Paper · 2017 · Acta Horticulturae

Evaluation of two potentialCucumisspp. resources for grafting melons

C. Gisbert; N. Gammoudi; M. Munera; et al.

5
claims
7
verbatim quotes
5
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Cultivation of Cucumis melo is hampered by soil stresses. Grafting is used to overcome these limitations. Different cucurbits belonging to several genera have been used as rootstocks for melons: Cucurbita, Lagenaria, Luffa, etc. However, negative effects on fruit quality appear in some rootstock-scion combinations. The selection of new resistant rootstocks that do not cause this negative impact in quality is necessary to improve melon cultivation. In this work, we evaluated two rootstocks, closer genetically to melon scions than those usually employed: a) an F1 hybrid between a commercial melon (C. melo subspecies melo var inodorus market class Piel de Sapo) and one exotic accession (C. melo subspecies agrestis var. chinensis) with resistance to Monosporacus cannonballus, the causal agent of melon vine decline, and with a certain level of tolerance to Fusarium oxysporum f sp. melonis race 1.2, that causes Fusarium wilt, and b) an accession of Cucumis metuliferus, highly resistant to M. cannonballus, F. oxysporum 1.2 and evaluated and classified as highly resistant to Meloidogyne spp. in this work. Grafting compatibility of these two selected genotypes with commercial melons was good. All grafted plants displayed higher vigour and earlier flowering than ungrafted plants. Fruits from plants grafted onto C. metuliferus showed similar quality than those from ungrafted/selfgrafted plants. However, fruits from plants grafted onto the F1 (inodorus x chinensis) had in this experiment lower brix degree than the ungrafted controls. The resistance to soil borne pathogens found in C. metuliferus and the good performance regarding plant development and fruit quality of the scions indicate that this species is a promising rootstock for melons.

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 5

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

C. metuliferus was classified as highly resistant to Meloidogyne spp.

Taxon
Cucumis metuliferusCucumis metuliferuse0
Interactor
Meloidogyne spp.Meloidogynee0pathogen
Outcome
highly resistant to Meloidogyne spp.e0

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

Cucumis metuliferus
Cucumis metuliferus · TaxonAnagoria · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne
Meloidogyne · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Photo by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cucumis metuliferus, highly resistant to M. cannonballus, F. oxysporum 1.2 and evaluated and classified as highly resistant to Meloidogyne spp. in this work”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 957–1113 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both selected genotypes had good grafting compatibility with commercial melons.

Taxon
commercial melonse0
Outcome
Grafting compatibilitye0
Direction
goode0

Verbatim

e0

“Grafting compatibility of these two selected genotypes with commercial melons was good”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1115–1201 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafted plants had higher vigour and earlier flowering than ungrafted plants.

Taxon
commercial melonse1
Treatment
grafted plantse0
Outcome
vigour and earlier floweringe0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
ungrafted plantse0

Verbatim

e0

“All grafted plants displayed higher vigour and earlier flowering than ungrafted plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1203–1289 · show in text ↑
e1

“commercial melons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1192 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

C. metuliferus grafting yielded similar fruit quality to ungrafted or selfgrafted plants.

Taxon
C. metuliferusCucumis metuliferuse0
Treatment
grafted onto C. metuliferuse0
Outcome
qualitye0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
ungrafted/selfgrafted plantse0

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

Cucumis metuliferus
Cucumis metuliferus · TaxonAnagoria · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fruits from plants grafted onto C. metuliferus showed similar quality than those from ungrafted/selfgrafted plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1291–1405 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

F1 rootstock grafting lowered fruit brix degree relative to ungrafted controls.

Taxon
melonCucumis meloe1
Treatment
grafted onto the F1 (inodorus x chinensis)e0
Outcome
brix degreee0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
ungrafted controlse0

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

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“fruits from plants grafted onto the F1 (inodorus x chinensis) had in this experiment lower brix degree than the ungrafted controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1416–1546 · show in text ↑
e1

“melon scions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 517–529 · show in text ↑

grafting · quality: sugar starch · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Results differ

10 papers: 4 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

grafting · growth · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results

39 papers: 34 positive, 5 negative or no effect

33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 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.