Paper · 2022 · Horticulturae

Effect of Grafting Compatibility on Fruit Yield and Quality of Cantaloupe in a Mediterranean-Type Climate

Srijana Shrestha; Chakradhar Mattupalli; Carol Miles

11
claims
21
verbatim quotes
10
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Grafting is effectively used worldwide to overcome abiotic and biotic factors impacting yield, including soil temperature. Field studies were conducted in 2020 and 2021 in a cool Mediterranean climate (average daily air temperature range of 12.8–17.1 °C) to identify suitable rootstock combinations for grafted cantaloupe (Cucumis melo var. reticulatus) and evaluate fruit yield and quality. Cantaloupe cultivars Sugar Rush (SR), Goddess (G), and Athena (A) were compatible with interspecific hybrid squash (Cucurbita maxima × C. moschata) rootstock cultivars Super Shintosa (SS) and Carnivor (CN) but were incompatible with ‘Carolina Strongback (CS)’ (Citrullus amarus) and ‘Pelop (P)’ (Lagenaria siceraria) rootstocks. Nongrafted cultivars exhibited vine decline at harvest in 2020 but not in 2021, and grafting tended to delay harvest by 15–18 days. Overall, while grafting with interspecific hybrid squash rootstocks may have delayed fruit harvest, fruit quality was not compromised. Further, yield was increased for ‘Goddess’ and ‘Athena’, but not ‘Sugar Rush’. ‘A/CN’ had the highest fruit yield/ha and number per plant. The grafted treatments of each cantaloupe cultivar with interspecific hybrid squash rootstocks met the U.S. fancy grade criteria.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Three cantaloupe cultivars were compatible with two interspecific hybrid squash rootstocks.

Material
Sugar Rush (SR), Goddess (G), and Athena (A)e0
Outcome
compatiblee0

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cantaloupe cultivars Sugar Rush (SR), Goddess (G), and Athena (A) were compatible with interspecific hybrid squash (Cucurbita maxima × C. moschata) rootstock cultivars Super Shintosa (SS) and Carnivor (CN)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–597 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The cantaloupe cultivars were incompatible with Carolina Strongback rootstock.

Material
Carolina Strongback (CS)e1
Outcome
incompatiblee1

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cantaloupe cultivars Sugar Rush (SR), Goddess (G), and Athena (A)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–457 · show in text ↑
e1

“incompatible with ‘Carolina Strongback (CS)’ (Citrullus amarus)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 607–670 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The cantaloupe cultivars were incompatible with Pelop rootstock.

Material
Pelop (P)e1
Outcome
incompatiblee2

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cantaloupe cultivars Sugar Rush (SR), Goddess (G), and Athena (A)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–457 · show in text ↑
e1

“‘Pelop (P)’ (Lagenaria siceraria) rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 675–719 · show in text ↑
e2

“but were incompatible with”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–624 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nongrafted cantaloupe showed vine decline at harvest in 2020 but not 2021.

Outcome
vine decline at harveste0
Qualifier
in 2020 but not in 2021e0

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nongrafted cultivars exhibited vine decline at harvest in 2020 but not in 2021”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 721–799 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cantaloupe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–73 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafting tended to delay cantaloupe harvest by 15–18 days.

Treatment
graftinge0
Outcome
harveste0
Direction
delaye0
Value
15–18 dayse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grafting tended to delay harvest by 15–18 days”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 805–851 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cantaloupe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–73 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafting with hybrid squash rootstocks did not compromise cantaloupe fruit quality.

Treatment
grafting with interspecific hybrid squash rootstockse0
Outcome
fruit qualitye0
Direction
not compromisede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grafting with interspecific hybrid squash rootstocks may have delayed fruit harvest, fruit quality was not compromised”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 868–986 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cantaloupe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–73 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafting increased yield for Goddess.

Material
Goddesse0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“yield was increased for ‘Goddess’ and ‘Athena’, but not ‘Sugar Rush’”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 997–1065 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cantaloupe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–73 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafting increased yield for Athena.

Material
Athenae0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“yield was increased for ‘Goddess’ and ‘Athena’, but not ‘Sugar Rush’”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 997–1065 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cantaloupe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–73 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafting did not increase yield for Sugar Rush.

Material
Sugar Rushe0
Outcome
yielde0

Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“yield was increased for ‘Goddess’ and ‘Athena’, but not ‘Sugar Rush’”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 997–1065 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cantaloupe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–73 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A/CN had the highest fruit yield per hectare and fruit number per plant.

Material
A/CNe0
Outcome
fruit yield/ha and number per plante0
Direction
higheste0

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“‘A/CN’ had the highest fruit yield/ha and number per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1067–1125 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cantaloupe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–73 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Every cantaloupe cultivar grafted on hybrid squash rootstocks met U.S. fancy grade criteria.

Outcome
met the U.S. fancy grade criteriae0

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The grafted treatments of each cantaloupe cultivar with interspecific hybrid squash rootstocks met the U.S. fancy grade criteria”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1127–1255 · show in text ↑

grafting · yield · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Results differ

34 papers: 30 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. positive

30 papers more in this group

See all 34 papers →

grafting · quality: grain · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 1 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.