Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology

, Volume 59, Issue 5, pp 597–606 | Cite as

Impact of grafting on sensory profile of tomato landraces in conventional and organic management systems

  • Joan CasalsEmail author
  • Aurora Rull
  • Mauro Bernal
  • Ramiro González
  • Roser Romero del Castillo
  • Joan Simó
Research Report Cultivation Physiology


Tomato landrace producers are adopting grafting technology to overcome agronomic deficiencies and increase plant yields. Landraces are valued for their higher organoleptic quality, so it is important to assess the impact of grafting on their sensory profile. We studied the influence of ‘Beaufort’ rootstock on agronomic, morphologic, and sensory traits using two landraces (‘Mando’ and ‘Montgri’) and one commercial cultivar (‘Egara’) as scions in two extreme management systems for tomato cultivation: conventional/greenhouse and organic/open field. Panel sensory analysis found that grafting onto ‘Beaufort’ had a negative effect on sensory attributes, reducing sweetness, acidity, and intensity of flavor in the organic system and sweetness and intensity of flavor in the conventional system. In conventional management, grafting also modified some aspects of fruit appearance. In the conventional system, grafting significantly increased yield in all the genotypes (mean increase, 52%). By contrast, in the organic system, grafting increased yield only in the ‘Mando’ landrace (mean increase, 62.3%). As many genotype × grafting interactions affecting many important commercial traits occurred in both management systems, specific studies with different rootstock-scion combinations are highly recommended before adopting this technique for producing landraces with high sensory quality.


Organic farming Solanum lycopersicum L. Organoleptic quality Rootstock Sensory analysis 



The authors thank Planters Casas nursery for the grafting labor and the panelists for their collaboration in sensory analysis sessions. This work was supported in part by the Consorci del Parc Natural de la Serra de Collserola.


