. (2019)

Grafting against to biotic stress
Grafting against to abiotic stress
Grafting for yield, quality, crop duration and plant vigour
improvement
Multidimentional???
13-Nov-19
30Dept. of VSC

Grafting against biotic stress
Major soil borne pathogens
Verticillium pathogens
Fusarium pathogens
Bacterial wilt pathogens
Root knot nematodes
13-Nov-19
31Dept. of VSC

Succeptible
but popular
variety
13-Nov-19
32
Dept. of VSC

Objective:
To study the efficacy of Maxifort as a rootstock for tomato cultivars in reducing
severity of main soil borne disease (VW, FW, FCRR)
Case study 1

Materials and method
Plant material
1. Scions: Malinche, Kawthar, Amal
2. Root stock: Maxifort (Solanum lycopersicum x Solanum habrochaites)
Method of grafting: Cleft method
Fungal material
 Verticillium dahliae (Vd) race 1
 V. dahliae (Vd) race 2
 Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici (FOL) races 1
 F. oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici (FOL) races 2
 F. oxysporum f.sp. radicis-lycopersici (FORL)
Formula for estimation of Relative Vascular Discoloration Extent(RVDE)
RVDE(%)=(Vascular browning extent/Plant
height)x10013-Nov-19 34Dept. of VSC
Khiareddine et al. (2019)

Fig. 1: Relative vascular discoloration extent noted on Maxifort-grafted and non-grafted
tomato cvs. Malinche at 60 days after artificial inoculation with fungal soilborne
pathogens.
2 21 L
13-Nov-19 35Dept. of VSC Khiareddine et al. (2019)
Vd race 1 Vd race 2 FOL 2 FORLFOL 1
37% 43%

tomato cvs. Amal plants at 60 days after artificial inoculation with fungal soil borne
pathogens.
21
85%
Vd race 1 FOL 2 FORLFOL 1
23%
Vd race 2
2%

tomato cvs. Kawthar plants at 60 days after artificial inoculation with fungal soil borne
pathogens.
For all cultivars combined and fungal treatments pooled, grafted plants significantly
reduced the RVDE, by 24% compared to non-grafted controls
Vd race 1 Vd race 2 FOL 2 FORLFOL 1
30%
69%

Crop Rootstock Improved feature Reference
Watermelon ‘Shintoza’(Cucurbita maxima
× C. moschata)
Fusarium wilt Miguel et al. (2004)
‘Shintoza’(C. maxima × C.
moschata)
Root-knot
nematode
Miguel et al. (2006)
‘Super Shintoza’ Verticillium wilt Dabirian et al.
(2017)
Melon ‘Shintoza’(C. maxima × C.
moschata)
Root rot diseases Nisini et al. (2002)
Fusarium wilt Zhou et al. (2014)
Cucumber Figleaf gourd(C. ficifolia) Fusarium wilt Marukawa and
Takastu. (1969)
Table 3: Research reports on biotic stress tolerance

Eggplant S. integrifolium Root knot nematode Gisbert et al. (2011)
S. torvum Verticilium wilt Miles et al. (2015)
Sweet
pepper
AR-96023 (Capsicum
annum)
Root knot nematode Oka et al. (2004)
AF-2628(C. annum) Phytophthora capsici Santos and Gota
(2004)
Snoker Root knot nematode Oliveiri et al. (2009)
Tomato ‘Beaufort’(S. lycopersicum ×
S. habrochaites)
Soil borne pathogens Hamdi et al. (2009)
Cont.,

Grafting against to abiotic stress
Heavy
metals
Flooding

Grafting tomato on eggplant as a potential tool to improve
waterlogging tolerance in hybrid tomato
Anant Bahadur, N Rai, Rajesh Kumar, S K Tiwari, A K Singh, A K Rai, Umesh Singh, P K Patel,
Vivek Tiwari, A B Rai, Major Singh and B Singh
Vegetable Science (2015) 42 (2) : 82-87
Objective:
To identify the suitable waterlogging tolerant egg plant rootstock.
13-Nov-19 Dept. of VSC 41
Case study 2

