Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 9–18 | Cite as

Effects of tomato and potato heterografting on photosynthesis, quality and yield of grafted parents

  • Guanghai Zhang
  • Huachun GuoEmail author
Research Report


Grafting has been widely used to improve quality, yield, and tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses in plants. Tomato/potato heterografting combines two different species to create a new variety that can harvest tomato fruits and tubers from scions and rootstocks, respectively. This could be an optimal agricultural technique for improving yield and utilizing nature resources effectively, but the growth and development of rootstocks and scions after grafting are rarely described. The present study aimed to determine the effects of tomato/potato heterografting on the physiological characters, quality and yield of fruits and tubers and study the changes in photosynthetic capacity of tomato scion grafted to potato rootstock. In this study, the Zhongyan988 (ZY988) tomato cultivar four potato cultivars, Lishu6 (LS6), Qingshu9 (QS9), Hezuo88 (HZ88) and Diantongshu1 (DTS1), served as grafting parents and ungrafted tomato and potato plants were used as controls. Intergeneric grafting between tomato and potato was an effective agricultural approach that improved the yield per unit area on existing cultivated land. Under normal growth conditions, grafting had no significant effect on the photosynthetic capacity of the tomato leaves. Some characteristics related to the tomato fruit quality were improved by the potato rootstocks, including vitamin C (Vc), total soluble solids and soluble sugars; however, the titratable acidity content decreased in these grafted plants. The tomato fruit size and fruit number were affected by grafting. Grafting produced more fruit with lower average weight per fruit. Grafting had a significantly promoted tuber sprouting during the harvest period and decreased the tuber number per plant. Furthermore, the starch content and Vc level in the potato tubers were significantly decreased after grafting, but the reducing sugar content significantly increased. Scion and rootstock changes caused by grafting may be related to the accumulation and distribution of photosynthetic products and scion-rootstock interactions.


Heterografting Tomato Potato Photosynthetic characteristics Quality yield 



This work was supported by the National Potato Industry Technology System (No. CARS-09-P 15).


  1. Albacete A, Martinez-Andujar C, Martinez-Perez A, Thompson AJ, Dodd IC, Perez-Alfocea F (2015) Unravelling rootstockxscion interactions to improve food security. J Exp Bot 66:2211–2226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balliu A, Vuksani G, Nasto T, Haxhinasto L, Kaçiu S (2008) Grafting effects on tomato growth rate, yield and fruit quality under saline irrigation water. Acta Hortic 801:1161–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernacchi CJ, Singsaas EL, Pimentel C, Portis AR Jr, Long SP (2001) Improved temperature response functions for models of Rubisco-limited photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ 24:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bithell SL, Condè B, Traynor M, Donald EC (2013) Grafting for soilborne disease management in australian vegetable production systems. Australas Plant Pathol 42:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogoescu M, Doltu M, Sora D (2014) Prevention and control of soilborne diseases and nematodes in eggplants crop by grafting plants combined with soil fumigation. Acta Hortic 1044:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolandnazar S, Moghbeli EM, Panahandeh J, Arzanlou M (2014) Biological control of fusarium wilt in greenhouse tomato by mycorrhizal fungi and resistant rootstock. Acta Hortic 1041:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen R, Omari N, Porat A, Edelstein M (2012) Management of macrophomina wilt in melons using grafting or fungicide soil application: pathological, horticultural and economical aspects. Crop Prot 35:58–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colla G, Rouphael Y, Jawad R, Kumar P, Rea E, Cardarelli M (2013) The effectiveness of grafting to improve NaCl2 and CaCl2 tolerance in cucumber. Sci Hortic 164:380–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Djidonou D, Simonne AH, Koch KE, Brecht JK, Zhao X (2016) Nutritional quality of field-grown tomato fruit as affected by grafting with interspecific hybrid rootstocks. HortScience 51:1618–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Estañ MT, Martinez-Rodriguez MM, Perezalfocea F, Flowers TJ, Bolarin MC (2004) Grafting raises the salt tolerance of tomato through limiting the transport of sodium and chloride to the shoot. J Exp Bot 56:703–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ethier GJ, Livingston NJ (2004) On the need to incorporate sensitivity to CO2 transfer conductance into the Farquhar-von Caemmerer-Berry leaf photosynthesis model. Plant Cell Environ 27:137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Gioia FD, Serio F, Buttaro D, Ayala 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
  14. Huang Y, Bie Z, Liu P, Niu M, Zhen A, Liu Z, Lei B, Gu D, Lu C, Wang B (2013a) Reciprocal grafting between cucumber and pumpkin demonstrates the roles of the rootstock in the determination of cucumber salt tolerance and sodium accumulation. Sci Hortic 149:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang Y, Li J, Hua B, Liu Z, Fan M, Bie Z (2013b) Grafting onto different rootstocks as a means to improve watermelon tolerance to low potassium stress. Sci Hortic 149:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang W, Liao S, Lv H, Khaldun ABM, Wang Y (2015) Characterization of the growth and fruit quality of tomato grafted on a woody medicinal plant, lycium chinense. Sci Hortic 197:447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee JM, Kubota C, Tsao SJ, Bie Z, Echevarria PH, Morra L, Oda M (2010) Current status of vegetable grafting: diffusion, grafting techniques, automation. Sci Hortic 127:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li HS (2000) Experimental principles and techniques of plant physiology and biochemistry. China Higher Education Press, Beijing, pp 16–88Google Scholar
  19. Louws FJ, Rivard CL, Kubota C (2010) Grafting fruiting vegetables to manage soilborne pathogens, foliar pathogens, arthropods and weeds. Sci Hortic 127:127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martinez-Rodriguez MM, Estañ MT, Moyano E, Garcia-Abellan JO, Flores FB, Campos JF, Al-Azzawi MJ, Flowers TJ, Bolarín MC (2008) The effectiveness of grafting to improve salt tolerance in tomato when an ‘excluder’ genotype is used as scion. Environ Exp Bot 63:392–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miles C, Wimer J, Inglis D (2015) Grafting eggplant and tomato for verticillium wilt resistance. Acta Hortic 1086:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naif G, Emin Y, Ca Perihan, Mine A, Yaşar K (2011) Determining of the yield, quality and nutrient content of tomatoes grafted on different rootstocks in soilless culture. Sci Res Essays 6:2147–2153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ntatsi G, Savvas D, Papasotiropoulos V, Katsileros A, Zrenner RM, Hincha DK, Zuther E, Schwarz D (2017) Rootstock sub-optimal temperature tolerance determines transcriptomic responses after long-term root cooling in rootstocks and scions of grafted tomato plants. Front Plant Sci 8:911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Papadaki AM, Bletsos FA, Eleftherohorinos IG, Menexes G, Lagopodi AL (2017) Effectiveness of seven commercial rootstocks against verticillium wilt and their effects on growth, yield, and fruit quality of tomato. Crop Prot 102:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peres LEP, Carvalho RF, Zsögön A, Bermúdez-Zambrano OD, Robles WGR, Tavares S (2005) Grafting of tomato mutants onto potato rootstocks: an approach to study leaf-derived signaling on tuberization. Plant Sci 169:680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Qaryouti MM, Qawasmi W, Hamdan H, Edwan M (2007) Tomato fruit yield and quality as affected by grafting and growing system. Acta Hortic 741:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Riga P, Benedicto L, García-Flores L, Villaño D, Medina S, Gil-Izquierdo Á (2016) Rootstock effect on serotonin and nutritional quality of tomatoes produced under low temperature and light conditions. J Food Compos Anal 46:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rouphael Y, Cardarelli M, Rea E, Colla G (2008) Grafting of cucumber as a means to minimize copper toxicity. Environ Exp Bot 63:49–58CrossRefGoogle 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, Colla G, Rouphael Y, Schwarz D (2010) Amelioration of heavy metal and nutrient stress in fruit vegetables by grafting. Sci Hortic 127:156–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Savvas D, Ntatsi G, Barouchas P (2013) Impact of grafting and rootstock genotype on cation uptake by cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) exposed to Cd or Ni stress. Sci Hortic 149:86–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Sergeeva LI, Claassens MMJ, Jamar DCL, van der Plas LHW, Vreugdenhil D (2012) Starch-related enzymes during potato tuber dormancy and sprouting. Russ J Plant Physiol 59:556–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turhan A, Ozmen N, Serbecı MS, Senız V (2011) Effects of grafting on different rootstocks on tomato fruit yield and quality. Hortic Sci 38:142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Viola R, Pelloux J, van der Ploeg A, Gillespie T, Marquis N, Roberts AG, Hancock RD (2007) Symplastic connection is required for bud outgrowth following dormancy in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tubers. Plant Cell Environ 30:973–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Visser RGF, Vreugdenhil D, Hendriks T, Jacobsen E (1994) Gene expression and carbohydrate content during stolon to tuber transition in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Physiol Plant 90:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Warschefsky EJ, Klein LL, Frank MH, Chitwood DH, Londo JP, Von Wettberg EJ, Miller AJ (2016) Rootstocks: diversity, domestication, and impacts on shoot phenotypes. Trends Plant Sci 21:418–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Webb WL, Newton M, Starr D (1974) Carbon dioxide exchange of Alnus rubra. Oecologia 17:281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yeoman MM, Brown R (1976) Implications of the formation of the graft union for organisation in the intact plant. Ann Bot London 40:1265–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang H, Hou J, Liu J, Xie C, Song B (2014) Amylase analysis in potato starch degradation during cold storage and sprouting. Potato Res 57:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Horticultural Science 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Root and Tuber Crops Research InstituteYunnan Agricultural UniversityKunmingChina

Personalised recommendations