  1. Acciarri N, Rotino GL, Tamietti G, Valentino D, Voltattorni S, Sabatini E (2007) Molecular markers for Ve1 and Ve2 Verticillium resistance genes from Italian tomato germplasm. Plant Breed 126:617–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin EA, Goodner K, Plotto A (2008) Interaction of volatiles, sugars, and acids on perception of tomato aroma and flavor descriptors. J Food Sci 73:S294–S307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett CE, Zhao X, Sims CA, Brecht JK, Dreyer EQ, Gao Z (2012) Fruit composition and sensory attributes of organic heirloom tomatoes as affected by grafting. Horttechnology 22:804–809Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Yosef B (1977) Trickle irrigation and fertilization of tomatoes in sand dunes: water, N, and P distributions in the soil and uptake by plants. Agron J 69:486–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casals J, Bosch L, Casanas F, Cebolla J, Nuez F (2010) ‘Montgri’, a cultivar within the Montserrat tomato type. Hortscience 45:1885–1886Google Scholar
  6. Casals J, Pascual L, Canizares J, Cebolla-Cornejo J, Casanas F, Nuez F (2011) The risks of success in quality vegetable markets: possible genetic erosion in Marmande tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and consumer dissatisfaction. Sci Hortic 130:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Causse M, Friguet C, Coiret C, Lepicier M, Navez B, Lee M, Holthuysen N, Sinesio F, Moneta E, Grandillo S (2010) Consumer preferences for fresh tomato at the European scale: a common segmentation on taste and firmness. J Food Sci 75:S531–S541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cebolla-Cornejo J, Soler S, Nuez F (2007) Genetic erosion of traditional varieties of vegetable crops in Europe: tomato cultivation in Valencia (Spain) as a case study. Int J Plant Prod 1:113–128Google Scholar
  9. Cortés-Olmos C, Valcárcel JV, Roselló J, Díez MJ, Cebolla-Cornejo J (2015) Traditional eastern Spanish varieties of tomato. Sci Agric 72:420–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Csizinszky AA (2005) Production in the open field. In: Heuvelink E (ed) Tomatoes. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, pp 237–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Gioia F, Serio F, Buttaro D, Oyala O, Santamaria P (2010) Influence of rootstock on vegetative growth, fruit yield and quality in “Cuore di Bue”, an heirloom tomato. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 85:477–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Estañ MT, Martinez-Rodriguez MM, Perez-Alfocea F, Flowers TJ, Bolarin MC (2005) Grafting raises the salt tolerance of tomato through limiting the transport of sodium and chloride to the shoot. J Exp Bot 56:703–712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Estañ MT, Villalta I, Bolarín MC, Carbonell EA, Asins MJ (2009) Identification of fruit yield loci controlling the salt tolerance conferred by solanum rootstocks. Theor Appl Genet 118:305–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fan J, Yang R, Li X, Zhao W, Zhao F, Wang S (2015) The process of graft union in tomato. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 56:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandez-Garcia N, Martinez V, Cerda A, Carvajal M (2004) Fruit quality of grafted tomato plants grown under saline conditions. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 79:995–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flores FB, Sanchez-Bel P, Estañ MT, Martinez-Rodriguez MM, Moyano E, Morales B, Campos JF, Garcia-Abellán JO, Egea MI, Fernández-Garcia N et al (2010) The effectiveness of grafting to improve tomato fruit quality. Sci Hortic 125:211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. He Y, Zhu Z, Yang J, Ni X, Zhu B (2009) Grafting increases the salt tolerance of tomato by improvement of photosynthesis and enhancement of antioxidant enzymes activity. Environ Exp Bot 66:270–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hongsoongnern P, Chambers E (2008) A lexicon for texture and flavor characteristics of fresh and processed tomatoes. J Sens Stud 23:583–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO (1988) Sensory analysis—general guidance for the selection, training, and monitoring of assessors. Part I: selected assessors. International Organization for Standardization, GenovaGoogle Scholar
  20. ISO (1998) Sensory analysis, general guidance for the design of test rooms (ISO 8589). International Organization for Standardization, GenovaGoogle Scholar
  21. Krumbein A, Schwarz D (2013) Grafting: a possibility to enhance health-promoting and flavour compounds in tomato fruits of shaded plants? Sci Hortic 149:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mazzucato A, Ficcadenti N, Caioni M, Mosconi P, Piccinini E, Sanampudi VRR, Sestili S, Ferrari V (2010) Genetic diversity and distinctiveness in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) landraces: the Italian case study of A pera Abruzzese. Sci Hortic 125:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McAvoy T, Freeman JH, Rideout SL, Olson SM, Paret ML (2012) Evaluation of grafting using hybrid rootstocks for management of bacterial wilt in field tomato production. Hortscience 47:621–625Google Scholar
  24. Pico B, Herraiz J, Ruiz JJ, Nuez F (2002) Widening the genetic basis of virus resistance in tomato. Sci Hortic 94:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rahmatian A, Delshad M, Salehi R (2014) Effect of grafting on growth, yield and fruit quality of single and double stemmed tomato plants grown hydroponically. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 55:115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Riga P (2015) Effect of rootstock on growth, fruit production and quality of tomato plants grown under low temperature and light conditions. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 56:626–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rivard CL, Louws FJ (2008) Grafting to manage soilborne diseases in heirloom tomato production. Hortscience 43:2104–2111Google Scholar
  28. Rivero RM, Ruiz JM, Sánchez E, Romero L (2003) Does grafting provide tomato plants an advantage against H2O2 production under conditions of thermal shock? Physiol Plant 117:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Romano R, Brockhoff PB, Hersleth M, Tomic O, Næs T (2008) Correcting for different use of the scale and the need for further analysis of individual differences in sensory analysis. Food Qual Prefer 19:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Romero del Castillo R, Valero J, Casañas F, Costell E (2008) Training, validation and maintenance of a panel to evaluate the texture of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J Sens Stud 23:303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rouphael Y, Schwarz D, Krumbein A, Colla G (2010) Impact of grafting on product quality of fruit vegetables. Sci Hortic 127:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Savvas D, Savva A, Ntatsi G, Ropokis A, Karapanos I, Krumbein A, Olympios C (2011) Effects of three commercial rootstocks on mineral nutrition, fruit yield, and quality of salinized tomato. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 174:154–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwarz D, Rouphael Y, Colla G, Venema JH (2010) Grafting as a tool to improve tolerance of vegetables to abiotic stresses: thermal stress, water stress and organic pollutants. Sci Hortic 127:162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwarz D, Öztekin GB, Tüzel Y, Brückner B, Krumbein A (2013) Rootstocks can enhance tomato growth and quality characteristics at low potassium supply. Sci Hortic 149:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simo J, Romero del Castillo R, Almirall A, Casañas F (2012) ‘Roquerola’ and ‘Montferri’ first improved onion (Allium cepa L.) cultivars for “calçots” production. Hortscience 47:801–802Google Scholar
  36. Stazi SR, Cassaniti C, Marabottini R, Giuffrida F, Leonardi C (2016) Arsenic uptake and partitioning in grafted tomato plants. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 57:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Horticultural Science and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Miquel Agustí FoundationCastelldefelsSpain
  2. 2.Department of Agri-Food Engineering and BiotechnologyBarcelonaTechCastelldefelsSpain

Personalised recommendations