Next Article in Journal
Facilitation Effects of Haloxylon salicornicum Shrubs on Associated Understory Annuals, and a Modified “Stress-Gradient” Hypothesis for Droughty Times
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Phosphate Shortage on Root Growth and Hormone Content of Barley Depend on Capacity of the Roots to Accumulate ABA
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 9
Issue 12
10.3390/plants9121725
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Scion and Rootstock Differently Influence Growth, Yield and Quality Characteristics of Cherry Tomato

by
Rosario Paolo Mauro
1,*,
Michele Agnello
1,
Andrea Onofri
2,
Cherubino Leonardi
1 and
Francesco Giuffrida
1
1
Dipartimento di Agricoltura, Alimentazione e Ambiente, University of Catania, Via Valdisavoia, 5-95123 Catania, Italy
2
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Ambientali, University of Perugia, Borgo XX Giugno, 74-06121 Perugia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2020, 9(12), 1725; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9121725
Submission received: 12 November 2020 / Revised: 27 November 2020 / Accepted: 4 December 2020 / Published: 7 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Development and Morphogenesis)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Grafting is a valuable tool for managing problems of tomato soil-borne pathogens and pests, but often generates unpredictable effects on crop yield and product quality. To observe these rootstocks-induced changes, experimental designs including many rootstock-scion combinations are required. To this end, a greenhouse experiment was conducted on 63 graft combinations, involving seven cherry tomato scions grouped in large, medium and small-fruited, and eight rootstocks with different genetic backgrounds (crosses between Solanum lycopersicum and S. habrochaites or S. peruvianum or S. pimpinellifolium, plus an intraspecific hybrid), using ungrafted controls. The response of the graft partners was firstly analyzed individually using the environmental variance (σ2E), then by grouping them by classes. When analyzed individually, the scion genotype influenced fruit L*, b*, shape index, total soluble solids (TSS) and its ratio with tritatable acidity (TSS/TA), whereas plant growth and yield were unpredictable. After clustering the graft partners, some of these responses were attributable to the imposed classes. The S. habrochaites-derived hybrids maximized plant biomass, unlike the S. pimpinellifolium ones. Both classes reduced fruit biomass in small- and medium-fruited scions (by 11 and 14%, respectively). The S. habrochaites and S. peruvianum hybrids reduced a* and TSS, whereas promoted TA. L-ascorbic acid was reduced by grafting (from −23 to −45%), in the S. pimpinellifolium group too, indicating, even in low vigor rootstocks, a dilution effect worsening this nutraceutical trait of tomatoes.

1. Introduction

Vegetable grafting was initially promoted to meet the restrictions to soil disinfestation against soil-borne pathogens and pests, but over time, it has become a strategic tool for improving the crops’ performances under a wide array of suboptimal growth conditions [1,2,3], becoming a cornerstone of the modern sustainable horticulture. Nowadays, grafting is recognized as a pivotal means to modify the vegetative vigor and maximize the yield of several horticultural crops [4], but such increases can be accompanied by variable effects on fruit quality [5].
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is one of most important greenhouse crops in the Mediterranean Basin [6,7], for which grafting is considered a standard practice in commercial greenhouse cultivations [8]. An improved yield is commonly reported in tomato grafted onto appropriate rootstocks as a result of an increased fruit size or number of fruits per plant, the former feature typically recognized also in scions with small-sized fruits, such as cherry tomato [5,9]. It has been reported that vigorous rootstocks tend to increase fruit yield probably by enhancing water and nutrient uptake and transport to the scion [10]. As a consequence of the central contribution of both processes to fruit metabolism, several authors have noticed rootstock-mediated effects on many tomato traits such as shape [11], color [12], texture [13], taste and aroma components [14,15] or ascorbic acid content [16]. However, these effects have been even conflicting among authors, making impossible to draw sound conclusions about the overall effects of this technique on tomato quality. This is primarily due to the existing complex interactions involving the genetic background of the grafting partners and the surrounding growth environment in determining the tomato phenotype [17]. Moreover, the researches in this field have been conducted using different scion cultivars and fruit typologies, making impossible to compare indiscriminately the relative findings.
To date, the most popular approach has been to examine the effects of different rootstocks on one or few scions. Although giving useful information, this may not consider the typical characteristics of the scion, which actively exchanges photosynthates and metabolic messengers with the rootstock [17]. To observe the rootstocks-induced changes in tomato yield and fruit quality without missing the active role of the scion and rootstock characteristics, large experimental designs including many rootstocks-scion combinations are required. With this in mind, the present experiment was designed to examine, in a large set of grafting combinations (7 scions × 8 rootstocks, plus ungrafted controls), the effects of grafting on growth, yield and quality of greenhouse cherry tomato, with particular focus at elucidating (i) the possible predominance either of the scion or of the rootstock in influencing the response of the grafted plant, and (ii) whether these results could be generalized on the basis of the fruit size of the scion or of the rootstock genetic background.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Management Practices

The experiment was conducted in Sicily, Southern Italy (36°59′11.9″ N; 14°21′35.8″ E; 40 m a.s.l.), during the 2017–2018 growing season, in a greenhouse of 2400 m2 with a sandy soil and an electrical conductivity of the irrigation water around 1500 µS cm−1. The climate of the area is semi-arid Mediterranean, with mild winters and hot, dry summers. The greenhouse hosting the crop had a steel tubular structure and windows along the sides, covered before transplanting with a 200 µm thick ethylene vinyl acetate (Agriplast s.r.l., Modica, Italy). The soil along the plant rows was covered with a black polyethylene film (40 µm tick) few days before transplanting. Tomato seedlings were transplanted on 5 October 2017 at the stage of three true leaves, adopting a 0.40 × 1.00 m rectangular format (2.5 plants m−2), and trained at two stems per plant up to 17 May 2018 (224 days after planting, overall 11 fruit harvests), with a production of 11 trusses per stem, as is usual for the reference area. Plants were obtained from a specialized nursery, where the splice-grating technique was applied, followed by the application of a plastic clip and stick to secure the graft union. Before the start of the experiment, plants were selected for homogeneous size and apparent health characteristics. Once transplanted, all plants were managed according to the same standard commercial practices, receiving 25.2 g N, 18.7 g P2O5, 22.8 g K2O, 28.4 g MgO and 0.5 g Fe per plant. Drip irrigation was effected when the accumulated evapotranspiration outside the greenhouse reached 40 mm (estimated with the Penman–Monteith equation). All meteorological data were obtained daily from SIAS (Servizio Informativo Agrometeorologico Siciliano). Pests control was performed as per local custom.

2.2. Plant Material and Experimental Design

The genotypes used in the experiment are reported in Table 1. The scion cultivars were chosen on the basis of their different fruit size, among those most used in the reference area. From previous information, productive data of ungrafted plants under comparable growth conditions for several cherry tomato cultivars were acquired (Giuffrida, unpublished data). The seven selected scions were then divided into three classes, namely large-fruited (average fruit diameter 34–36 mm), medium-fruited (31–33 mm) and small-fruited (28–30 mm). Eight genotypes representing the majority of the rootstocks available for tomato were used, of which four were S. lycopersicum × S. habrochaites hybrids, two S. lycopersicum × S. peruvianum, one S. lycopersicum × S. pimpinellifolium and one intraspecific tomato hybrid. Ungrafted plants of each scion were used as controls. A randomized complete blocks design was used with 63 grafting combinations and three replicates for each combination. Each experimental unit contained nine plants (net of borders).

