Heirlooms MeBr Alternative ? Organics - Network• The advent of tube-grafting or Japanese top-grafting has become the most popular for tomato. – Seedlings are grafted at 2-4 leaf

`"

Cary%L.%Rivard,%Ph.D.%%%

February%29,%2012%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ACORN%Greenhouse%Conf.%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Truro,%Nova%Scotia%

Tomato&and&Cucurbit&Grafting

MeBr Alternative ?

High Tunnels

Organics

Heirlooms

Home Gardens

1

Vegetable Grafting Worldwide

81% of Korean and 54% of Japanese vegetable production uses grafted plants

(Lee, 2003) Photos courtesy of M. Peet (NCSU) 2

•  There are a number of different methods for grafting vegetable crops.

(Lee, 2003)

Cucurbits

Solanaceous

Hole Insertion

Splice/Tube Modified Pin Pin Cleft Epicotyl insertion

Modified Hole Tongue approach Splice Double Splice

Vegetable Grafting Worldwide

3

•  Disease Resistance •  C. ficifolia rootstocks •  Fusarium and Corky root

•  Cold soils •  Root exposure to

thermal stress

•  Fruit size and yield

Cucurbit Grafting

Courtesy: Cornell Vegetable Group (J. Reid & K. Klotzbach)

4

Scion

Rootstock

•  First reports of vegetable grafting occurred in Asia in the 1920�s. –  Fusarium wilt of melon

•  Popularized in Japan and Korea –  Tunnel and Greenhouse

production

Tomato Grafting

5

•  Root function

–  Disease resistance against soilborne pathogens

–  Water and nutrient uptake

–  Nutrient assimilation and transport

–  Interface with soil ecosystem

Benefits of Grafting

6

•  Rootstock-specific hybrids –  Inter-specific hybrids

•  Commercial hybrids as rootstocks –  Disease resistance code

Rootstock Selection

7

R=Resistant , HR=Highly Resistant, MR=Moderately Resistant, S=Susceptible

* = De �Ruiter Seed Co. ** = Sakata Seed Co. *** = Asahi Seed Co.

**** = D Palmer Seed Co. ***** =Rijk Zwaan ****** = Bruinsma Seed Co.

Rootstock Selection

Rootstocks TMV Corky Root

Fusarium Wilt Verticillium Wilt (r1)

Root-knot Nematode

Bacterial Wilt

Southern Blight Race 1 Race 2

Beaufort * R R R R R MR S HR

Maxifort * R R R R R MR S HR

(Unreleased) * R S R R R R HR MR

TMZQ702 ** R S R R R R MR MR

Dai Honmei *** R R R S R R HR MR

RST-04-105 **** R R R R R R HR MR

Big Power ***** R R R R R R S HR

Robusta ****** R R S R R S S ?

8

•  Root function

–  Disease resistance against soilborne pathogens

–  Water and nutrient uptake

–  Nutrient assimilation and transport

–  Interface with soil ecosystem

Benefits of Grafting

9

2006%SRESARE%R&E%Grant%%

•  Compare"production"dynamics"of"""tunnel"vs"6ield"production."–  Environment"–  Disease"–  Productivity"–  Economics""

•  Optimize"cultural"practices"for"high"""tunnels."–  Nutrient"/"Fertility"–  Planting"Date""

•  Investigate"the"role"of"grafting"for"openD6ield"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""and"tunnel"production."–  Beaufort"–  Maxifort"–  Nutrient"uptake"ef6iciency"

CEFS Research

�Cherokee%Purple�%

10

11

Gra$ing(Effects(/(2007(

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean+fruit+size+(g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean+fruit+size+(g)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Total+fruit+number+(103 /ha)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort

OpenEfield High+tunnel

Total+fruit+yield+(t/ha)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180




A

B

C

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean+fruit+size+(g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean+fruit+size+(g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean+fruit+size+(g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean+fruit+size+(g)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180




A

B

C

The%main%effect%of%grafting%was%signiNicant%in%both%years,%across%systems,%and%with%both%data%sets%(100%DAP%vs%�systems�).%%%%%System*grafting%=%NS%

42%%% 53%%%

BEAUFORT% MAXIFORT%

12

Gra$ing(Effects(/(2008(

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Total,fruit,yield,(t/ha)


Open@field High,tunnel

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Total,fruit,number,(103 /ha)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean,fruit,size,(g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean,fruit,size,(g)

A

B

C

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean,fruit,size,(g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean,fruit,size,(g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean,fruit,size,(g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Mean,fruit,size,(g)