Plant material
1. Scions: Arka Rakshak, Arka Samrat
2. Root stock: IC-354557,IC-111056, IC-374873 and CHBR-2
Method of grafting: Splice/Side method
Method:
Grafted and non grafted plants
were exposed to water logging condition for
72 and 97 hours respectively at :-
1.Early vegetative stage (15 DAT)
2.Active vegetative stage (45 DAT)
3.Reproductive stage (75 DAT)
Bahadur et al. (2015)

Treatment details
T1-Arka Rakshak (Control) T6-Arka Samrat (Control)
T2-Arka Rakshak on IC-354557 T7-Arka Samrat on IC-354557
T3-Arka Rakshak on IC111056 T8-Arka Samrat on IC111056
T4-Arka Rakshak on IC374873 T9-Arka Samrat on IC374873
T5-Arka Rakshak on CHBR-2 T10-Arka Samrat on CHBR-2

Fig.4 :Showing wilting during (a)early vegetative, (b)active vegetative and (c)reproductive
stages.
(Error bar shows P<0.05 level of significance.)
(a)Early vegetative stage
(b)Active vegetative
stage
(c)Reproductive stageWilting
Wilting
Wilting
0 = Dead plant,
1 = 100-75% of wilt from tip to the base
2 = 74-50% wilting of leaves from tip to the middle
3 = Leaves between base and middle undulating
4 = Recurved leaves margins
5 = Green plant with no sign of stress Yeboah et al.(2008)13-Nov-19 44

Fig.5a: Chlorophyll content index at early vegetative stage of 72 hours
waterlogging. (Error bar shows P<0.05 level of significance).

Fig.5b: Chlorophyll content index at active vegetative stage of 96hours
waterlogging. (Error bar shows P<0.05 level of significance)

Fig.5c: Chlorophyll content index at reproductive stage of 96 hours waterlogging.
(Error bar shows P<0.05 level of significance)

Watermelon ‘TZ 148’(C. maxima x C.
moschata)
Salinity Edelstein et al.
(2005)
Melon ‘TZ 148’ (C. maxima x C.
moschata)
Salinity Edelstein et al. (2011)
Cucumber ‘Shintoza’ (C. maxima x C.
moschta)
High temperature Lee et al. (2010)
‘Chaojiquanwang’ (C.
moschata)
Salinity Huang et al. (2013)
‘Shintoza’ (C. maxima x C.
moschta)
Cold Y. Li et al. (2015)
Pumpkin Cold and saline Xu et al. (2017)
Table 4: Research reports on abiotic stress tolerance

Eggplant S. torvum Salinity Giuffrida et al.
(2015)
Tomato ‘AR-9704’ (Solanum
lycopersicum)
Salinity García et al. (2004)
‘Maxifort’(S. lycopersicum
× S. habrochaites)
Heavy metal
toxicity
Kumar et al. (2015)
Cont.,

Grafting for yield, quality and plant vigour
improvement

Objective:
 To elucidate the influence of Solanum torvum rootstock on plant
survival and other horticultural parameters under excess moisture
stress.
Case study 3

1.Scion:
Surati Ravaiya Pink
Surati Ravaiya Purple
2.Rootstock
Solanum torvum
3.Method of grafting: Cleft method
Kumar et al. (2019)
Treatment details
T1-Surati Ravaiya Pink- Non-graft
T2- Surati Ravaiya Pink- Graft
T3- Surati Ravaiya Purple- Non-graft
T4-Surati Ravaiya Purple- Graft

Table 5. Comparative performance of grafted and non-grafted brinjal during
rainy season for plant survival, vigour and reproductive parameters (pooled mean
of 3 seasons)
Kumar et al. (2019)

Table 6. Comparative performance of grafted and non-grafted brinjal during
rainy season for yield components and shoot and fruit borer infestation (Pooled
mean of 3 seasons)
Kumar et al. (2019)