2.3. Plant Growth and Yield Variables

The dry biomass of the different plant fractions (stems, leaves and fruits) was obtained by drying samples in a thermoventilated oven (Binder, Milan, Italy) at 70 °C, until constant weight was reached. The fruit harvests were effected by hand, when the last two fruits of each truss were at the red stage (stage F), according to Gautier et al. [18]. The dry weight of leaves was determined at each leaf removal and stem dry weight was determined soon after the last harvest, whereas at each harvest, the number of fruits per truss and the fresh and dry weight of the fruits was determined. From the original dataset, whole plant, vegetative fraction and fruit dry biomass, as well as the harvest index (HI) were calculated, this last variable as the ratio among fruits and total aboveground biomass of the plant.

2.4. Fruit Quality Traits

Within 2 h of harvest, the fruits were transported to the laboratory for further processing and determination of the main quality traits [9]. To this end, the fruits were deprived from rachis then weighed to determine their mean weight, whereas the fruit shape index was calculated as the ratio between longitudinal and transversal diameter, both determined through a digital caliper. The chromatic coordinates were measured as described by McGuire [19] on four points per fruit along the equatorial axis, through a tristimulus Minolta Chroma Meter (model CR-200, Konica Minolta, Inc., Tokyo, Japan), calibrated with a standard white tile (UE certified) with illuminant D65/10°, measuring color in terms of lightness (L*), green-red axis (a*) and blue-yellow axis (b*). Fruit firmness was measured through a texture analyzer (Stable Micro Systems model TA-XT2), expressing the force needed to give a 2 mm deformation of the fruits along their polar axis among two steel plates. Total soluble solids (TSS) content was determined through a digital refractometer DBX-55° (Atago Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) provided with an automatic temperature compensation system. Tritatable acidity (TA) was determined by neutralization of the free acids with a titration solution of 0.1 N NaOH up to the changing color of phenolphthalein. The results were then expressed as mg L−1 of citric acid equivalents. For the L-ascorbic acid (AsA) determination, 0.1 g of freeze-dried material was extracted in 2 mL of H3PO4 0.05 N through sonication for 6 min. After centrifugation at 4 °C for 15 min at 13,000 g, the supernatant was collected, filtered through 0.45 µm nylon filters and analyzed by HPLC-UV (λ = 245 nm) equipped with an autosampler. The mobile phase was KH2PO4 buffer at 2.3 pH, and a reverse phase C18 column was used, with a 0.5 mL min−1 flow rate. Peak areas were converted to ascorbic acid through a standard curve prepared with L-ascorbic acid (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). All quality determinations were effected on the first, sixth and eleventh trusses, i.e., on trusses harvested on 18 December, 28 March and 16 May, to cover the whole period of meteorological conditions during the growth cycle.

2.5. Statistical Procedures

All collected and calculated data were firstly subjected to Shapiro–Wilk and Levene’s tests, in order to check for normal distribution and homoscedasticity, respectively, then to a factorial ‘scion × rootstock’ (‘S × R’) analysis of variance (ANOVA), according to the experimental layout adopted in the greenhouse. Percentage data were submitted to arcsin-square root transformation before the ANOVA (untransformed data are reported and discussed), whereas multiple mean comparisons were performed through Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test (p ≤ 0.05). After this first step, the means for all ‘scion × rootstock’ combinations were used to parameterize a mixed model, where the main effects were assumed as fixed and the interaction was assumed as random. Consequently, environmental variances (σ2E) were calculated for the scions and rootstocks under study in relation to each response variable, according to Piepho [20]. Environmental variances are often used to assess the stability of genotypes across environments and, in our setting, they were used to measure the variability of performances for each scion across rootstocks and, conversely, for each rootstock across scions. A low environmental variance implies that the performances of each rootstock/scion tend to be not influenced by the graft partner. To better elucidate the variability between and within scion classes [large-fruited (one genotype), medium-fruited (four genotypes) and small-fruited (two genotypes)] and rootstock classes [S. habrochaites (four genotypes), S. peruvianum (two genotypes), S. pimpinellifolium (one genotype) S. lycopersicum (one genotype) and ungrafted], a third model was fitted to the observed data, where the ‘scion class’ (‘Sclass’) and ‘rootstock class’ (‘Rclass’), together with their interaction (‘Sclass × Rclass’) were included as fixed effects, while the nested effects of rootstock and scion within ‘Sclass’, ‘Rclass’ and ‘Sclass × Rclass’ were added as random effects, in order to be able to assess the significance of the differences between classes, based on within-class variability. Additionally, in this case, Tukey’s (HSD) test (p ≤ 0.05) was performed for the separation of classes means.

3. Results

3.1. Plant Growth and Developmental Variables

The plant growth performances were affected by scion (‘S’), rootstock (‘R’) along with their interaction (‘S × R’) (Table 2). For plant and vegetative biomass, ‘S’ showed the highest incidence on total variance, whereas for fruit biomass and harvest index (HI), the ‘S × R’ interaction proved to be the main source of variation. Among the scion cultivars, ‘5525′ highlighted the lowest environmental variance (σ2E) values for both plant and vegetative biomass, with an opposite response recorded in ‘Eletta’ (Table 3). ‘Beka’ and ‘Caprice’ showed extreme σ2E values with reference to fruit biomass, whereas for HI the highest variability was recorded in ‘Dreamer’ and ‘Caprice’. With reference to rootstocks, ‘Pittam’ showed the highest σ2E for plant and vegetative biomass, whereas for the same variables the lowest values were recorded in ‘Dynafort’ and in the ungrafted control, respectively (Table 4). This last showed also the highest σ2E in relation to fruit biomass, whereas the opposite was recorded in ‘Kaiser’. Differently, ‘Interpro’ and ‘Bental’ proved the highest σ2E related to HI (Table 4). When rootstock classes were considered, the S. pimpinellifolium rootstock displayed the least plant, vegetative and fruit biomass among the grafted plants, whereas the S. habrochaites hybrids proved the least HI value (Table 5). The significant ‘Sclass × Rclass’ interaction highlighted that, in all grafting combinations, fruit dry biomass progressively decreased passing from large- to medium- then to small-fruited scions (from 335 to 308 then to 292 g plant−1, on average) (Figure 1A). In contrast, in the ungrafted controls, fruit biomass significantly decreased passing from large- to medium-fruited scions (from 367 to 304 g plant−1, −8%) then increased in the small-fruited ones (350 g plant−1, +15%) (Figure 1A).

3.2. Yield and Related Components

Yield and its components were all significantly affected by the main factors and their interaction, with ‘S’ being by far the main source of experimental variation (Table 2). Concerning the scion cultivars, ‘Creativo’ and ‘Dreamer’ showed the least σ2E values related to yield and number of fruits per plant, respectively, whereas ‘Porpora’ proved the highest σ2E for both yield and mean fruit weight (Table 3). ‘Caprice’ showed the highest σ2E for the number of fruits per plant, while also showing the lowest one for mean fruit weight. Among the rootstocks, the highest σ2E was recorded in ‘Optifort’ (yield) and ‘Kaiser’ (fruits per plant and mean fruit weight), whereas ‘Mozart’, ‘Tawa’ and the ungrafted test gave the lowest σ2E for mean fruit weight, fruits per plant and yield, respectively (Table 4). When clustered according to their main characteristics, the large-fruited scion outcompeted the other groups in terms of yield and mean fruit weight (144.3 t ha−1 and 30.4 g, respectively), whereas the opposite was recorded for the small-fruited scions, with the medium-fruited ones always showing an intermediate behavior (Table 5). Regarding the rootstock groups, all the interspecific hybrids enhanced the mean fruit weight when compared to the ungrafted controls (from 19.7 to 21.7 g, on average, +10%) (Table 5). The significant ‘Sclass × Rclass’ interaction highlighted that, by decreasing the fruit size, there was a significant increase in the number of fruits per plant. For this variable the least variations were recorded passing from small- to medium-fruited scions grafted onto the intraspecific hybrids (from 256 to 277 fruits plant−1, +8%) and passing from medium- to large-fruited scions grafted both onto the S. pimpinellifolium and the intraspecific combination (from 260 to 341 and from 277 to 360 fruits plant−1, respectively) (Figure 1B).

3.3. Fruit Chromatic Coordinates and Carpometric Variables

All the chromatic coordinates and carpometric variables were significantly affected by ‘S’, whereas the ‘S × R’ interaction affected fruit redness (a*) (Table 2). ‘Porpora’ showed the highest σ2E values in relation to L* and b* and the least ones for a*, whereas low σ2E values were recorded for ‘5525′ (b*) and ‘Caprice’ (L* and fruit firmness), with ‘Dreamer’ and ‘Creativo’ also showing the highest variability for a* and fruit firmness, respectively (Table 3). When rootstock cultivars were concerned, ‘Kaiser’, ‘Bental’ and ‘Optifort’ maximized the variability of the chromatic coordinates L*, a* and b*, respectively, whereas the lowest σ2E values were recorded in the ungrafted control (L*), ‘Optifort’ (a*) and ‘Kaiser’ (b*) (Table 4). Moreover, fruit firmness variability peaked in the ungrafted control, whereas the rootstocks ‘Bental’ and ‘Mozart’ proved the least variability related to fruit firmness (Table 4). Considering the groupings of the grafting partners, almost all the chromatic coordinates and carpometric variables were unaffected either by ‘Sclass’ or ‘Sclass × Rclass’, whereas both the S. habrochaites and S. peruvianum hybrids generated a significantly lower a* coordinate of the fruits (12.5) when compared to the intraspecific hybrid class (14.0) (Table 6).

3.4. Compositional Variables

The fruit compositional variables were significantly affected by ‘S’ and, in the majority of cases, by ‘R’ too, with the former factor being always the main source of variation (Table 2). In contrast, fruit TA was not responsive to ‘R’, whereas the ‘R × S’ interaction significantly affected only TA and AsA content. Among the scion cultivars, ‘Porpora’ showed the lowest σ2E for TA and the highest one for AsA, whereas ‘5525′ highlighted the lowest σ2E for both TSS and AsA (Table 3). ‘Dreamer’ evidenced the highest variability for TSS and the lowest one for TSS/TA, whereas ‘Beka’ and ‘Caprice’ were characterized by the highest σ2E values related to TA and TSS/TA, respectively. Regarding the rootstock cultivar, the highest variability related to the taste descriptors, namely TSS, TA and their ratio, were recorded in ‘Optifort’, ‘Mozart’ and in the ungrafted control, respectively, whereas the lowest ones in the ungrafted control (TSS) and ‘Bental’ (TA and TSS/TA) (Table 4). In contrast, the extreme σ2E values related to AsA content were recorded in ‘Pittam’ (the lowest) and in the self-rooted control. When grafting classes were concerned, the small-fruited scions were characterized by the highest TSS (Table 6), whereas a significant ‘Sclass × Rclass’ interaction emerged for the other taste variables (Figure 1). Indeed, considering the TA, the ungrafted group did not significantly differ in relation to the scion typology, whereas the same variable, when compared to the other scion groups, significantly increased in the small-fruited scions, especially when grafted onto the S. habrochaites and onto the intraspecific hybrids (by 31 and 34%, respectively) (Figure 1C). Contrarily, the TSS/TA significantly increased with the decreasing fruit size in the ungrafted scions (passing from 1.34 to 1.57), whereas in the S. habrochaites, S. pimpinellifolium and the intraspecific classes, TSS/TA dropped passing from medium- to small-fruited scions (from 1.41 to 1.29, on average) (Figure 1D). The AsA content of tomatoes did not differed among scion typologies, but peaked in the ungrafted controls (305.6 mg kg−1 FW) (Table 6). Considering the other graft classes, this variable significantly decreased in the intraspecific hybrids (236.8 mg kg−1 FW, −23%) and in the S. peruvianum and S. pimpinellifolium hybrids (191.5 mg kg−1 FW, on average), with the S. habrochaites class showing the least AsA content (167.8 mg kg−1 FW, −45%) (Table 6).

