heirlooms mebr alternative ? organics - network• the advent of tube-grafting or japanese...
TRANSCRIPT
`"
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$ing(Effects(/(2007(
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Mean+fruit+size+(g)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Mean+fruit+size+(g)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total+fruit+number+(103 /ha)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total+fruit+number+(103 /ha)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
OpenEfield High+tunnel
Total+fruit+yield+(t/ha)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
OpenEfield High+tunnel
Total+fruit+yield+(t/ha)
A
B
C
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Mean+fruit+size+(g)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Mean+fruit+size+(g)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Mean+fruit+size+(g)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Mean+fruit+size+(g)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total+fruit+number+(103 /ha)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total+fruit+number+(103 /ha)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total+fruit+number+(103 /ha)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total+fruit+number+(103 /ha)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
OpenEfield High+tunnel
Total+fruit+yield+(t/ha)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
OpenEfield High+tunnel
Total+fruit+yield+(t/ha)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
OpenEfield High+tunnel
Total+fruit+yield+(t/ha)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
OpenEfield High+tunnel
Total+fruit+yield+(t/ha)
A
B
C
The%main%effect%of%grafting%was%signiNicant%in%both%years,%across%systems,%and%with%both%data%sets%(100%DAP%vs%�systems�).%%%%%System*grafting%=%NS%
42%%% 53%%%
BEAUFORT% MAXIFORT%
12
Gra$ing(Effects(/(2008(
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Total,fruit,yield,(t/ha)
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
Open@field High,tunnel
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Total,fruit,yield,(t/ha)
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
Open@field High,tunnel
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total,fruit,number,(103 /ha)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total,fruit,number,(103 /ha)
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
Total,fruit,yield,(t/ha)
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
Open@field High,tunnel
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Total,fruit,yield,(t/ha)
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
Open@field High,tunnel
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Total,fruit,yield,(t/ha)
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
Open@field High,tunnel
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Total,fruit,yield,(t/ha)
Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort Nongraft Beaufort Maxifort
Open@field High,tunnel
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total,fruit,number,(103 /ha)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total,fruit,number,(103 /ha)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total,fruit,number,(103 /ha)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total,fruit,number,(103 /ha)
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
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
*
*
*
01020304050607080
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Harvest&interval
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
01020304050607080
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
1101020304050607080
0 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
01020304050607080
0 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
1101020304050607080
0 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
01020304050607080
0 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
*
*
*
01020304050607080
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Harvest&interval
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
01020304050607080
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
1101020304050607080
0 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
01020304050607080
0 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
*
*
*
01020304050607080
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Harvest&interval
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
01020304050607080
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
1101020304050607080
0 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
01020304050607080
0 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
1101020304050607080
0 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
01020304050607080
0 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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)
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
*
*
*
01020304050607080
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Harvest&interval
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
01020304050607080
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Total&fruit&yield&(t/ha) Nongraft
BeaufortMaxifort
NongraftBeaufortMaxifort
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.
Tube Grafting Technique
31
• Angle of cut
• Clip attachment
• Scion insertion
• Provide good contact between the rootstock and the scion.
Tube Grafting Technique
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