Treatments
Fruit
yield
(t/ha)
Gross
realization
(Rs/ha)
Cost A
(Variable cost +
Interest on
working
capital)
Cost B
(Cost A +
Rental value of
land)
Cost C
[Total cost of
cultivation
(Rs/ha)]
Net return
(Rs/ha)
T1: Surati Ravaiya Pink
: Non-graft
18.12 453000.00 133740.00 163940.00 163940.00 289060.00
T2: Surati Ravaiya Pink:
Graft
25.30 632500.00 242312.00 284478.00 284478.00 348022.00
T3 : Surati Ravaiya
Purple: Non-graft
32.36 809000.00 135501.00 189434.00 189434.00 619566.00
T4: Surati Ravaiya
Purple: graft
45.23 1130750.00 245968.00 321352.00 321352.00 809398.00
Table 7. Comparative economic analysis of grafted vs. non-grafted
brinjal.
Kumar et al. (2019)

Objective: To determine the effects of tomato/potato heterografting on the
physiological characters, quality and yield of fruits and tubers.
Case study 4

1. Scion
 Zhongyan988 (ZY988) F1
hybrid of Tomato
2. Rootstock
 Lishu6 (LS6)
 Qingshu9 (QS9)
 Hezuo88 (HZ88)
 Diantongshu (DTS1)
3.Method of grafting: Cleft method
Zhang and Guo (2018)13-Nov-19 57Dept. of VSC
Treatment details
T1- ZY988(Control)
T2- ZY988 on LS6
T3- ZY988 on QS9
T4- ZY988 on HZ88
T5- ZY988 on DTS1

Fig. 6 Effect of grafting on yield of tomato and potato.
(A)Tomato yields from self-rooted tomatoes
and those grafted onto different potato
rootstock varieties(g/plant)
(B)Yield of self-rooted tomatoes and
total yield from grafted tomato/potato
grafted plants(g/plant)
13-Nov-19 58Dept. of VSC Zhang and Guo (2018)

(C)Yield of self-rooted and grafted potatoes. (D)Yield of self-rooted potatoes and total
yield of grafted tomato/potato grafted
plants.
13-Nov-19 Dept. of VSC
Fig 6. Effect of grafting on yield of tomato and potato.
A significant difference between self-rooted plants and the grafted plants is indicated with
different low- ercase letters (p < 0.05) using the Student’s t-test. Values are mean ± S.E. (n = 15)
Zhang and Guo (2018)

Fig. 7: Effect of different rootstock varieties on fruit quality of grafted tomato
scions.(A)Vitamin C (Vc), (B)Total soluble solids (TSS), (C)Soluble sugar (SS),
(D)Titratable acidity (TA), (E)SS/TA content in ungrafted and grafted fruits were compared.
13-Nov-19
60Dept. of VSC
33% 31% 23%

Fig. 8: Evaluation of the quality of potato tubers. (A)Starch content (SC), (B)Vitamine C
(Vc), (C)Reducing sugar (RS), and (D)Soluble protein (SP) in ungrafted and grafted potato
tubers were compared.
13-Nov-19 61
Dept. of VSC
7% 13% 10% 10%
42%
51%
25%
24%
30%
65%
23%
61%

Objective:
To study the effects of bottle gourd rootstocks on nutrient uptake and
nitrogen use efficiency of watermelon.
Case study 5

1.Scion:
 Watermelon cv. Crimson Tide (CT)
2.Rootstock
 Birecik ( Local bottle gourd landrace)
 Emphasis
 Skopje
 FRGold
 216
3.Method of grafting: Hole insertion
method
Commercial bottle
gourd hybrids
Yetisir and Nebahat (2019)
Treatment details
T1-Crimson Tide (Control)
T2-Crimson Tide on Birecik
T3-Crimson Tide on Emphasis
T4-Crimson Tide on Skopje
T5-Crimson Tide on FRGold
T6-Crimson Tide on 216