A

B

C

The%main%effect%of%grafting%was%signiNicant%in%both%years,%across%systems,%and%with%both%data%sets%(100%DAP%vs%�systems�).%%%%%System*grafting%=%NS%

35%%%

BEAUFORT%

37%%%

MAXIFORT%

13

Gra$ing(Effects(/(Yield(

1101020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6

Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft

BeaufortMaxifort

01020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6


BeaufortMaxifort

NongraftBeaufortMaxifort

A

B

C

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest interval

Tot

al fr

uit y

ield

(t/h

a)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest interval

Tot

al fr

uit y

ield

(t/h

a)



*

*

*

01020304050607080

0 1 2 3 4 5 6Harvest&interval


BeaufortMaxifort

01020304050607080

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


BeaufortMaxifort


1101020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6


BeaufortMaxifort

01020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6


BeaufortMaxifort


1101020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6


BeaufortMaxifort


01020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6


BeaufortMaxifort


A

B

C

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest interval

Tot

al fr

uit y

ield

(t/h

a)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest interval

Tot

al fr

uit y

ield

(t/h

a)



*

*

*

01020304050607080



BeaufortMaxifort


01020304050607080

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


BeaufortMaxifort


1101020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6

Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) NongraftBeaufortMaxifort

01020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6



A

B

C

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest intervalT

otal

frui

t yie

ld (

t/ha)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest intervalT

otal

frui

t yie

ld (

t/ha)



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest interval

Tot

al fr

uit y

ield

(t/h

a)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest interval

Tot

al fr

uit y

ield

(t/h

a)



*

*

*

01020304050607080



BeaufortMaxifort

01020304050607080

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


BeaufortMaxifort


1101020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6


01020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6



1101020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6



01020304050607080

0 2 3 4 5 6



A

B

C

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest intervalT

otal

frui

t yie

ld (

t/ha)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest intervalT

otal

frui

t yie

ld (

t/ha)



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest interval

Tot

al fr

uit y

ield

(t/h

a)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Harvest interval

Tot

al fr

uit y

ield

(t/h

a)



*

*

*

01020304050607080



BeaufortMaxifort


01020304050607080

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


BeaufortMaxifort


OpenENield% High%tunnel%

2007% 2007%

2008%2008%

%

•  BiDweekly"harvest"data"was"collected"into"6ive"bins."–  Last"bin"was"the"6inal"(terminal)"harvest"–  Previous"four"were"equivalent"divisions"of"the"harvest"season"

•  Each"interval"="3"weeks"in"the"tunnel"or"2"weeks"in"the"openD6ield" 14

Steve"Groff"

Cedar%Meadow%Farm%–%Lancaster%County,%PA%

Cedar(Meadow(Farm(

15

•  Verticillium&dahliae&–  Loss"of"vigor"–  Wilting"and"leaf"necrosis"–  Favored"by"cool"wet"weather"–  Race"2"prevalent"in"WNC"""(Bender&&"Shoemaker,&1984)"

–  Reliance"on"fumigation"

%

Ver>cillium(Wilt(

16

Research%Objectives%•  Can"vigorous"rootstock"be"used"to"manage"verticillium"wilt?"

•  How"does"grafting"6it"in"with"fumigation?"

–  Additive"or"alternative"

•  Can"we"reduce"economic"constraints"through"cultural"methods?"

–  Plant"spacing"(2008)"–  Transplant"costs"(2009)"

Kaitlin%Dye%(Summer%2008)%Photo%Courtesy:%Steve%Groff%

Cedar(Meadow(Farm(

17

Lancaster County - 2009"

0"

10"

20"

30"

40"

50"

60"

70"

80"

Non-grafted" Maxifort"

Mar

keta

ble

frui

t yie

ld (t

ons/

acre

)"

A

C C

B

LSD P = 0.05

Non-Fumigated" Fumigated" Non-Fumigated" Fumigated"

Cedar(Meadow(Farm(

18

Lancaster County - 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

18" 24" 36" 18" 24" 36"

Non-grafted Maxifort

Mar

keta

ble

yiel

d (t

ons/

acre

)

A

B B BC C C

LSD based on P=0.05

Cedar(Meadow(Farm(

19

Net returns of grafting ($/acre) : 2008 Non-grafted* Maxifort* (Max-Std)

18" Spacing $44,525 $47,366 $2,841 24" Spacing $47,827 $3,302 36" Spacing $45,533 $1008

Net returns of grafting ($/acre) : 2009 Non-grafted* Maxifort* (Max-Std)

Fumigated $47,739 $60,699 $12,960 Non-fumigated $57,677 $9,938

*"Values"="Gross"revenue"–"harvest"costs"–"transplant"costs"

Selling"price"="$0.66"per"lbs"

Economics(

20

Conclusions(•  Grafting"provides"a"siteDspeci6ic"management"tool"for"soilborne"disease."–  Disease"diagnosis"and"rootstock"selection"are"critical."

•  Use"of"rootstocks"may"increase"yield"through"added"vigor"and"nutrient"uptake."

•  Cultural"management"may"reduce"economic"constraints."–  Planting"density"–  Pruning/training"–  Fertility" 21

Tube Grafting

Suzanne%O�Connell%(NCSU)%22

Novelties

Photo Courtesy: M. Peet (USDA-NIFA)

Graft Unions

23

Disclaimer

•  No Recipe for Success

•  Principles

–  Production

–  Uniformity

–  Water Stress

–  Sanitation

–  Re-acclimation

24

Propaga>on(Costs(

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$0.46%/%plant%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$0.74%/%plant%%%%%=%%%%%Added%cost%%

% (Rivard&et&al.,&2010)&

•  Proportion of added costs –  e.g. seed costs (%) = (SEEDgraft - SEEDnon) / (TOTALgraft - TOTALnon)

25

•  The advent of �tube-grafting� or �Japanese top-grafting� has become the most popular for tomato.

–  Seedlings are grafted at 2-4 leaf stage.

–  High Throughput

•  A person can make ~ 1000 grafts/day

•  Grafting robots can make 700 grafts/hr.

Tube Grafting

26

Grafting Robot at USDA Labs (Ft. Pierce, FL) (Photo by: Jim Driver, NCSU)

27

Timeline

28

•  Uniformity is key –  Germination period –  Substrate –  Transplanting / Sowing

•  Rootstock and scion

•  Numbers

•  Healthy Transplants

•  Healing Chamber

Seeding / Transplant Production

29

•  Size: –  2-4 leaves

–  1.5-2.0 mm stem diameter

–  Sorting

•  Temperature can be manipulated to compensate for size differences.

•  Timing is critical.

Tube Grafting Technique

30

•  Preparing for surgery…

–  Make sure plants are not water or nutrient stressed.

–  Have a clean working area. •  Disinfect hands, tools, and grafting clips.

–  Carry out grafting indoors

–  Be in close proximity to healing chamber.


31

•  Angle of cut

•  Clip attachment

•  Scion insertion

•  Provide good contact between the rootstock and the scion.


32

–  During the healing

process, the plant has to form callus tissue and reconnect vascular bundles within the stem.

Life in the Chamber

33

–  By altering the plant�s physical environment, we can offset the functional effects that this trauma has incurred, and give the plant time to heal itself…

Life in the Chamber

34

•  Objectives of the healing chamber

–  Reducing water stress by slowing the transpirational stream.

•  Humidity

•  Light

•  Temperature

–  Keep temperature fairly constant and between 75 and 80 degrees F.

Life in the Chamber

35

•  Regulate humidity

–  Cool-water vaporizers

–  Passive humidifiers

–  No warm-water vaporizers

–  No misters PLEASE

–  Overhead watering

Life in the Chamber

36

•  Regulate light & humidity in the chamber 37

38

Healing Chamber

39

40

41

42

43

•  Edema

–  Can be a problem

–  Easily solved

–  RH is too high

–  Careful observation

Photo courtesy of M. Peet (NCSU)

Life in the Chamber

44

•  7-10 days in the Greenhouse

–  Hardening off

–  Overhead Watering

–  The Clip

–  Transportation

Life in the Greenhouse

45

Life on the Farm

Planting Depth Suckering 46

Early Tomato Production 47

MAXIFORT NON-GRAFTED

Life on the Farm

48

Life on the Farm

Twin leader for European string trellis

Twin leader for stake-and-weave

49

Propaga>on(Costs(

(Rivard&et&al.,&2010)&50

•  Uniformity of seedlings

•  Timing

•  Patience

•  Sanitation

•  Careful observation

•  Water management

•  Cultural Management

Review

51

Come and visit any time

Cary Rivard, 35230 W 135th St., Olathe, KS 66061 913-856-2335 ext 120; [email protected] 52

Documents

Heirlooms MeBr Alternative ? Organics - Network• The advent of tube-grafting or Japanese top-grafting has become the most popular for tomato. – Seedlings are grafted at 2-4 leaf