Paper · 2015 · HortScience

Grafting Affects Growth, Yield, Nutrient Uptake, and Partitioning Under Cadmium Stress in Tomato

Pradeep Kumar; Menahem Edelstein; Mariateresa Cardarelli; et al.

11
claims
27
verbatim quotes
71
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A greenhouse experiment was conducted to determine the influence of long-term cadmium (Cd) exposure (0, 25, or 50 µ m of Cd) on crop productivity, fruit quality, leaf chlorophyll content, fluorescence, and mineral composition in plants of tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram), either nongrafted, self-grafted, or grafted onto rootstocks of tomato (Maxifort or Unifort) and eggplant (Black Beauty). Both moderate (25 µ m ) and high (50 µ m ) concentration of Cd in root environment considerably decreased the fruit yield and fruit number in response to Cd levels, whereas mean fruit weight decreased but was similar to both Cd supply levels. The fruit yield, shoot and root biomass, and leaf area (LA) were higher in plants grafted onto tomato rootstocks and especially onto Maxifort in comparison with nongrafted or self-grafted plants and especially grafted onto Black Beauty. The higher plant performance of tomato rootstock–grafted plants were related to higher chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic pigments concentration in leaves associated with better nutrient translocation and availability (higher Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Cu) in leaves. The content of Cd was also lower in leaves and fruits of Maxifort-grafted plants. Concerning fruit quality, especially peel color, toxicity symptoms, and Cd concentration, Black Beauty followed by Maxifort-grafted plants were better than the other grafting combinations. However, plants grafted onto Black Beauty rootstock resulted in lowest fruit yield and plant growth attributes due to lower nutrient uptake and translocation indicating some incompatibility reaction between Black Beauty rootstock and Ikram scion.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moderate and high Cd in the root environment decreased tomato fruit yield and fruit number.

Material
Ikrame0
Treatment
concentration of Cd in root environmente2
Outcome
fruit yield and fruit numbere2
Direction
decreasede2
Qualifier
moderate (25 µ m ) and high (50 µ m )e2
Setting
greenhousee1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e1

“A greenhouse experiment was conducted”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–37 · show in text ↑
e2

“Both moderate (25 µ m ) and high (50 µ m ) concentration of Cd in root environment considerably decreased the fruit yield and fruit number”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 405–543 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean tomato fruit weight decreased similarly at both Cd supply levels.

Treatment
Cd supply levelse3
Outcome
mean fruit weighte3
Direction
decreasede3
Qualifier
similar to both Cd supply levelse3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e3

“whereas mean fruit weight decreased but was similar to both Cd supply levels”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 570–646 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tomato rootstock grafting increased fruit yield, shoot and root biomass and leaf area compared with nongrafted or self-grafted plants, especially on Maxifort.

Material
Maxiforte4
Treatment
grafted onto tomato rootstockse4
Outcome
fruit yield, shoot and root biomass, and leaf areae4
Direction
highere4
Comparator
nongrafted or self-grafted plantse4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e4

“The fruit yield, shoot and root biomass, and leaf area (LA) were higher in plants grafted onto tomato rootstocks and especially onto Maxifort in comparison with nongrafted or self-grafted plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 648–842 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tomato rootstock-grafted plants had higher chlorophyll fluorescence and leaf photosynthetic pigment concentration.

Treatment
tomato rootstock–grafted plantse5
Outcome
chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic pigments concentration in leavese5
Direction
highere5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e5

“The higher plant performance of tomato rootstock–grafted plants were related to higher chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic pigments concentration in leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 885–1048 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher plant performance of tomato rootstock-grafted plants is related to better nutrient translocation and availability.

Treatment
tomato rootstock–grafted plantse5
Outcome
plant performancee5
Qualifier
better nutrient translocation and availabilitye6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e5

“The higher plant performance of tomato rootstock–grafted plants were related to higher chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic pigments concentration in leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 885–1048 · show in text ↑
e6

“associated with better nutrient translocation and availability (higher Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Cu) in leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1049–1153 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf Ca, Mg and Fe were higher in tomato rootstock-grafted plants.

Treatment
tomato rootstock–grafted plantse5
Outcome
Ca, Mg, Fee6
Direction
highere6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e5

“The higher plant performance of tomato rootstock–grafted plants were related to higher chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic pigments concentration in leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 885–1048 · show in text ↑
e6

“associated with better nutrient translocation and availability (higher Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Cu) in leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1049–1153 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf Mn and Cu were higher in tomato rootstock-grafted plants.

Treatment
tomato rootstock–grafted plantse5
Outcome
Mn, and Cue6
Direction
highere6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e5

“The higher plant performance of tomato rootstock–grafted plants were related to higher chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic pigments concentration in leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 885–1048 · show in text ↑
e6

“associated with better nutrient translocation and availability (higher Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Cu) in leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1049–1153 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cd content in leaves and fruits was lower in Maxifort-grafted tomato plants.

Organ / stage
leaves and fruitse7
Treatment
Maxifort-grafted plantse7
Outcome
content of Cde7
Direction
lowere7

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e7

“The content of Cd was also lower in leaves and fruits of Maxifort-grafted plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1155–1235 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Black Beauty followed by Maxifort-grafted plants gave better fruit quality (peel color, toxicity symptoms and Cd concentration) than other grafting combinations.

Material
Black Beautye1
Treatment
grafting combinationse1
Outcome
peel color, toxicity symptoms, and Cd concentratione1
Direction
bettere1
Comparator
the other grafting combinationse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e1

“Concerning fruit quality, especially peel color, toxicity symptoms, and Cd concentration, Black Beauty followed by Maxifort-grafted plants were better than the other grafting combinations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1237–1424 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafting onto Black Beauty rootstock gave the lowest fruit yield and plant growth, due to lower nutrient uptake and translocation.

Material
Black Beautye1
Treatment
grafted onto Black Beauty rootstocke1
Outcome
fruit yield and plant growth attributese1
Direction
loweste1
Qualifier
due to lower nutrient uptake and translocatione1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e1

“plants grafted onto Black Beauty rootstock resulted in lowest fruit yield and plant growth attributes due to lower nutrient uptake and translocation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1435–1583 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Black Beauty rootstock and Ikram scion show some incompatibility, which explains the lower plant growth.

Outcome
plant growth attributese1
Qualifier
incompatibility reaction between Black Beauty rootstock and Ikram scione2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ikram)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–282 · show in text ↑
e1

“plants grafted onto Black Beauty rootstock resulted in lowest fruit yield and plant growth attributes due to lower nutrient uptake and translocation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1435–1583 · show in text ↑
e2

“indicating some incompatibility reaction between Black Beauty rootstock and Ikram scion”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1584–1671 · show in text ↑

cadmium atom · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ

13 papers: 2 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

grafting · crop injury · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

climate site · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

23 papers: 13 positive, 10 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

grafting · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

176 papers: 151 positive, 25 negative or no effect

150 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

172 papers more in this group

See all 176 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.