Graft combinations Fe Cu Mn Zn
CT/216 298 a 7.04 b 73.40 24.3 bc
CT /FRGold 271 a 7.09 b 72.30 21.2 c
CT /Emphasis 267 a 7.06 b 64.50 27.7 a
CT /Skopje 275 a 8.64 a 62.60 26.1 ab
CT /Birecik 283 a 6.18 b 69.08 25.4 ab
CT 140 b 6.78 b 72.49 23.2 bc
Mean 255.9 24.66 69.01 7.13
LSD0.05 50.84 1.2 ns 3.19
Table 8. Micro nutrient uptake of Crimson Tide (CT) watermelon
onto different rootstocks(ppm)
Yetisir and Nebahat
(2019)

Fig.9: Shoot and root dry weight of grafted and non-grafted watermelon
(g plant-1) CT: Crimson Tide; SDW: Shoot Dry Weight; RDW: Root Dry Weight.
13-Nov-19 65Dept. of VSC Yetisir and Nebahat (2019)

Fig. 10: Total yield of grafted and non-grafted watermelon (ton /1000 m2). CT:
Crimson Tide
13-Nov-19
66
Dept. of VSC
Increase in yield ranged from 12% to 112% compared to non grafted control
Fruit yield (ton/1000 m2)

Fig. 11: Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of grafted watermelon plants (ton yield/kg
N) CT: Crimson Tide
0.10.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
NUE (ton yield/kg N)

Watermelon ‘Brava(C. pepo) N metabolism Pulgar et al. (2000)
‘Jinxzhen’(C. moschata) K uptake and
metabolism
Huang et al. (2003)
‘PS 1313’(C. maxima × C.
moschata)
Water use efficiency Rouphael et al.
(2008)
Cucumber Squash (C. moschata) Long shelf life Sakata et al. (2008)
Eggplant S. incanum × S. melongena Productivity Gisbert et al. (2011)
Capsicum Creonte Increase yield and
water use efficiency
Marin et al. (2017)
Table 9: Research reports on yield and quality

Melon ‘Shintoza’ (C. maxima × C.
moschta)
Mineral and water
uptake
Bautista et al. (2011)
‘RD 841’ (C. maxima × C.
moschta)
K uptake Orsini et al. (2013)
‘RS 841 N uptake, biomass
production and
increased
photosynthesis
Neocleous (2015)
Tomato ‘Maxifort’ (S. lycopersicum × S.
habrochaites)
Productivity Semiz and Suarez
(2015)
‘Beaufort’ (S. lycopersicum × S.
habrochaites)
Mineral uptake and
metabolism
Djidonou et al. (2015)
Beaufort and Maxifort Increase in Lycopene,
flavoinoids, phenolic
compounds and
vitamins in ‘Florida
47’
Riga et al. (2016)
13-Nov-19
69
Dept. of VSC
Cont.,

Tips for a Successful Graft Union
Tirupatamma et al. (2019)13-Nov-19
70
Dept. of VSC
Hardening
Turgidit
y
Shade

Field management for high survival rate
1. Care of seedling before grafting
2. Care of seedlings after grafting
13-Nov-19 71
Dept. of VSC

3. Field Management of Grafted Seedlings
Raised beds and shelters
Raised beds and shelters
Depth of Transplanting
Removal of adventitious roots Staking and pruning

Future prospects
 Development of more
efficient grafting robots
 Collection,
conservation and
characterization of
wild species for root
stock purpose
13-Nov-19 73

Conclusion
 Grafting is emerging as one of the promising tools to enhance
plant performance under various biotic and abiotic stress
condition.
 Promote vegetable production under non
traditional and fragile eco system.
 Can be used as a major component under
IDM and organic vegetable production.

GRAFTING:A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH IN VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to GRAFTING:A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH IN VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION.

Similar to GRAFTING:A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH IN VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION. (20)

More from University of horticultural sciences, Bagalkote

More from University of horticultural sciences, Bagalkote (17)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

GRAFTING:A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH IN VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION.