Abstract
The appropriate selection of rootstock-scion combinations to improve yield and fully realize grafting benefits requires an in-depth understanding of rootstock-scion synergy. Toward this end, we grafted two determinate-type scions [grape tomato ('BHN 1022') and beefsteak tomato ('Skyway')] onto four rootstocks with different characteristics to examine plant growth, yield performance, biomass production, and fruit mineral nutrient composition. The study was conducted during two growing seasons (spring and fall plantings in Florida) under organic production in high tunnels with the non-grafted scions as controls. Rootstocks had previously been designated as either "generative" ('Estamino') or "vegetative" ('DR0141TX') by some commercial suppliers or had not been characterized ['RST-04-106-T' and 'SHIELD RZ F1 (61-802)']. Also, 'Estamino', 'DR0141TX', and 'RST-04-106-T' had been described as more vigorous than 'SHIELD RZ F1 (61-802)'. In both planting seasons (with low levels of soilborne disease pressure), the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks increased marketable and total fruit yields for both scions except for the beefsteak tomato grafted with the "vegetative" rootstock in fall planting. Positive effects of 'RST-04-106-T' on fruit yield varied with scions and planting seasons, and were most manifested when grafted with the beefsteak tomato scion in fall planting. 'SHIELD RZ F1 (61-802)' led to similar yields as the non-grafted controls except for grafting with the grape tomato scion in fall planting. For vegetative and fruit biomass, both the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks had positive impacts except for the beefsteak tomato in fall planting. For fruit mineral composition, the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks, both highly vigorous, consistently elevated fruit P, K, Ca, Zn, and Fe contents on a dry weight basis, whereas the other rootstocks did not. Overall, although the more vigorous rootstocks enhanced tomato plant productivity and fruit minerals, the evidence presented here does not support the suggestion that the so-called "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks have different impacts on tomato scion yield, biomass production, or fruit mineral contents. More studies with different production systems and environmental conditions as well as contrasting scion genotypes are needed to further categorize the impacts of rootstocks with different vigor and other characteristics on plant biomass production and their implications on fruit yield development.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
The "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks increased marketable and total fruit yields of both tomato scions, except beefsteak tomato with the "vegetative" rootstock in fall planting.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstockse0
- Outcome
- marketable and total fruit yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- except for the beefsteak tomato grafted with the "vegetative" rootstock in fall plantinge0
- Comparator
- non-grafted scionse1
- Setting
- Floridae2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grafted tomato plant biomass”
e0“the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks increased marketable and total fruit yields for both scions except for the beefsteak tomato grafted with the "vegetative" rootstock in fall planting”
e1“with the non-grafted scions as controls”
e2“during two growing seasons (spring and fall plantings in Florida)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstock 'RST-04-106-T' had positive effects on fruit yield that varied with scion and planting season, most of all with beefsteak tomato in fall planting.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Material
- beefsteak tomatoe3
- Treatment
- 'RST-04-106-T'e3
- Outcome
- fruit yielde3
- Direction
- Positive effectse3
- Setting
- fall plantinge3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grafted tomato plant biomass”
e3“Positive effects of 'RST-04-106-T' on fruit yield varied with scions and planting seasons, and were most manifested when grafted with the beefsteak tomato scion in fall planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstock 'SHIELD RZ F1 (61-802)' gave yields similar to non-grafted controls, except with grape tomato scion in fall planting.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 'SHIELD RZ F1 (61-802)'e4
- Outcome
- yieldse4
- Direction
- similare4
- Qualifier
- except for grafting with the grape tomato scion in fall plantinge4
- Comparator
- non-grafted controlse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grafted tomato plant biomass”
e4“'SHIELD RZ F1 (61-802)' led to similar yields as the non-grafted controls except for grafting with the grape tomato scion in fall planting”
Claim · model-written summary
The "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks had positive impacts on vegetative and fruit biomass, except for beefsteak tomato in fall planting.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstockse5
- Outcome
- vegetative and fruit biomasse5
- Direction
- positive impactse5
- Qualifier
- except for the beefsteak tomato in fall plantinge5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grafted tomato plant biomass”
e5“For vegetative and fruit biomass, both the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks had positive impacts except for the beefsteak tomato in fall planting”
Claim · model-written summary
The "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks consistently elevated fruit P, K and Ca contents on a dry weight basis, whereas the other rootstocks did not.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstockse6
- Outcome
- fruit P, K, Cae7
- Direction
- elevatede7
- Comparator
- other rootstockse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grafted tomato plant biomass”
e6“the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks, both highly vigorous”
e7“consistently elevated fruit P, K, Ca, Zn, and Fe contents on a dry weight basis, whereas the other rootstocks did not”
Claim · model-written summary
The "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks consistently elevated fruit Zn and Fe contents on a dry weight basis, whereas the other rootstocks did not.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstockse6
- Outcome
- Zn, and Fee7
- Direction
- elevatede7
- Comparator
- other rootstockse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grafted tomato plant biomass”
e6“the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks, both highly vigorous”
e7“consistently elevated fruit P, K, Ca, Zn, and Fe contents on a dry weight basis, whereas the other rootstocks did not”
Claim · model-written summary
The evidence does not support that the "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks have different impacts on tomato scion yield, biomass or fruit minerals.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume7
- Treatment
- the so-called "vegetative" and "generative" rootstockse7
- Outcome
- tomato scion yield, biomass production, or fruit mineral contentse7
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grafted tomato plant biomass”
e7“the evidence presented here does not support the suggestion that the so-called "vegetative" and "generative" rootstocks have different impacts on tomato scion yield, biomass production, or fruit mineral contents”
The same questions in other papers
grafting · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →grafting · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 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.