4. Discussion

Under the experimental conditions in which we operated, ‘S’ explained the highest variability of both whole plant and vegetative biomass, whereas the influence of both ‘R’ and ‘R × S’ prevailed on harvest index. When the grafting part classes were considered, the scion group did not influence the growth and developmental variables, which, instead, were under the influence of the rootstock genetic background. It has been suggested that the improved plant growth in response to grafting flows from a greater root development, enabling plants for a better absorption of water and minerals from the growth substrate, thus maximizing the photosynthetic gain of the scion [1,21]. Among the rootstock classes considered in the present experiment, the S. habrochaites hybrids maximized both whole plants and vegetative biomass accumulation (with a 10 and 22% increase, respectively, when compared to the ungrafted class), whereas a significant reduction of both variables was recorded in the S. pimpinellifolium class in comparison to the most vigorous rootstocks (by 11 and 13%, on average). Accordingly, among the studied rootstocks, ‘Dynafort’ (S. lycopersicum × S. pimpinellifolium) proved to have the lowest plant and vegetative biomass and related σ2E values, meaning that its tendency to reduce tomato plant growth was poorly affected by the scion cultivar. S. habrochaites is a highly vigorous species, adapted to thrive in a wide latitudinal distribution, showing characteristics promoting growth in grafted tomato [22,23]. On the other hand, S. pimpinellifolium is the closest wide relative to the cultivated tomato, and has been used to improve tomato resistance to several biotic stressors [24] or fruit quality traits [25]. Recently, Mata-Nicolás et al. [26], in a wide Solanum germplasm collection including S. pimpinellifolium and S. lycopersicum, found that the S. pimpinellifolium accessions were the least vigorous in terms of stem width and leaf length. Therefore, our results suggest that this low vigor tendency could be at the base of the low growth induction in grafted tomato scions. Interestingly, these two highly differentiated rootstock classes in terms of plant growth performances shared a decreased fruit biomass production when compared to the other graft combinations (−10%, on average). Concerning the S. habrochaites class, the reduction of fruit biomass acted to significantly lower the harvest index. This suggests that the enhanced plant growth was accompanied by an increased sink strength of the vegetative fraction. Indeed, it has been reported that vigorous rootstocks may act as additional sinks, exacerbating the competition for photosynthates allocation with other plant fractions [27]. The ‘Sclass × Rclass’ interaction revealed that the fruit size of the scion contributed to buffer the sink strength of the rootstock. Indeed, when the ungrafted control class was considered, both large- and small-fruited scions showed the highest fruit biomass, whereas in three groups (S. habrochaites, S. peruvianum and intraspecific hybrids) grafting penalized the fruit biomass of both medium- and small-fruited scions, with the large-fruited one always showing the highest fruit biomass value. In this respect, the large-fruited class of our experiment comprised only one cultivar (‘Porpora’); for this reason, we are aware that larger experimental classes would be needed to parameterize the possible relationship we noticed among fruit size and biomass in grafted tomato plants. Interestingly, this reduction was restrained by the S. pimpinellifolium class, which conferred the least vegetative vigor to the scions. Recently, Grieneisen et al. [28], in a meta-analysis involving a large set of literature data, reported that, in the majority of the cases examined, tomato grafting had no effect (58% of the cases) or a negative effect (6%) on fruit yield. For the authors, it was impossible to separate the effects of the scion cultivar to explain the yield response included in the dataset. This is in agreement with our results, since ‘S’ was by far the main source of yield variation, followed by the ‘S × R’ interaction, meaning that under unstressed growth conditions like those of our experiment, the centrality of the rootstock per se in determining yield is at least partially lost. This implies that despite its central importance, the yield outcome of tomato grafting still remains poorly predictable and to be accessed case by case. However, when clustered by class in the ANOVA, the yields we recorded were proportional to the fruit size of the scions, denoting that medium- and small-fruited cherry tomatoes put a penalization on crop yield when grafting is concerned.
According to Schwarz et al. [13] and Kyriacou et al. [5], the mean fruit weight is one of the primary traits that is influenced by grafting. In our study, beyond the largely prevalent effect of ‘S’, the average fruit weight was significantly affected by ‘R’ and ‘R × S’ too, whereas all the interspecific hybrid classes promoted such trait, without interactive effects.
When positive, higher a* values refer to an increased intensity of the red hue, representing in tomato the top contributor to the lycopene-derived color [29]. In red-ripe tomatoes, both a* and b* have positive values, but the higher the b* value the more perceived color turns to orange, through progressive yellow addition. Higher L* values represent a transition toward lighter colors, potentially representing a deterioration of tomato pigmentation too. Graft-induced worsening of tomato color has been sometimes reported as a result of a reduced carotenoid concentration by grafting onto vigorous rootstocks [12,30], though this finding has not always been confirmed [13]. In the present study, the fruit chromatic coordinates were mostly ‘S’-dependent, though a significant ‘R × S’ interaction was recorded for a*. Accordingly, for all these chromatic coordinates, the scion genotypes proved lower σ2E values than the rootstock ones, with a* showing higher σ2E values than L* and b*. ‘Porpora’ (large-fruited) and ‘Caprice’ (small-fruited) exhibited the highest stability related to a*, meaning that the ability of the scion to superimpose the red hue was independent from the fruit size. In contrast, ‘Bental’ and ‘Pittam’ (both deriving from S. peruvianum) showed the highest σ2E, and the ANOVA by classes revealed that they acted to reduce a*, together with S. habrochaites hybrids (−9%, on average). It is interesting to note that both rootstock classes were characterized by the highest vegetative biomass, so we cannot exclude that their depressive effect sometimes recorded on a* was not associated with a heavier fruit shading and subsequent lower fruit temperature, since both optimal light and temperature are key promoters of lycopene accumulation in tomatoes [31,32].
Fruit shape modifications accompanying the increased fruit size have been reported in grafted tomato [5]. However, we did not observe any shift in fruit shape in response to grafting, though some fruit weight increases were observed. This indicates a strong maintenance of the typical shape in all the studied scions, regardless of the grafting combinations, consistent with the known poor dependence of this trait on non-genetic factors [33].
Texture, often described through firmness, is a key quality trait of tomato, as it influences postharvest transportability, shelf-life and even flavor perception [34,35]. Although tomato firmness is often reduced by vigorous rootstocks, the results in this regard are sometimes contrasting [36,37]. In our experiment, fruit firmness was not affected by ‘R’ nor by ‘S × R’, being ‘S’ the only contributor to the experimental variability, though no significant differences emerged in relation to fruit size. Accordingly, for all the taste variables, the scion genotypes proved lower σ2E values when compared to rootstocks.
Soluble sugars (mainly glucose, fructose and sucrose) and organic acids (mainly citric and malic) are key taste-compounds of tomato fruits, whose amounts are commonly measured through total soluble solids (TSS) and tritatable acidity (TA), respectively [38,39]. When the organoleptic quality of tomatoes is concerned, their measure is referred to the perceived sweetness (TSS) and sourness (TA), whereas the TSS/TA ratio describes the overall balance among them in the perceived taste [12]. Although fruit itself can partially contribute to carbon fixation, most of this element (85–90%) needed for fruit growth is imported from leaves through the phloem tissue, in the form of carbohydrates [33,40]. In contrast, despite a certain amount of organic acids being able to be supplied through the sap, their accumulation in fleshy fruits is primarily due to the metabolism of citrate and malate in the fruit itself [41,42,43]. In our experiments, both TSS and TA peaked in the small-fruited scions. For TSS this is consistent with its inverse proportionality with the fruit size [39]. However, grafting onto the most vigorous rootstocks (i.e., the S. habrochaites and S. peruvianum classes) acted to limit TSS, irrespective of the scions’ characteristics. This seems to reinforce the hypothesis of a limited photosynthates flow toward fruits, due to the modified source-sink edaphic relationships induced by vigorous rootstocks [5,27]. Additionally, efficient rootstocks in water absorption may increase fruit water content, leading to a decreased fruit sugars concentration [11,44]. This hypothesis is corroborated by observing that, despite a lower fruit biomass in the most vigorous rootstocks, no grafting effect was recorded on scions’ yield, likely deriving from an increased fruit size due to a higher water content. On the contrary, all the rootstocks under study promoted TA in small-fruited scions, generating a lower TSS/TA ratio, especially in the S. habrochaites and S. peruvianum hybrid rootstocks (−8%, on average). Organic acids (in particular citrate) tend to substitute sugars as a respiratory substrate in the case of cytosolic carbohydrates shortage into the fruit [45,46]. This hypothesis seems to be corroborated by the highest TA increase in response to grafting recorded in the small-fruited scions, i.e., those most suffering the sink strength imposed by the rootstocks.
Beyond its importance as antioxidant in the human diet [47] ascorbic acid (AsA) content plays a pivotal role for the plant, being involved in cell division, cell wall synthesis and in the interaction of the plant with the surrounding environment [48]. According to Massot et al. [49] the AsA concentration in tomatoes is the complex result from its import (or the import of precursors) from leaves, its synthesis and recycling inside the fruit and its export outside the fruit. In the present study, the AsA content proved to be mostly under the scion influence, but when these were clustered in the ANOVA, it was impossible to establish differences on the basis of the fruit size. Accordingly, there were huge differences among scions in terms of σ2E, whose highest values were recorded both in large-fruited (‘Porpora’) and small-fruited scions (‘Caprice’ and ‘Beka’). In contrast, despite the significant ‘S × R’ interaction, the ANOVA for rootstock classes revealed that all the heterograft combinations dramatically lowered the fruit AsA content, particularly in the highly vigorous S. habrochaites hybrids (−45%). The lowest fruit AsA content characterizing the most vigorous grafting combinations has been explained through their higher vegetative biomass, resulting in a redistribution or accumulation of this metabolite in other plant fractions [50]. However, this hypothesis can only partially explain our data, since the low fruit AsA content recorded within the S. pimpinellifolium class (i.e., the least vigorous one). The analysis of correlation (data not shown) revealed that fruit weight and AsA content were negatively related (−0.969 *), indicating the existence of a dilution effect altering this important compositional trait even in the least vigorous rootstocks.

