Journal of Bio-Environment Control (생물환경조절학회지)

The Korean Society for Bio-Environment Control (한국생물환경조절학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Scion Age on Survival Rate and Initial Yield of the Grafted Tomato Seedlings

토마토 접목묘 생산시 접수연령이 활착율과 초기 수확량에 미치는 영향

  • Kim, Sung Eun (Department of Plant and Food Sciences, Sangmyung Univ. Cheonan Campus) ;
  • Lee, Moon Haeng (Buyeo tomato experiment station C.A.R.E.S.) ;
  • Kim, Young Shik (Department of Plant and Food Sciences, Sangmyung Univ. Cheonan Campus)
  • Received : 2013.09.03
  • Accepted : 2013.10.16
  • Published : 2013.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research was conducted to know the appropriate leaf number of scion for tube grafting in context with survival rate and quality of seedlings, and early yield of $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ cluster of cherry tomato plants. Scions were grafted when having leaves 1~2 (LF-2), 2~3 (LF-3), or 3~4 (LF-4). The treatment LF-3 showed the highest survival rates and the best results in 6 factors among 12 seedling quality factors. In case of early yield, the treatment LF-2 showed higher yield than others with the big difference. Economic analysis showed that LF-3 is desirable in case of nursery while LF-2 is better in case of farmers. The compromising solution is that farmers buy a little expensive seedlings grafted at the leaf stage of 1~2 from nurseries in terms of win/win strategy.

본 실험은 토마토 접목묘 생산시 활착율과 묘소질 및 초기 생산량에 유리하며, 현장에서 적용이 용이한 적정접수 연령을 구명하고자 수행되었다. 처리는 접수의 본엽이 1~2매 시기에 접목하는 처리(LF-2), 2~3매 시기에 접목하는 처리(LF-3), 3~4매 시기에 접목하는 처리(LF-4)로 하였다. 접수의 본엽이 2~3매 정도의 연령에서 활착율이 가장 높았으며, 12가지 묘소질 분석항목 중에 6가지 이상이 가장 우수한 결과를 나타내었다. 그러나 접수의 본엽이 1~2매 정도인 어린 것이 통계적 유의성 있게 초기 수확량이 많았으며, 다른 처리와 큰 차이를 나타냈다. 경제성 분석 결과, 육묘장의 경우에는 본엽의 연령이 2~3매인 접수를 사용하는 것이 유리하나, 농가의 경우에는 본엽 1~2매의 어린 접수를 사용한 접목묘가 유리한 것으로 나타났다. 즉, 육묘장에서 발생하는 손실이 초기 수확량으로 얻는 소득의 1%에 불과하므로 농가에서 육묘장의 손실액을 보상하여 접목묘 가격을 약 200원 정도 높게 구입하는 것이 육묘장과 농가에 모두 유리한 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Black, J. 1968. Tomato grafting to control root diseases. New zealand Journal of Agriculture 116:26-27.
  2. Dietmar, S., Y. Rouphael, G. Colla, and J.H. Venema. 2010. Grafting as a tool to improve tolerance of vegetables to abiotic stresses: Thermal stress, water stress and organic pollutants. Scientia Horticulturae 127:162-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2010.09.016
  3. Fernandez-Garcia, N., V. Martinez, A. Cerda, and M. Carvajal. 2002. Water and nutrient uptake of grafted tomato plants grown under saline conditions. J. of Plant Physiology 159: 899-905. https://doi.org/10.1078/0176-1617-00652
  4. Grigoriadis, I., I. Nianiou-Obeidat, and A.S. Tsaftaris. 2005. Shoot regeneration and micrografting of micropropagated hybrid tomatoes. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology 80:183-186.
  5. Grimault, V. and P. Prior. 1994. Grafting tomato cultivars resistant of and susceptible to bacterial wilt-Analysis of resistance mechanisms. Journal of Phytopathologische Zeitschirift 141:330-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.1994.tb01477.x
  6. Ioannou, N. 2001. Integrating soil solarization with grafting on resistant rootstocks for management of soil borne pathogens of eggplant. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology 76:396-401.
  7. King, S.R., A.R. Davis, W.G. Liu, and A. Levi. 2008. Grafting for disease resistance. HortScience 43:1673-1676.
  8. Kubota, C., M.A. McClure, N. Kokalis-Burelle, M.G. Bausher, and E.N. Rosskopf. 2008. Vegetable grafting: History, use, and current technology status in North America. Hort-Science 43:1664-1669.
  9. Lee, J.M. 1994. Cultication of grafted vegetables. 1. Current status, grafting methods, and benefits. HortScience 29:235-239.
  10. Lee, J.M. 2003. Advances in vegetable grafting. Chronica Horticulturae 43:13-19.
  11. Lee, J.M., H.J. Bang, and H.S. Ham. 1998. Grafting of vegetables. J. of Jap. Soc. Hort. Sci. 67:1098-1104. https://doi.org/10.2503/jjshs.67.1098
  12. Lee, J.M., C. Kubota, S.J. Tsao, Z. Bie, P.H. Echevarria, L. Morra, and M. Oda. 2010. Current status of vegetable grafting: Diffusion, grafting techniques, automation. Sci. Hortic. 127:93-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2010.08.003
  13. Leonardi, C. and F. Giuffrida. 2006 Variation of plant growth and macro-nutrient uptake in grafted tomatoes and egg plants on three different rootstocks. European Journal of Horticultural Science 71:97-101.
  14. Oda, M. 1995. New grafting methods for fruit-bearing vegetables in Japan. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly 29: 187-194.
  15. Pogonyi, A., Z. Pek, L. Helyes, and A. Lugasi. 2005. Grafting tomatoes for early forcing in spring has a major impact on the overall quality of main fruit components. Acta Alimentaria 34:453-462. https://doi.org/10.1556/AAlim.34.2005.4.12
  16. Rivard, C.L. and F.J. Louws. 2006. Grafting for Disease Resistance in Heirloom Tomatoes College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, ed. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.
  17. Rivero, R.M., J.M. Ruiz, and L. Romero. 2003. Role of Grafting in Horticultural Plants Under Stress Conditions. Food, Agriculture, & Environment 1:70-74.
  18. Ruiz, J.M. and L. Romero. 1999. Nitrogen efficiency and metabolism in grafted melon plants. Scientia Horticulturae 81:113-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4238(98)00200-3