Tomato Grafting for High Tunnels

2,644 views

Published on

by Cary L. Rivard. Presented at the 2012 MN Statewide High Tunnel Conference

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,644
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
145
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • LIST OF ROOTSTOCK WE ’VE WORKED WITH………. GROWER RECOMMENDATIONS……..
  • LIST OF ROOTSTOCK WE ’VE WORKED WITH………. GROWER RECOMMENDATIONS……..
  • LIST OF ROOTSTOCK WE ’VE WORKED WITH………. GROWER RECOMMENDATIONS……..
  • SEVERAL EXPERIMENTS……… LOOK INSIDE ORGANIC SYSTEM…………. SYSTEMS AND GRAFTING……….NO DISEASE……….OPTIMIZE
  • BEST EXAMPLES OF THIS IDEA LED TO SOME VERY PRODUCTIVE WORK THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO WITH STEVE GROFF Mid-atlantic …..Guy in the back….>200 acres of mixed vegetables, Leader in no-till vegetables,  Tunnels
  • PRIMARY OBJECTIVE… NOT ORGANIC……. NOT HEIRLOOMS…… LESS MONEY…….. ECONOMICS
  • 8th edition of Plant Propagation.
  • After that, the graft is put into a healing chamber and allowed to reattach its vascular tissue under a pristine operating condition. These are pictures of some of the chambers that we have built on campus. Indoor and Outdoor.
  • Same as last - Horizontal
  • Tomato Grafting for High Tunnels

    1. 1. HeirloomsMeBr Alternative ? Organics `High Home GardensTunnelsTomato Grafting for High Tunnel ProductionCary L. Rivard, Ph.D.February 9, 2012MN High Tunnels Conf.Brainerd, MN
    2. 2. Tomato Grafting• Benefits of Grafting • Disease management • Plant vigor • Fruit yield• Tube Grafting • Technique • Economics• Current Research
    3. 3. Tomato Grafting • First reports of vegetable grafting occurred in Asia in the 1920’s. Scion – Fusarium wilt of melon • Popularized in JapanRootstock and Korea – Tunnel and Greenhouse production
    4. 4. Vegetable Grafting Worldwide81% of Korean and 54% of Japanesevegetable production uses grafted plants (Lee, 2003) Photos courtesy of M. Peet (NCSU)
    5. 5. Benefits of Grafting• Root function – Disease resistance against soilborne pathogens – Water and nutrient uptake – Nutrient assimilation and transport – Interface with soil ecosystem
    6. 6. Fusarium Wilt• Fusarium wilt is caused by Fusarium oxysporum. – Unilateral wilting – Yellowing of leaves – Browning of xylem
    7. 7. Fusarium Wilt Fusarium Wilt Incidence: 60 Alamance Co. 2006 Non-grafted 50 Self-grafted RobustaFusarium Wilt Incidence (%) 40 Maxifort 30 20 10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Days After Transplanting
    8. 8. Disease Management Corky Fusarium Wilt Verticillium Root-knot Bacterial SouthernRootstocks TMV Root Wilt (r1) Nematode Wilt Blight Race 1 Race 2Beaufort * R R R R R MR S HRMaxifort * R R R R R MR S HR(Unreleased) * R S R R R R HR MRTMZQ702 ** R S R R R R MR MRDai Honmei *** R R R S R R HR MRRST-04-105 **** R R R R R R HR MRBig Power ***** R R R R R R S HRRobusta ****** R R S R R S S ? R=Resistant , HR=Highly Resistant, MR=Moderately Resistant, S=Susceptible * = De ‘Ruiter Seed Co. ** = Sakata Seed Co. *** = Asahi Seed Co. **** = D Palmer Seed Co. ***** =Rijk Zwaan ****** = Bruinsma Seed Co.
    9. 9. Disease Management Corky Fusarium Wilt Verticillium Root-knot Bacterial SouthernRootstocks TMV Root Wilt (r1) Nematode Wilt Blight Race 1 Race 2Beaufort * R R R R R MR S HRMaxifort * R R R R R MR S HR(Unreleased) * R S R R R R HR MRTMZQ702 ** R S R R R R MR MRDai Honmei *** R R R S R R HR MRRST-04-105 **** R R R R R R HR MRBig Power ***** R R R R R R S HRRobusta ****** R R S R R S S ? R=Resistant , HR=Highly Resistant, MR=Moderately Resistant, S=Susceptible * = De ‘Ruiter Seed Co. ** = Sakata Seed Co. *** = Asahi Seed Co. **** = D Palmer Seed Co. ***** =Rijk Zwaan ****** = Bruinsma Seed Co.
    10. 10. Disease Management Corky Fusarium Wilt Verticillium Root-knot Bacterial SouthernRootstocks TMV Root Wilt (r1) Nematode Wilt Blight Race 1 Race 2Beaufort * R R R R R MR S HRMaxifort * R R R R R MR S HR(Unreleased) * R S R R R R HR MRTMZQ702 ** R S R R R R MR MRDai Honmei *** R R R S R R HR MRRST-04-105 **** R R R R R R HR MRBig Power ***** R R R R R R S HRRobusta ****** R R S R R S S ? R=Resistant , HR=Highly Resistant, MR=Moderately Resistant, S=Susceptible * = De ‘Ruiter Seed Co. ** = Sakata Seed Co. *** = Asahi Seed Co. **** = D Palmer Seed Co. ***** =Rijk Zwaan ****** = Bruinsma Seed Co.
    11. 11. Benefits of Grafting• Root function – Disease resistance against soilborne pathogens – Water and nutrient uptake – Nutrient assimilation and transport – Interface with soil ecosystem
    12. 12. CEFS Research2006 SR-SARE R&E Grant• Compare production dynamics of tunnel vs field production. – Environment – Disease – Productivity – Economics• Optimize cultural practices for high ‘Cherokee Purple’ tunnels. – Nutrient / Fertility – Planting Date• Investigate the role of grafting for open-field and tunnel production. – Beaufort – Maxifort – Nutrient uptake efficiency
    13. 13. Total fruit n 300 200 Grafting Effects - 2007 100 0 BEAUFORT MAXIFORTC 180 160 42 % 53 % Total fruit yield (t/ha) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Open -field High tunnel The main effect of grafting was significant in both years, across systems, and with both data sets (100 DAP vs “systems”). System*grafting = NS
    14. 14. Total fruit n 300 200 Grafting Effects - 2008 100 0 BEAUFORT MAXIFORTC 180 160 37 % Total fruit yield (t/ha) 140 35 % 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Open -field High tunnel The main effect of grafting was significant in both years, across systems, and with both data sets (100 DAP vs “systems”). System*grafting = NS
    15. 15. 60 Grafting Effects - Yield Total fruit yield (t Maxifort 50 40 30 20 10 0 * Open-field 0 1 High tunnel 2 3 4 5 6 Harvest interval CTotal fruit yield (t/ha) 80 Total fruit yield (t/ha) 80 70 Nongraft 2007 70 Nongraft 2007 Beaufort Beaufort 60 60 Maxifort Maxifort 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Harvest interval 80 Nongraft D 2008 80 Nongraft 2008 70 70 Total fruit yield (t/ha)Total fruit yield (t/ha) Beaufort Beaufort 60 60 Maxifort Maxifort 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 * 0 * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Harvest interval Harvest intervalTotal fruit yield (t/ha) 80 70 Nongraft 60 50 • Bi-weekly harvest data was collected into five bins. Beaufort Maxifort 40 – Last bin was the final (terminal) harvest 30 20 – Previous four were equivalent divisions of the harvest season 10 0 • Each interval = 3 weeks in the tunnel or 2 weeks in the open-field * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
    16. 16. Cedar Meadow Farm Steve GroffCedar Meadow Farm – Lancaster County, PA