5. Conclusions

The outcome of this experiment, conducted on a large set of cherry tomato graft combinations, highlighted variable responses in terms plant growth, yield and fruit quality traits. Among the 16 variables reported, the scion genotype per se influenced cherry tomatoes appearance (L*, b* and shape index) and taste (TSS and the TSS/TA ratio). This implies that the scion cultivar was the top contributor to those traits mostly related to the commercial identity of the fruit. On the other hand, the broader significance of the ‘S × R’ interaction (for 10 out of 16 variables) suggested that, when graft partners were analyzed individually, the bio-agronomical response of cherry tomato to grafting was largely unpredictable, most of all in terms of plant growth and yield performances. However, when both scions and rootstocks were clustered by class, some of these responses were clearly attributable to the intrinsic fruit size of the scion and/or to the genetic background of the rootstock. The S. habrochaites rootstocks maximized the plant biomass, most of all in terms of vegetative organs, whereas the S. pimpinellifolium ones did the opposite, but both classes significantly reduced the fruit biomass, especially in small- and medium-fruited scions. This would suggest the opportunity to opt for large-fruited cherry tomato cultivars in order to buffer possible yield reductions, at least in non-stressed growth conditions. Where fruit quality was concerned, the S. habrochaites and S. peruvianum hybrids (i.e., the most vigorous ones) reduced the red hue (a*) and TSS, while promoting TA, thus potentially increasing the overall perceived sourness of the fruits. All these modifications were likely related to a shift in the source:sink edaphic relationships and to an increased water content of the fruits. A significant reduction of the fruit AsA content was always recorded in response to grafting, even in the S. pimpinellifolium group, indicating, in the low vigor rootstocks too, the existence of a dilution effect worsening this pivotal nutraceutical trait of tomato fruits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: F.G. and C.L.; methodology: F.G., R.P.M. and A.O.; formal analysis: R.P.M. and M.A.; investigation: M.A.; data curation: R.P.M. and A.O.; writing—original draft preparation: R.P.M. and M.A.; writing—review and editing: F.G., C.L. and A.O.; supervision: F.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Catania grant FIR 2014 “Grafted tomato: quality and production sustainability”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rouphael, Y.; Kyriacou, M.C.; Colla, G. Vegetable grafting: A toolbox for securing yield stability under multiple stress conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 8, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Allevato, E.; Mauro, R.P.; Stazi, S.R.; Marabottini, R.; Leonardi, C.; Ierna, A.; Giuffrida, F. Arsenic Accumulation in Grafted Melon Plants: Role of Rootstock in Modulating Root-To-Shoot Translocation and Physiological Response. Agronomy 2019, 9, 828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Colla, G.; Fiorillo, A.; Cardarelli, M.; Rouphael, Y. Grafting to improve abiotic stress tolerance of fruit vegetables. Acta Hortic. 2014, 1041, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Oztekin, G.B.; Giuffrida, F.; Tuzel, Y.; Leonardi, C. Is the vigour of grafted tomato plants related to root characteristics? J. Food Agric. Environ. 2009, 7, 364–368. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kyriacou, M.C.; Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G.; Zrenner, R.; Schwarz, D. Vegetable grafting: The implications of a growing agronomic imperative for vegetable fruit quality and nutritive value. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mauro, R.P.; Lo Monaco, A.; Lombardo, S.; Restuccia, A.; Mauromicale, G. Eradication of Orobanche/Phelipanche spp. seedbank by soil solarization and organic supplementation. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 193, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ali, M.M.; Javed, T.; Mauro, R.P.; Shabbir, R.; Afzal, I.; Yousef, A.F. Effect of seed priming with potassium nitrate on the performance of tomato. Agriculture 2020, 10, 498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Keatinge, J.D.H.; Lin, L.J.; Ebert, A.W.; Chen, W.Y.; Hughes, J.D.A.; Luther, G.C.; Wang, J.F.; Ravishankar, M. Overcoming biotic and abiotic stresses in the Solanaceae through grafting: Current status and future perspectives. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2014, 30, 272–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leonardi, C.; Kyriacou, M.C.; Gisbert, C.; Oztekin, G.B.; Mourão, I.; Rouphael, Y. Quality of Grafted Vegetables. In Vegetable Grafting: Principles and Practices; Colla, G., Pérez-Alfocea, F., Schwarz, D., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 214–245. ISBN 9781780648972. [Google Scholar]
  10. Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y.; Cardarelli, M.; Massa, D.; Salerno, A.; Rea, E. Yield, fruit quality and mineral composition of grafted melon plants grown under saline conditions. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2006, 81, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Turhan, A.; Ozmen, N.; Serbeci, M.S.; Seniz, V. Effects of grafting on different rootstocks on tomato fruit yield and quality. Hortic. Sci. 2011, 38, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Di Gioia, F.; Serio, F.; Buttaro, D.; Ayala, O.; Santamaria, P. Influence of rootstock on vegetative growth, fruit yield and quality in “Cuore di Bue”, an heirloom tomato. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Schwarz, D.; Öztekin, G.B.; Tüzel, Y.; Brückner, B.; Krumbein, A. Rootstocks can enhance tomato growth and quality characteristics at low potassium supply. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 149, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Riga, P.; Benedicto, L.; García-Flores, L.; Villaño, D.; Medina, S.; Gil-Izquierdo, Á. Rootstock effect on serotonin and nutritional quality of tomatoes produced under low temperature and light conditions. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2016, 46, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mauro, R.P.; Rizzo, V.; Leonardi, C.; Mazzaglia, A.; Muratore, G.; Distefano, M.; Sabatino, L.; Giuffrida, F. Influence of harvest stage and rootstock genotype on compositional and sensory profile of the elongated tomato cv. “Sir Elyan”. Agriculture 2020, 10, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Djidonou, D.; Simonne, A.H.; Koch, K.E.; Brecht, J.K.; Zhao, X. Nutritional quality of field-grown tomato fruit as affected by grafting with interspecific hybrid rootstocks. HortScience 2016, 51, 1618–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Albacete, A.; Martínez-Andújar, C.; Martínez-Pérez, A.; Thompson, A.J.; Dodd, I.C.; Pérez-Alfocea, F. Unravelling rootstock×scion interactions to improve food security. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 2211–2226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Gautier, H.; Diakou-Verdin, V.; Bénard, C.; Reich, M.; Buret, M.; Bourgaud, F.; Poëssel, J.L.; Caris-Veyrat, C.; Génard, M. How does tomato quality (sugar, acid, and nutritional quality) vary with ripening stage, temperature, and irradiance? J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 1241–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McGuire, R.G. Reporting of objective color measurements. HortScience 1992, 27, 1254–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Piepho, H.P. Methods for comparing the yield stability of cropping systems—A review. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 1998, 180, 193–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mauro, R.P.; Agnello, M.; Distefano, M.; Sabatino, L.; San Bautista Primo, A.; Leonardi, C.; Giuffrida, F. Chlorophyll fluorescence, photosynthesis and growth of tomato plants as affected by long-term oxygen root zone deprivation and grafting. Agronomy 2020, 10, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Venema, J.H.; Dijk, B.E.; Bax, J.M.; van Hasselt, P.R.; Elzenga, J.T.M. Grafting tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) onto the rootstock of a high-altitude accession of Solanum habrochaites improves suboptimal-temperature tolerance. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2008, 63, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zeist, A.R.; Resende, J.T.; Silva, I.F.; Oliveira, J.R.; Faria, C.M.; Giacobbo, C.L. Agronomic characteristics of tomato plant cultivar Santa Cruz Kada grafted on species of the genus Solanum. Hortic. Bras. 2017, 35, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Merk, H.L.; Ashrafi, H.; Foolad, M.R. Selective genotyping to identify late blight resistance genes in an accession of the tomato wild species Solanum pimpinellifolium. Euphytica 2012, 187, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Top, O.; Bar, C.; Ökmen, B.; Özer, D.Y.; Rusçuklu, D.; Tamer, N.; Frary, A.; Doǧanlar, S. Exploration of three Solanum species for improvement of antioxidant traits in tomato. HortScience 2014, 49, 1003–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mata-Nicolás, E.; Montero-Pau, J.; Gimeno-Paez, E.; Garcia-Carpintero, V.; Ziarsolo, P.; Menda, N.; Mueller, L.A.; Blanca, J.; Cañizares, J.; van der Knaap, E.; et al. Exploiting the diversity of tomato: The development of a phenotypically and genetically detailed germplasm collection. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Martínez-Ballesta, M.C.; Alcaraz-López, C.; Muries, B.; Mota-Cadenas, C.; Carvajal, M. Physiological aspects of rootstock-scion interactions. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 127, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Grieneisen, M.L.; Aegerter, B.J.; Scott Stoddard, C.; Zhang, M. Yield and fruit quality of grafted tomatoes, and their potential for soil fumigant use reduction. A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Distefano, M.; Arena, E.; Mauro, R.P.; Brighina, S.; Leonardi, C.; Fallico, B.; Giuffrida, F. Effects of genotype, storage temperature and time on quality and compositional traits of cherry tomato. Foods 2020, 9, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nicoletto, C.; Tosini, F.; Sambo, P. Effect of grafting and ripening conditions on some qualitative traits of “Cuore di bue” tomato fruits. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 1397–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jarquín-Enríquez, L.; Mercado-Silva, E.M.; Maldonado, J.L.; Lopez-Baltazar, J. Lycopene content and color index of tomatoes are affected by the greenhouse cover. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 155, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, L.; Shao, Z.; Zhang, M.; Wang, Q. Regulation of carotenoid metabolism in tomato. Mol. Plant 2015, 8, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Bertin, N.; Génard, M. Tomato quality as influenced by preharvest factors. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 233, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Seymour, G.B. Genetic identification and genomic organization of factors affecting fruit texture. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 2065–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Causse, M.; Buret, M.; Robini, K.; Verschave, P. Inheritance of nutritional and sensory quality traits in fresh market tomato and relation to consumer preferences. J. Food Sci. 2003, 68, 2342–2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Khah, E.M.; Kakava, E.; Mavromatis, A.; Chachalis, D.; Goulas, C. Effect of grafting on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in greenhouse and open-field. J. Appl. Hortic. 2006, 8, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Riga, P. Effect of rootstock on growth, fruit production and quality of tomato plants grown under low temperature and light conditions. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2015, 56, 626–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Savvas, D.; Savva, A.; Ntatsi, G.; Ropokis, A.; Karapanos, I.; Krumbein, A.; Olympios, C. Effects of three commercial rootstocks on mineral nutrition, fruit yield, and quality of salinized tomato. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2011, 174, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Beckles, D.M. Factors affecting the postharvest soluble solids and sugar content of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2012, 63, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tanaka, A.; Fujita, K.; Kikuchi, K. Nutrio-physiological studies on the tomato plant III. Photosynthetic rate of individual leaves in relation to the dry matter production of plants. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1974, 20, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bollard, E.G. Physiology and nutrition of developing fruits. Biochem. Fruits Prod. 1970, 1, 387–425. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sweetman, C.; Deluc, L.G.; Cramer, G.R.; Ford, C.M.; Soole, K.L. Regulation of malate metabolism in grape berry and other developing fruits. Phytochemistry 2009, 70, 1329–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Famiani, F.; Battistelli, A.; Moscatello, S.; Cruz-Castillo, J.G.; Walker, R.P. Ácidos orgánicos acumulados en la pulpa de los frutos: Ocurrencia, metabolismo y factores que afectan sus contenidos- una revisión. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Hortic. 2015, 21, 97–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Krumbein, A.; Schwarz, D. Grafting: A possibility to enhance health-promoting and flavour compounds in tomato fruits of shaded plants? Sci. Hortic. 2013, 149, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Coombe, B.G. The Development of Fleshy Fruits. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1976, 27, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Etienne, A.; Génard, M.; Lobit, P.; Mbeguié-A-Mbéguié, D.; Bugaud, C. What controls fleshy fruit acidity? A review of malate and citrate accumulation in fruit cells. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 1451–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Mellidou, I.; Keulemans, J.; Kanellis, A.K.; Davey, M.W. Regulation of fruit ascorbic acid concentrations during ripening in high and low vitamin C tomato cultivars. BMC Plant Biol. 2012, 12, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Gest, N.; Gautier, H.; Stevens, R. Ascorbate as seen through plant evolution: The rise of a successful molecule? J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 33–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Massot, C.; Bancel, D.; Lopez Lauri, F.; Truffault, V.; Baldet, P.; Stevens, R.; Gautier, H. High Temperature Inhibits Ascorbate Recycling and Light Stimulation of the Ascorbate Pool in Tomato despite Increased Expression of Biosynthesis Genes. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e84474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wadano, A.; Azeta, M.; Itotani, S.I.; Kanda, A.; Iwaki, T.; Taira, T.; Fujii, Y.; Nishiura, Y.; Murase, H.; Honami, N. Change of ascorbic acid level after grafting of tomato seedlings. Zeitschrift fur Naturforsch. Sect. C J. Biosci. 1999, 54, 830–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 09 01725 g001 550
Figure 1. Fruit biomass (A), number of fruits per plant (B), tritatable acidity (C) and TSS/TA ratio (D) for the ‘scion class × rootstock class’ combinations. Black bars: large-fruited scion; dark grey bars: medium-fruited scions; light grey bars: small-fruited scions.
Figure 1. Fruit biomass (A), number of fruits per plant (B), tritatable acidity (C) and TSS/TA ratio (D) for the ‘scion class × rootstock class’ combinations. Black bars: large-fruited scion; dark grey bars: medium-fruited scions; light grey bars: small-fruited scions.
Plants 09 01725 g001
Table
Table 1. Scion and rootstock genotypes used in the experiment, grouped on the basis of their fruit size and genetic background, respectively.
Table 1. Scion and rootstock genotypes used in the experiment, grouped on the basis of their fruit size and genetic background, respectively.
ScionFruit SizeSeed Company
‘Porpora’LargeEsasem
‘Creativo’MediumHM Clause
‘5525′MediumAxia Vegetable Seeds
‘Dreamer’MediumNunhems
‘Eletta’MediumTop Seeds
‘Beka’SmallTop Seeds
‘Caprice’SmallTop Seeds
RootstockGenetic BackgroundSeed Company
‘Optifort’S. lycopersicum × S. habrochaitesDe Ruiter-Bayer
‘Kaiser’S. lycopersicum × S. habrochaitesRijk Zwaan
‘Mozart’S. lycopersicum × S. habrochaitesRoyal Seeds
‘Interpro’S. lycopersicum × S. habrochaitesVilmorin
‘Bental’S. lycopersicum × S. peruvianumTop Seeds
‘Pittam’S. lycopersicum × S. peruvianumTop Seeds
‘Dynafort’S. lycopersicum × S. pimpinellifoliumDe Ruiter-Bayer
‘Tawa’S. lycopersicum × S. lycopersicumTop Seeds
Table
Table 2. Summary of the main results of the analysis of variance of the main factors and their interaction for the bio-agronomical and qualitative variables, with the corresponding significance of the F-values.
Table 2. Summary of the main results of the analysis of variance of the main factors and their interaction for the bio-agronomical and qualitative variables, with the corresponding significance of the F-values.
VariableScion (S)Rootstock (R)S × R
VarianceSS%F-TestVarianceSS%F-TestVarianceSS%F-Test
Plant biomass7772.09655.9***1944.34117.2***3238.68219.8***
Vegetative biomass5472.63146.0***2645.01825.5***3270.87622.9***
Fruit biomass282.22123.7***113.12214.0***606.00236.5***
Harvest index0.01017.5***0.01433.7***0.00234.7***
Fruit yield7036.477.6***11.85.7***3.29.2***
Fruits per plant90242.782.9***1366.41.7**874.46.4**
Mean fruit weight1125.789.4***12.91.4***5.93.7**
L*21.433.4***2.34.8NS1.620.3NS
a*88.647.0***8.35.9NS16.01.9**
b*47.044.7**1.90.5NS22.11.0NS
Fruit firmness9.43.2***1.20.5NS8.00.6NS
Shape index51.128.2***2.91.5NS13.21.1NS
Total soluble solids (TSS)47.132.6***14.89.9***8.10.9NS
Tritatable acidity (TA)45.240.2***2.21.4NS14.71.6*
TSS/TA55.247.5***5.33.9***10.21.2NS
L-ascorbic acid content60.256.2***34.826.1***31.84.0***
SS%: percentage incidence on sum of squares; NS = not significant; *, **, *** significant at p < 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively.
Table
Table 3. Mean and environmental variance (σ2E) for the different variables and the scions under study. Different letters among means (within each row) indicate significance at Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 3. Mean and environmental variance (σ2E) for the different variables and the scions under study. Different letters among means (within each row) indicate significance at Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05).
VariableLarge-FruitedMedium-FruitedSmall-Fruited
‘Porpora’‘5525′‘Creativo’‘Dreamer’‘Eletta’‘Beka’‘Caprice’
Meanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2E
Plant biomass (g DW plant−1)1109 a5911.0827 e1471.8957 c7258.5902 d4288.21006 b8515.0933 c6550.4899 d2286.3
Vegetative biomass (g DW plant−1)773 a6693.4542 e1593.5629 c8250.4599 d5703.6707 b9141.2639 c7666.6600 d2362.5
Fruit biomass (g DW plant−1)336 a1083.5285 c208.6328 a337.5303 b903.7299 bc387.7294 bc185.9299 bc1927.1
Harvest index (adimensional)0.31 bc0.0010.34 a0.0000.35 a0.0010.34 a0.0020.30 c0.0010.32 b0.0010.33 a0.002
Fruit yield (t ha−1)145.9 a91.2123.3 c50.9135.2 b38.1130.9 b47.8124.7 c44.7103.6 d8.511101.8 d55.6
Fruits per plant (n.)228 c264.8259 b401.0256 b95.7272 b44.1273 b209.1376 a377.2368 a812.4
Mean fruit weight (g)30.5 a3.49920.9 c3.22322.5 b2.93821.1 bc1.71521.6 bc3.45212.0 d0.79211.9 d0.468
L* (relative unit)38.3 d1.16840.7 a0.65539.1 bc0.49739.7 b0.77538.4 cd0.41138.6 cd0.33238.3 d0.208
a* (relative unit)12.0 cd0.64612.3 c2.30311.0 de2.30710.3 e3.12713.5 b1.33214.9 a1.08015.0 a0.673
b* (relative unit)18.3 ab1.20019.2 a0.14818.5 ab0.17019.1 a0.51318.0 b0.26518.4 ab0.43918.3 ab0.707
Fruit firmness (N)835 bc8238.91232 a3787.11127 a27787.0855 bc7802.4830 bc5416.3910 b15829.3764 c1624.4
Shape index (adimensional)0.87 ab0.0000.83 c0.0000.86 b0.0000.88 a0.0000.87 ab0.0000.86 c0.0000.86 c0.000
TSS (°Brix)4.9 cd0.1924.8 d0.0635.3 b0.1525.0 bd0.1935.3 bc0.1686.0 a0.1646.3 a0.081