    17. 17. Verticillium Wilt• Verticillium dahliae – Loss of vigor – Wilting and leaf necrosis – Favored by cool wet weather – Race 2 prevalent in WNC (Bender & Shoemaker, 1984) – Reliance on fumigation
    18. 18. Cedar Meadow FarmResearch Objectives• Can vigorous rootstock be used to manage verticillium wilt?• How does grafting fit in with fumigation? – Additive or alternative• Can we reduce economic constraints through cultural methods? – Plant spacing (2008) Kaitlin Dye (Summer 2008) – Transplant costs (2009) Photo Courtesy: Steve Groff
    19. 19. Cedar Meadow Farm Lancaster County - 2009 80 C 70 CMarketable fruit yield (tons/acre) 60 B 50 A 40 30 20 10 0 Non-Fumigated Fumigated Non-Fumigated Fumigated Non-grafted Maxifort LSD P = 0.05
    20. 20. Cedar Meadow Farm Lancaster County - 2008 70 C 60 C BCMarketable yield (tons/acre) B B 50 A 40 30 20 10 0 18" 24" 36" 18" 24" 36" Non-grafted Maxifort LSD based on P=0.05
    21. 21. Economics Net returns of grafting ($/acre) : 2008 Non-grafted* Maxifort* (Max-Std) 18" Spacing $44,525 $47,366 $2,841 24" Spacing $47,827 $3,302 36" Spacing $45,533 $1008 Net returns of grafting ($/acre) : 2009 Non-grafted* Maxifort* (Max-Std)Fumigated $47,739 $60,699 $12,960Non-fumigated $57,677 $9,938 * Values = Gross revenue – harvest costs – transplant costs Selling price = $0.66 per lbs
    22. 22. Conclusions • Grafting provides a site-specific management tool for soilborne disease. – Disease diagnosis and rootstock selection are critical. • Use of rootstocks may increase yield through added vigor and nutrient uptake. • Cultural management may reduce economic constraints. – Planting density – Pruning/training – Fertility
    23. 23. Tube Grafting Suzanne O’Connell (NCSU)
    24. 24. Novelties Graft Unions Photo Courtesy: M. Peet (USDA-NIFA)
    25. 25. Disclaimer• No Recipe for Success• Principles – Production – Uniformity – Water Stress – Sanitation – Re-acclimation
    26. 26. Propagation Costs• Proportion of added costs – e.g. seed costs (%) = (SEEDgraft - SEEDnon) / (TOTALgraft - TOTALnon) $0.46 / plant $0.74 / plant = Added cost (Rivard et al., 2010)
    27. 27. Propagation Costs• US Tomato Production Systems are DiverseHydroponic greenhouses Multi-bay tunnels Large acreage High tunnels Small acreage ProcessingProtected Open-fieldCulture
    28. 28. Propagation Costs (Rivard et al., 2010)
    29. 29. Tube Grafting• The advent of “tube-grafting” or “Japanese top-grafting” has become the most popular for tomato. – Seedlings are grafted at 2-4 leaf stage. – High Throughput • A person can make ~ 1000 grafts/day • Grafting robots can make 700 grafts/hr.
    30. 30. Timeline
    31. 31. Seeding / Transplant Production • Uniformity is key – Germination period – Substrate – Transplanting / Sowing • Rootstock and scion • Numbers • Healthy Transplants • Healing Chamber
    32. 32. Tube Grafting Technique• Size: – 2-4 leaves – 1.5-2.0 mm stem diameter – Sorting• Temperature can be manipulated to compensate for size differences.• Timing is critical.
    33. 33. Tube Grafting Technique• Preparing for surgery… – Make sure plants are not water or nutrient stressed. – Have a clean working area. • Disinfect hands, tools, and grafting clips. – Carry out grafting indoors – Be in close proximity to healing chamber.
    34. 34. Tube Grafting Technique • Angle of cut • Clip attachment • Scion insertion • Provide good contact between the rootstock and the scion.
    35. 35. Life in the Chamber – During the healing process, the plant has to form callus tissue and reconnect vascular bundles within the stem.
    36. 36. Life in the Chamber – By altering the plant’s physical environment, we can offset the functional effects that this trauma has incurred, and give the plant time to heal itself…
    37. 37. Life in the Chamber• Objectives of the healing chamber – Reducing water stress by slowing the transpirational stream. • Humidity • Light • Temperature – Keep temperature fairly constant and between 75 and 80 degrees F.
    38. 38. Life in the Chamber • Regulate humidity – Cool-water vaporizers – Passive humidifiers – No warm-water vaporizers – No misters PLEASE – Overhead watering
    39. 39. • Regulate light & humidity in the chamber
    40. 40. Healing Chamber
    41. 41. Life in the Greenhouse • 7-10 days in the Greenhouse – Hardening off – Overhead Watering – The Clip – Transportation
    42. 42. Life on the FarmPlanting Depth Suckering
    43. 43. Early Tomato Production
    44. 44. Life on the FarmNON-GRAFTED MAXIFORT
    45. 45. Life on the Farm Twin leader for Twin leader forEuropean string trellis stake-and-weave
    46. 46. Review• Uniformity of seedlings• Timing• Patience• Sanitation• Careful observation• Water management• Cultural Management
    47. 47. 2011 Trials• Benefit of grafting for HT growers in Kansas – Less Disease Pressure – Six trials across the state • Maxifort • Trooper • RST-04-106 • Unreleased DR line – Propagation Methods • “topping” during grafting
    48. 48. Grafting Effects - Yield Z Z Z YZ B B AB ABFruit yield (lbs/plot) Y A P = 0.05
    49. 49. 2011 Gieringer Trial • High tunnel trial • BHN 589 scion • Evaluation of rootstock and “topping” of scion • RCBD (4 Reps) • Planted Apr 10 • Harvested weekly
    50. 50. Grafting Effects - Yield C Z Z C BC YZFruit yield (lbs/plot) B X X A P = 0.05
    51. 51. Come and visit any timeCary Rivard, 35230 W 135th St., Olathe, KS 66061 913-856-2335 ext 120; crivard@ksu.edu

    ×