TA (mg CA kg−1 FW)4.0 b0.0324.5 a0.0924.1 b0.1503.7 b0.1203.1 c0.0594.8 a0.2504.9 a0.156
TSS/TA (adimensional)1.25 c0.0091.08 d0.0051.31 bc0.0041.36 b0.0021.73 a0.0141.25 c0.0141.30 bc0.020
AsA (mg kg−1 FW)196 bc6891.5194 bc695.7171 c1001.5174 c813.5227 a1313.6211 ab1623.3206 ab3437.9
Table
Table 4. Mean and environmental variance (σ2E) for the different variables and the rootstocks under study. Different letters among means (within each row) indicate significance at Tukey’s HSD test (p = 0.05).
Table 4. Mean and environmental variance (σ2E) for the different variables and the rootstocks under study. Different letters among means (within each row) indicate significance at Tukey’s HSD test (p = 0.05).
VariableS. lycopersicum × S. habrochaitesS. lycopersicum × S. peruvianumS. lycopersicum × S. pimpinellifoliumS. lycopersicum × S. lycopersicum Ungrafted
‘Optifort’‘Kaiser’‘Mozart’‘Interpro’‘Bental’‘Pittam’‘Dynafort’‘Tawa’Ungrafted
Meanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2EMeanσ2E
Plant biomass (g DW plant−1)1005 a11239.41007 a14604.6955 bc17081.0990 ab11683.6939 cd7113.8955 bc17695.3867 f3675.0918 de9126.9892 ef6877.3
Vegetative biomass (g DW plant−1)710 a7058.7709 a13472.5665 bc13047.8688 ab11802.6629 d6684.9641 cd13764.1574 e2984.3590 e7016.1566 e2860.7
Fruit biomass (g DW plant−1)295 bc1277.5298 bc471.8291 c609.9302 bc1095.8311 ac1240.1314 ab586.6292 c489.3328 a555.8326 a1667.1
Harvest index (adimensional)0.29 c0.0010.30 c0.0010.31 c0.0010.31 c0.0020.33 b0.0020.33 b0.0010.34 b0.0010.36 a0.0010.36 a0.001
Fruit yield (t ha−1)128.3 a491.0125.5 ab211.1122.8 ac274.3121.7 bd301.3125.8 ab342.1126.7 ab321.1116.2 d256.6127.6 a310.5117.9 cd114.3
Fruits per plant (n.)288 ab2644.1293 ab5990.3282 ab3258.7289 ab4675.5290 ab3932.3298 a3416.1275 b2513.9298 a1963.6300 a4018.0
Mean fruit weight (g)20.4 a43.020.7 a57.420.4 a30.520.4 a47.220.5 a46.820.3 a44.220.0 a49.419.9 a35.118.1b37.4
L* (relative unit)39.1 a1.02938.9 a1.96339.7 a1.16638.7 a1.88938.8 a1.15339.4 a1.61038.7 a1.08539.1 a1.23438.8 a0.322
a* (relative unit)12.2 bc2.44312.4 bc4.06711.8 c4.22813.0 ac2.78512.3 bc8.49012.1 c6.53013.2 ac3.64914.1 a4.51413.5 ab2.890
b* (relative unit)18.5 a1.27118.3 a0.40018.9 a0.83118.3 a0.47318.4 a0.58018.6 a0.79618.7 a0.61718.5 a0.58218.6 a0.468
Fruit firmness (N)934 a29956.8903 a25969.2942 a51700.9896 a39297.0894 a24298.0959 a41692.8915 a36557.0952 a36384.41030 a65323.2
Shape index (adimensional)0.85 a0.0010.85 a0.0010.85 a0.0000.86 a0.0010.86 a0.0010.85 a0.0010.85 a0.0010.85 a0.0010.85 a0.001
TSS (°Brix)4.98 d0.5034.98 d0.2785.10 cd0.3855.47 ac0.3985.33 bd0.3085.41 ad0.3805.50 ac0.3485.81 a0.3155.76 ab0.231
TA (mg CA kg−1 FW)3.89 a0.6084.05 a0.5914.13 a0.7084.33 a0.4504.21 a0.3364.14 a0.4044.21 a0.5234.23 a0.6734.18 a0.466
TSS/TA (adimensional)1.31 ac0.0321.27 c0.0311.28 c0.0601.29 ac0.0361.29 bc0.0301.33 ac0.0321.35 ac0.0531.42 ab0.0601.43 a0.080
AsA (mg kg−1 FW)159 c903.3167 bc1191.7189 b608.1178 bc863.6187 bc445.4196 b235.2194 b885.9239 a1664.3266 a6812.8
Table
Table 5. Plant growth, developmental and yield variables of cherry tomato as affected by scion and rootstock class (main effects). Different letters within each column’s factor indicate significance at Tukey’s HSD test (p = 0.05).
Table 5. Plant growth, developmental and yield variables of cherry tomato as affected by scion and rootstock class (main effects). Different letters within each column’s factor indicate significance at Tukey’s HSD test (p = 0.05).
Source of VariationPlant BiomassVegetative BiomassFruit BiomassHarvest IndexFruit YieldFruits per PlantMean Fruit Weight
(g DW Plant−1)(g DW Plant−1)(g DW Plant−1)(Adimensional)(t ha−1)(n Plant−1)(g FW)
Scion class
Large fruit1079 a738 a341 a0.32 a144.3 a228 c30.4 a
Medium fruit896 a588 a307 a0.35 a127.1 b268 b21.0 b
Small fruit899 a595 a303 a0.34 a102.6 c369 a11.9 c
Rootstock class
S. lycopersicum × S. habrochaites1023 a722 a301 b0.30 b126.3 a287 a21.6 a
S. lycopersicum × S. peruvianum986 a666 a320 a0.33 ab129.1 a293 a21.7 a
S. lycopersicum × S. pimpinellifolium894 b602 b292 b0.33 ab117.0 a269 b21.8 a
S. lycopersicum × S. lycopersicum956 ab623 ab333 a0.35 a130.0 a298 a20.8 ab
Ungrafted930 b590 b340 a0.36 a120.8 a295 a19.7 b
F-test
Scion class (Sclass)NSNSNSNS********
Rootstock class (Rclass)************NS****
Sclass × RclassNSNS**NSNS*NS
NS = not significant; *, **, *** significant at p < 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively.
Table
Table 6. Carpometric and fruit quality traits of cherry tomato as affected by scion and rootstock class (main effects). Different letters within each column’s factor indicate significance at Tukey’s HSD test (p = 0.05).
Table 6. Carpometric and fruit quality traits of cherry tomato as affected by scion and rootstock class (main effects). Different letters within each column’s factor indicate significance at Tukey’s HSD test (p = 0.05).
Source of VariationL*a*b*FirmnessShape IndexTSSTATSS/TAAsA Content
(Relative Unit)(Relative Unit)(Relative Unit)(g)(Adimensional)(°Brix)(mg CA kg−1 FW)(Adimensional)(mg kg−1 FW)
Scion class
Large fruit38.4 a12.3 a18.3 a859 a0.87 a5.14 b4.02 b1.29 a226.9 a
Medium fruit39.4 a12.1 a18.7 a1022 a0.86 a5.25 b3.92 b1.39 a202.0 a
Small fruit38.5 a15.3 a18.4 a844 a0.83 a6.23 a4.77 a1.32 a227.1 a
Rootstock class
S. lycopersicum × S. habrochaites38.8 a12.5 b18.3 a867 a0.85 a5.13 b4.18 a1.25 b167.8 d
S. lycopersicum × S. peruvianum38.8 a12.5 b18.5 a905 a0.85 a5.40 b4.26 a1.28 b191.9 c
S. lycopersicum × S. pimpinellifolium38.8 a13.4 ab18.9 a903 a0.85 a5.49 ab4.31 a1.30 ab191.2 c
S. lycopersicum × S. lycopersicum38.7 a14.0 a18.2 a904 a0.85 a5.88 a4.28 a1.40 a236.8 b
Ungrafted38.6 a13.6 ab18.5 a966 a0.85 a5.81 a4.16 a1.42 a305.6 a
F-test
Scion class (Sclass)NSNSNSNSNS**NSNS
Rootstock class (Rclass)NS**NSNSNS***NS******
Sclass × RclassNSNSNSNSNSNS******NS
NS = not significant; *, **, *** significant at p < 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mauro, R.P.; Agnello, M.; Onofri, A.; Leonardi, C.; Giuffrida, F. Scion and Rootstock Differently Influence Growth, Yield and Quality Characteristics of Cherry Tomato. Plants 2020, 9, 1725. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9121725

AMA Style

Mauro RP, Agnello M, Onofri A, Leonardi C, Giuffrida F. Scion and Rootstock Differently Influence Growth, Yield and Quality Characteristics of Cherry Tomato. Plants. 2020; 9(12):1725. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9121725

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mauro, Rosario Paolo, Michele Agnello, Andrea Onofri, Cherubino Leonardi, and Francesco Giuffrida. 2020. "Scion and Rootstock Differently Influence Growth, Yield and Quality Characteristics of Cherry Tomato" Plants 9, no. 12: 1725. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9121725

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop