Hindawi

International Journal of Agronomy

Volume 2021, Article ID 6630382, 11 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6630382

Research Article
Analysis of Plant Growth and Yield in Varieties of Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) Grafted onto Different
Eggplant Rootstocks

Evy Latifah ,1 Amik Krismawati ,1 Mohammad Saeri ,1 Zainal Arifin ,1

Bas Warsiati ,1 Dwi Setyorini ,1 Paulina Evy Retnaning Prahardini ,1
Herman Soebagyo ,1 Donald Sihombing ,1 Sri Satya Antarlina ,1 Eko Widaryanto ,2
Ariffin ,2 and Moch Dawam Maghfoer 2
1
Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology East Java, Indonesian Agency for Agriculture Research and Development,
Ministry of Agriculture, Malang, Indonesia
2
Agriculture Faculty, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

Correspondence should be addressed to Mohammad Saeri; [email protected]

Received 24 November 2020; Revised 8 February 2021; Accepted 23 June 2021; Published 1 July 2021

Academic Editor: Cristina Patan

Copyright © 2021 Evy Latifah et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This study aimed to examine plant growth of tomato grafted onto different eggplant rootstocks. We applied a randomized block
design comprising twelve treatments with three replicates. Three varieties of tomato—Cervo, Karina, and Timoty—and three
rootstocks—Gelatik, EG203 line, and Solanum torvum—were selected for this study. Nongrafted tomato plants of the same
varieties were used as controls. The variables recorded were the number of branches, the diameter of scions and rootstocks, root
length, and root dry weight at 4, 6, 8, and 10 weeks after planting (WAT) and relative growth rate, specific leaf area, and net
assimilation rate at 4, 8, and 12 WAT. Grafted tomato plants demonstrated better growth than controls. There was a significant
relationship between yield, plant growth parameters, and photosynthetic organs, expressed by higher production, greater scion
diameter, longer roots, and increased relative growth rate, leaf area ratio, and net assimilation rate of grafted plants, compared to
the controls.

1. Introduction [6, 7]. However, the application of agrochemicals has caused

environmental degradation and problems related to human
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a vegetable with great health [8, 9]. Alternative techniques to control disease are
potential for development in East Java because of its high required to minimize dependence on agrochemicals and
economic value [1, 2] and can contribute to the household their adverse impacts.
economy when it is intensively cultivated using appropriate Biotic and abiotic stresses can significantly decrease
technology [3, 4]. In 2017 and 2018, tomato production in productivity and severely impact growth [10, 11]. One of the
East Java was 15.6 t·ha−1 and 16.5 t·ha−1, respectively. Actual technologies to solve such problems is grafting. Grafting
production remains low compared with potential produc- technology is an alternative technology that combines a
tion, which can reach 33–35 t·ha−1. The poor tomato pro- high-yield scion and a stress-resistant rootstock to increase
duction is due to the development of unfavourable production. This technology does not produce plants with
conditions, such as bacterial wilt, fusarium wilt, high hu- entirely new properties, but rather combines the charac-
midity, high temperature, and low production technology. teristics of two different plants. The idea of grafting tomato
Chemicals have been regularly applied by farmers [5] fol- onto eggplant is not new and has been successfully per-
lowing recommendations from the green revolution era formed in the past in tropical conditions [12]. Moreover, it
2 International Journal of Agronomy

can increase marketable yield [13], manage soilborne dis- Karina, and Timoty tomato seeds were also planted in small
eases [14], and improve alkalinity tolerance [15], in accor- pots. The rootstocks and scions were irrigated daily for 21
dance with the specific characteristics and problems of each days. Three-week-old eggplant seedlings were used as
agroecosystem. The selection of compatible rootstocks using rootstocks, while two-week-old tomato seedlings were the
local genetic resources is expected to address local issues and scions. The cutting on the sides of both the scions and
be more practical than using imported resources. rootstocks followed a 45° slope in suitable transplants to
The assumption underlying this study is that a healthy ensure cambium alignment. The grafted plants were inserted
rootstock root system increases the efficiency of water and into plastic pockets. Grafted plants were immediately put
nutrient absorption and provides a source of endogenous into the grafting chamber with a maximum temperature of
hormones that increase yield and disease resistance [16–19]. 30°C and relative humidity in the range of 80–85%. Inter-
Local varieties have genotypes that adapt easily to the ception of light entering the grafting chamber was adjusted
growing environment, such that they are easier to cultivate to reach no more than 25% of the total incoming sunlight.
than varieties originating from other regions [20, 21]. The After 10–12 days in the grafting chamber for the unification
grafting combination can determine plant resistance, process, the seedlings were then transferred to a greenhouse.
expressed through variation in growth, fruit yield and
production quality [22–27]. A previous study comparing
self-grafted plants and controls reported only four statisti- 2.2. Experimental Design. This experiment applied a ran-
cally significant differences out of a total of 53 cases and domized block design comprising two factors. The first
concluded that the inclusion of self-grafted treatments is factor was the grafting technology, comprising four treat-
unnecessary [28]. However, the range of yield ratios from ments: R0 � nongrafted, R1 � cv. Gelatik, R2 � EG203 line,
individual studies suggests that the differences in yields and R3 � S. torvum. The second factor was the tomato va-
between self-grafted and nongrafted plants of the same riety, comprising three tomato varieties: V1 � cv. Cervo,
variety are sometimes quite dramatic [12]. Plant growth V2 � cv. Karina, and V3 � cv. Timoty. Thus, there were a
analysis is an explanatory, holistic, and integrative approach total of twelve treatments.
to interpreting plant form and function, using simple pri- Each 1 m × 5 m experimental unit (bed) comprised 40
mary data in the form of observed plant weight, leaf area, plants, with 2 rows of 10 plants, planted within a
volume, and plant content to examine plant development in 50 cm × 70 cm planting space. The distance between beds
detail [29]. Studying the assimilation and accumulation of was 50 cm. The experiment was conducted in three blocks;
dry matter by plants during growth can provide valuable thus, the total number of grafted plants was 1440. Figure 1
information on factors that influence plant development and displays the layout of this field experiment.
yield [30]. In addition, quantitative plant growth analysis can This study did not use self-grafted tomatoes, since a
explain in detail the key ecophysiological processes for in- comprehensive and quantitative review of all published
creasing crop production [31]. Moreover, plant growth experiments showed that there are no significant differences
analysis can be used in a range of fields, including plant between nongrafted and self-grafted plants [28].
breeding, plant physiology, and plant ecology [32]. The study began with rootstock production. Solanum
The World Vegetable Center has released eggplant lines torvum was ready to be grafted at 35 days after sowing
EG195 and EG203, compatible with most tomato scions and (DAS), while cv. Gelatik and the EG203 line were ready at 21
resistant to inundation, salinity, high temperatures, low DAS. The tomato scions were grafted at 15 DAS. The grafted
temperatures, bacterial wilt, fusarium wilt, and root-knot plants were placed in a grafting chamber for ten days and
nematodes. Farmers in Indonesia often have difficulty then transferred to the greenhouse for seven days to
accessing EG195 and EG203 lines as recommended root- strengthen and acclimatize the seedlings.
stocks. Therefore, there is a need to identify local and wild
eggplants that can be used as alternative rootstocks and
determine whether these rootstocks can increase growth and 2.3. Measurement of Growth Parameters. The variables
production when combined with tomato. measured in this study included the number of branches, the
This study examined the influence of grafting technology diameter of scions and rootstocks, root length, and root dry
on tomato performance (growth and yield) using local weight, which were observed at 4, 6, 8, and 10 weeks after
eggplant cultivars as rootstocks. transplant (WAT). In addition, the plant growth indi-
ces—relative growth rate (RGR), specific leaf area (SLA), net
assimilation rate (NAR), leaf area ratio (LAR), and dry plant
2. Materials and Methods weight—were observed at 4, 8, and 12 WAT. Harvesting was
This study was conducted in the Kediri Regency of Indo- conducted when the fruit had obtained a characteristic red
nesia, where wilt diseases have become the major limiting color, commencing when plant age was ±9 WAT and
factor for cultivating tomato. continuing until 20 WAT.
Dry plant weight (g) was obtained by cutting the above-
ground part of the plant at the soil surface and drying it in an
2.1. Experimental Procedure. Seeds from three types of oven at 75°C for 48 hours to constant weight. The RGR,
eggplants were planted at a depth of 1.5–2.0 cm in small pots based on plant dry weight, was calculated using the following
(7 × 9 cm2) filled with sifted soil. After one week, Cervo, formula published by Gardner et al. [33]:
International Journal of Agronomy 3

V1R0 I V3R0 I V2R2 I V1R1 I V1R0 II V3R1 II V1R2 II V1R1 II

V3R1 I V2R0 I V2R1 I V1R3 I V3R0 II V1R3 II V2R0 II V2R1 II

V1R2 I V2R3 I V3R2 I V3R3 I V2R2 II V3R3 II V2R3 II V3R2 II

V1R1 III V1R0 III V1R2 III V3R1 III

V2R1 III V3R0 III V2R0 III V1R3 III

V3R2 III V2R2 III V2R3 III V3R3 III

V1R0 = Cervo non-grafted V2R0 = Karina non-grafted V3R0 = Timoty non-grafted

V1R1 = Cervo grafted gelatik V2R1 = Karina grafted gelatik V3R1 = Timoty grafted gelatik
V1R2 = Cervo grafted EG203 V2R2 = Karina grafted EG203 line V3R2 = Timoty grafted EG203
V1R3 = Cervo grafted S. torvum V2R3 = Karina grafted S. torvum V3R3 = Timoty grafted S. torvum
Figure 1: Field experimental setup using a randomized block design.

Table 1: Summary of F statistics and significance of the effect on plant growth and yield of tomato varieties grafted onto eggplants.
Parameter Rootstocks (R) Scions (V) Interaction (V∗ R)
Number of branches 4 WAT 2.06ns 3.33ns 7.57∗
Number of branches 6 WAT 0.84 ns 3.36ns 5.31∗∗
Number of branches 8 WAT 1.46ns 0.58ns 11.9∗∗
Stem diameter of scions 4 WAT 3.24ns 24.9∗∗ 10.7∗∗
Stem diameter of scions 6 WAT 2.21ns 2.34ns 5.38∗
Stem diameter of scions 8 WAT 13.9∗∗ 14.7∗∗ 14.5∗∗
Stem diameter of rootstocks 4 WAT 0.57ns 5.12∗∗ 3.62∗
Stem diameter of rootstocks 6 WAT 30.9∗∗ 30.7∗∗ 2.68∗
Stem diameter of rootstocks 8 WAT 0.43ns 3.75∗ 8.12∗∗
Root length 4 WAT 152.∗∗ 17.3∗∗ 55.3∗∗
Root length 8 WAT 6.48∗∗ 2.38ns 22.7∗∗
Root length 12 WAT 14.4∗ 5.56ns 28.4∗∗
Root dry weight 4 WAT 68.4∗∗ 250. ∗∗ 81.0∗∗
Root dry weight 8 WAT 23.9∗∗ 15.2∗∗ 2.93∗
Root dry weight 12 WAT 15.6∗∗ 13.5∗∗ 5.65∗∗
RGR 0–4 WAT 38.1∗∗ 10.1∗∗ 5.80∗∗
RGR 4–8 WAT 3.12ns 66.8∗∗ 5.15∗∗
RGR 8–12 WAT 103∗∗ 83.9∗∗ 100.∗∗
LAR 0–4 WAT 24.1∗∗ 36.3∗∗ 17.8∗∗
LAR 4–8 WAT 12.6∗∗ 109 ∗∗ 18.0∗∗
LAR 8–12 WAT 1.90ns 4.99∗ 4.34∗∗
NAR 0–4 WAT 1.09ns 70.7∗∗ 26.4∗∗
NAR 4–8 WAT 0.03ns 19.3∗∗ 3.15∗
NAR 8–12 WAT 1.41ns 7.91∗∗ 2.76∗
SLA 0–4 WAT 16.6∗∗ 1.20ns 4.61∗∗
SLA 4–8 WAT 0.16 ns 0.73ns 0.00∗∗
SLA 8–12 WAT 41.6∗∗ 13.7∗∗ 8.16∗∗
Yield production 11.6∗ 440∗∗ 3.25∗
∗ ∗∗
Note. and denote significance at 5% and 1%, respectively; ns denotes a nonsignificant result.
4 International Journal of Agronomy

Table 2: Effect of grafting on the number of branches. Table 3: Effect of grafting on diameter of scions and rootstocks.
Treatment R0 R1 R2 R3 Treatment R0 R1 R2 R3
Number of branches 4 WAT Stem diameter (cm) tomato scions 4 WAT
V1 2.33 ab 2.00 a 2.11 ab 2.78 bc V1 0.35 a 0.56 b 0.56 b 1.07 c
V2 4.00 d 2.70 b 2.00 a 3.22 c V2 0.49 ab 0.59 b 0.55 b 0.62 b
V3 5.00 e 2.45 ab 2.22 ab 2.67 ab V3 0.49 ab 0.56 b 0.59 b 0.61 b
LSD 5% 0.68 LSD 5% 0.14
CV (%) 28.7 CV (%) 13.6
Number of branches 6 WAT Stem diameter (cm) eggplant rootstocks 4 WAT
V1 9.00 ab 7.11 a 7.45 a 8.00 ab V1 0.35 a 0.4 ab 0.41 ab 0.38 a
V2 16.8 d 15.44 cd 10.9 ab 18.1 d V2 0.493 b 0.37 a 0.32 a 0.36 a
V3 12.2 bc 9.11 ab 8.44 ab 8.89 ab V3 0.49 b 0.367 a 0.6 a 0.40 ab
LSD 5% 4.5 LSD 5% 0.0824252
CV (%) 35.7 CV (%) 12.42
Number of branches 8 WAT Stem diameter (cm) tomato scions 6 WAT
V1 15.1 d 13.2 cd 8.22 a 9.00 ab V1 0.84 ab 1.02 cde 1.00 bcd 0.98 bcd
V2 11.2 bc 9.78 ab 8.55 ab 9.56 ab V2 0.69 a 0.97 bcd 0.91 bc 1.03 cde
V3 9.0 ab 11.4 bc 10.0 ab 13.22 cd V3 0.98 bcd 1.03 cde 1.09 de 1.18 e
LSD 5% 2.97 LSD 5% 0.17
CV (%) 32.1 CV (%) 20.00
Numbers in the same column followed by the same letter are not signif- Stem diameter (cm) eggplant rootstocks 6 WAT
icantly different based on LSD test at significant level of 5%. LSD is least V1 0.84 e 0.67 bcd 0.68 bcd 0.78 de
significant difference; CV is coefficient of variation. V2 0.69 bcd 0.53 a 0.51 a 0.59 ab
V3 0.98 f 0.63 bc 0.63 bc 0.71 cd
LSD 5% 0.09
1 dw −2 −1 CV (%) 8.45
RGR � × 􏼐g cm day 􏼑, (1)
w dt Stem diameter (cm) tomato scions 8 WAT
V1 0.98 a 1.01 a 1.12 ab 1.11 ab
where w is total plant dry weight, dw is the increase in V2 1.73 c 0.98 a 0.93 a 1.14 ab
biomass, and dt is the number of days after planting. V3 1.06 a 1.17 ab 1.16 ab 1.33 b
Calculation of the photosynthetic variables, specific leaf LSD 5% 0.24
area (SLA), leaf area ratio (LAR), and net assimilation CV (%) 24.4
rate (NAR) was performed according to the following Stem diameter (cm) eggplant rootstocks 8 WAT
formulae: V1 0.98 de 0.74 bc 0.80 cd 0.82 cd
V2 1.73 f 0.60 abc 0.50 a 0.79 bcd
LA −2 −1 V3 1.06 e 0.7 bc 0.74 bc 0.82 cd
SLA � 􏼐cm g 􏼑, (2)
W LSD 5% 0.19
CV (%) 26.3
LA −2 −1
LAR � 􏼐cm g 􏼑, (3) Stem diameter (cm) tomato scions 10 WAT
W V1 0.92 ab 2.91 e 1.20 cd 1.21 cd
V2 0.81 a 0.92 ab 1.01 abc 1.31 d
1 dw −2 −1 V3 1.03 bc 1.17 cd 1.28 d 1.36 d
NAR � × 􏼐g cm day 􏼑, (4)
LA dt LSD 5% 0.21
CV (%) 19.80
where LA is leaf area per plant and W is total dry weight of
Stem diameter (cm) eggplant rootstocks 10 WAT
the leaf area (for SLA) or total plant dry weight (for LAR and V1 0.92 gh 0.77 cdef 0.69 cdef 0.89 fg
NAR). V2 0.81 efg 0.49 a 0.54 ab 0.78 def
The data were recorded and subjected to a two-way V3 1.03 h 0.66 bcd 0.64 bc 0.83 fg
analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the significance level of LSD 5% 0.13
0.05. Significance of interactions was determined using the CV (%) 20.5
F-test. If the significance of F was less than 0.05, pairwise Numbers in the same column followed by the same letter are not signif-
comparisons were made using the least significant difference icantly different based on LSD test at significant level of 5%. LSD: least
(LSD) test at a significance level of 0.05 [34]. significant difference; CV: coefficient of variation.

3. Results and Discussion Nongrafted control plants produced a higher number of

branches than plants grafted onto rootstocks of cv. Gelatik,
3.1. Interaction between Grafting and Variety. The interac- EG203 line, and S. torvum. When plants are grafted, the
tion between scion and rootstock affected all measured scion and the rootstock are cut before the grafting. The
variables, as presented in Table 1. For several variables, one tissues in the stem vessels and around the cutting fuse with
of the factors was not significantly affected by treatment one another when the scion and rootstock are attached
(Table 1). Initial plant growth was measured at 4 WAT. [35, 36]. This process inhibits the initial growth of grafted
International Journal of Agronomy 5

plants compared to the control. Gaps in the linkage area may Table 4: Effect of grafting on root length.
interrupt the transportation of water, nutrients, growth Treatment R0 R1 R2 R3
regulators, and photosynthates [37]. Therefore, the initial
Root length (cm) 4 WAT
nutrient absorption process was smoother in control plants V1 5.73 b 11.1c 1.97 a 1.64 a
compared to grafted tomato plants. V2 33.6 e 0.81 a 0.31a 3.41 ab
V3 16.9d 2.24 ab 2.99 ab 1.93 a
3.2. Number of Branches. The results show an interaction LSD 5% 3.2935973
CV (%) 28.22
between rootstock and scions on the number of branches
(Table 2). The tomato cv. Karina grafted onto “Gelatik” and Root length (cm) 8 WAT
V1 20 de 20 de 20.4 de 16.9 cd
S. torvum rootstocks, as well as the nongrafted control,
V2 11 abc 5.2 a 7.89 ab 40,0 f
produced more branches at 6 WAT than other scion varieties V3 16.9 cd 25.2 e 20.8 de 13,0 bcd
in any grafting treatment. Grafted “Karina” plants grew LSD 5% 6.94
more branches, possibly influenced by genetic factors of this CV (%) 22.6
variety [38]. The genetic pattern determines the potential for Root length (cm) 12 WAT
plants to grow optimally. At 4 WAT and 6 WAT, there was V1 18,0 d 13.03 cd 27.6 e 17.6 d
no significant difference in the number of branches pro- V2 9.67 abc 3.23 a 5.82 ab 38.3 f
duced by Cervo and Timoty varieties grafted onto “Gelatik,” V3 14.7 cd 18.4 d 18.8 d 10.8 bc
EG203 line, and S. torvum rootstocks. In some cases, these LSD 5% 6.17
were not different from nongrafted “Cervo” and “Timoty” CV (%) 22.3
plants. By 6 WAT, the grafted plants of “Cervo” and Numbers in the same column followed by the same letter are not signif-
“Timoty” had adapted well and produced similar numbers of icantly different based on LSD test at significant level of 5%. LSD: least
branches to nongrafted plants. At 6 WAT, there was no significant difference; CV: coefficient of variation.
significant difference in branch production between non-
grafted “Karina” and “Karina” grafted onto “Gelatik” and S.
diameter of “Timoty” grafted onto S. torvum was higher than
torvum rootstocks. At 8 WAT, “Timoty” grafted onto S.
that of nongrafted plants, while the scion diameter of
torvum and “Cervo” grafted onto “Gelatik,” as well as the
“Karina” grafted onto all three rootstocks was lower than
control plants, produced more branches than other
that of nongrafted plants. At 10 WAT, the scion of “Cervo”
treatments.
tomato grafted onto “Gelatik” eggplant produced the largest
diameter, and scion diameter of “Cervo” in all three grafting
3.3. Diameter of Scions and Rootstocks. Table 3 shows the treatments was significantly larger than for the control.
interaction between tomato scion and eggplant rootstock on Scion diameter of “Karina” grafted onto the S. torvum
the diameter of scions and rootstocks. Scion diameter is rootstock and scion diameter of “Timoty” grafted onto the
always significantly higher than rootstock diameter. It is due EG203 and S. torvum rootstocks was significantly larger than
to inflammation in the joint area, which accelerates the scion diameter of control plants.
growth of the scion parts [39, 40]. This swelling indicates the At 8 WAT, the rootstock diameter of nongrafted to-
success of the grafting process. The results show that the matoes was significantly larger than the rootstock diameters
node in the seam area supports scion growth, which is a sign of “Cervo,” “Karina,” and “Timoty” grafted onto the root-
of conformity [32]. stocks of “Gelatik,” EG203, and S. torvum, except for
The scion diameters of “Cervo,” “Karina,” and “Timoty” “Cervo” grafted onto EG203 and S. torvum. This trend was
grafted on “Gelatik,” EG203 line, and S. torvum were higher maintained at 10 WAT. At this stage, only the rootstock
than the diameters of the nongrafted plants at 4 WAT, but diameter of “Cervo” grafted onto S. torvum was not smaller
this was significant only for “Cervo” (Table 3). At 4 WAT, than the rootstock diameter of the control. This difference in
the rootstock diameter of “Karina” was lower in all grafted plant growth is due to an unbalanced distribution of as-
treatments than in the control, and the rootstock diameter of similates between the scions and rootstocks [41].
“Timoty” was lower in “Gelatik” and EG203 line than in the
control. At 6 WAT, the scion diameters of “Cervo,” “Kar-
ina,” and “Timoty” grafted onto the rootstocks of “Gelatik” 3.4. Root Length. Table 4 shows the effect of the interaction
eggplant, EG203, and S. torvum were higher than the scion between tomato scion and eggplant rootstock on root length.
diameters of the control plants, and this was significant for Plant resistance is closely related to the root system, which
“Cervo” on “Gelatik,” “Karina” on all rootstocks, and supplies nutrients and water to the plant. At 4 WAT, the
“Timoty” on S. torvum. In contrast, the rootstock diameters length of the roots produced varied. The nongrafted tomato
of “Cervo,” “Karina,” and “Timoty” grafted onto “Gelatik,” plants of “Karina” and “Timoty” produced longer roots than
EG203 line, and S. torvum were lower than the rootstock the grafted plants, while for “Cervo” this was true only for
diameter of the control. This was significant for “Cervo” and plants grafted onto “Gelatik.” At 8 WAT, there was no
“Karina” on “Gelatik” and EG203 and for “Timoty” on all difference in root length between “Cervo” grafted onto
grafted rootstocks. “Gelatik,” EG203 line, and S. torvum and the nongrafted
At 8 WAT, the scion diameter of “Cervo” did not differ “Cervo” control. “Karina” grafted onto S. torvum produced
between grafted and nongrafted plants. In contrast, the scion the longest roots of any scion-rootstock interaction, while
6 International Journal of Agronomy

Table 5: Effect of grafting on root dry weight. Table 6: Effect of grafting on RGR.
Treatment R0 R1 R2 R3 Treatment R0 R1 R2 R3
Root dry weight (g) 4 WAT RGR (g.cm−2 day−1) 0–4 WAT
V1 0.87 a 0.4 a 0.30 a 0.41 a V1 0.03 d 0.03 cd 0.02 b 0.03 d
V2 9.28 c 0.27 a 0.09 a 0.29 a V2 0.02 b 0.02 bc 0.02 a 0.02 a
V3 4.11 b 0.32 a 0.46 a 0.59 a V3 0.03 bcd 0.03 bc 0.03 bcd 0.02 b
LSD 5% 0.71 LSD 5% 0.04
CV (%) 28.8 CV (%) 8.35
Root dry weight (g) 8 WAT RGR (g.cm−2 day−1) 4–8 WAT
V1 3.03 bc 2.93 bc 3.13 c 4.27 e V1 0.12 a 0.14 b 0.15 bc 0.15 bc
V2 3.03 bc 1.73 a 2.33 ab 3.40 cd V2 0.12 a 0.13 a 0.15 bc 0.16 c
V3 4.13 e 3.60 cde 3.20 c 4,00 de V3 0.12 a 0.15 bc 0.15 bc 0.16 c
LSD 5% 0.67 LSD 5% 0.74
CV (%) 12.29 CV (%) 9.8-
Root dry weight (g) 12 WAT RGR (g.cm−2 day−1) 8–12 WAT
V1 2.66 bcd 2.00abc 4.60 e 4.40 e V1 −0.97 bc −0.15 f −0.91 c −0.53 e
V2 2.67 bcd 1.13 a 1.83 ab 3.20 d V2 −0.49 e −1.10b −0.67 d −0.50 e
V3 3.57 de 2.80 bcd 3.03 cd 3.20 d V3 −0.12 a −0.10 bc −0.10 b −0.52 e
LSD 5% 0.94 LSD 5% 0.09
CV (%) 19.1 CV (%) −7.46
Numbers in the same column followed by the same letter are not signif- Numbers in the same column followed by the same letter are not signif-
icantly different based on LSD test at significant level of 5%. LSD: least icantly different based on LSD test at significant level of 5%. LSD: least
significant difference; CV: coefficient of variation. significant difference; CV: coefficient of variation.

the other grafting treatments for this variety were not dif- performance. The accumulation of dry matter shows the
ferent from the control. “Timoty” grafted onto “Gelatik” plant’s ability to obtain energy from sunlight through
produced longer roots than the other grafting treatments as photosynthesis, as influenced by the environment.
well as the nongrafted “Timoty” control. Table 6 shows the effect of the interaction between to-
At 12 WAT, root length of “Cervo” grafted onto the mato scion and eggplant rootstock on the RGR. At 4–8
EG203 line was longer than for the other grafting treatments WAT, the RGR of grafted plants was higher than the RGR of
and the control. “Timoty” grafted onto “Gelatik” and EG203 control plants. These results are consistent with research
line produced longer roots than “Timoty” grafted onto S. results showing no significant difference between self-
torvum and the nongrafted “Timoty” control. In contrast, grafted and nongrafted plants of the tomato cv. “Big Red” in
“Karina” grafted onto S. torvum produced longer roots than terms of the ratio of total plant dry weight to total fresh
all other scion-rootstock interactions, while the other weight of cv. hybrid tomato plants [43]. During the grafting
grafting treatments for this variety were not different from process, callus tissue forms at the joint between the scion and
the control. During the experimental setup, the “Karina” the rootstock, allowing differentiation of new cells into
plants were attacked by a virus. Still, they were very resistant xylem and phloem, which have the same conductance
to diseases in the soil so that at the beginning of 4 WAT properties, as the original vascular vessels for transporting
growth, the nongrafted “Karina” plants had longer roots material from the rootstock to the scion [44]. This adap-
than all other tomato-eggplant interactions. tation process results in reduced water flow from roots to
shoots (decreased hydraulic conductance) through the callus
3.5. Root Dry Weight. Table 5 presents the effect of the region and limited transport of photosynthetic products
interaction between tomato scion and eggplant rootstock on from shoots to roots [45]. Nevertheless, the grafted plants do
root dry weight. At 4 WAT the nongrafted plants of “Karina” not show a clear trend of slower growth than nongrafted
and “Timoty” produced higher root dry weight than other plants at 0–4 WAT. It is known that plant strength is closely
treatments, while at 8 WAT and 12 WAT, there was no clear related to the root system, which supplies water and nu-
difference between nongrafted and grafted plants of these trients to the scion [42].
two varieties. At 8–12 WAT, the RGR decreased in all treatments. This
There were no clear trends in root dry weight at 8 WAT was due to a decrease in photosynthesis so that vegetative
among the different treatments [42]. growth as expressed by leaf area, plant height, dry root
weight, and total plant dry weight also decreased [46].
“Cervo” tomato grafted onto “Gelatik” rootstock produced
3.6. Relative Growth Rate (RGR). RGR is the primary in- the highest RGR. In contrast, “Karina” grafted onto S.
dicator of plant growth related to plant productivity, which torvum rootstock produced the lowest RGR of the grafted
is influenced by plant genetic and environmental factors. It is treatments. This low RGR is due to the lower growth of
significant for plants because it affects many ecological vegetative organs such as leaf area, dry root weight, and plant
processes. The RGR of each treatment can be used to de- dry weight. Differences in growth period and environmental
termine overall differences among treatments on plant conditions can affect RGR [47]. In particular, larger plants
International Journal of Agronomy 7

Table 7: Effect of grafting on leaf area ratio. Table 8: Effect of grafting on net assimilation rate.
Treatment R0 R1 R2 R3 Treatment R0 R1 R2 R3
LAR (cm2g−1) 4 WAT NAR (g 100 cm−2 day−1) 0–4 WAT
V1 40.8 bcd 35.8 bc 30.8 ab 19.6 a V1 0.07 c 0.08 c 0.07 c 0.15 d
V2 45.4 cd 47.9 cd 28.9 ab 72.7 e V2 0.05b 0.05 b 0.06 bc 0.02 a
V3 40.1 bcd 50.15 d 40.5 bcd 89.1 f V3 0.07 bc 0.05 b 0.07 bc 0.03 a
LSD 5% 11.7 LSD 5% 0.00019
CV (%) 15.3 CV (%) 16.7
LAR (cm2g−1) 8 WAT NAR (g 100 cm−2 day−1) 4–8 WAT
V1 29.2 bc 27.5 abc 27.2 abc 19.1 a V1 0.06 bcd 0.06 bcd 0.05 bcd 0.08 e
V2 38.8 d 35.4 cd 51.7 e 75.1 f V2 0.04 abc 0.04 ab 0.04 abc 0.02 a
V3 24.1 ab 24.7 ab 24.9 ab 30.5 bc V3 0.05 bcd 0.06 cde 0.06 de 0.05 bcd
LSD 5% 7.89 LSD 5% 0.02
CV (%) 13.7 CV (%) 20.9
LAR (cm2g−1) 12 WAT NAR (g 100 cm−2 day−1) 8–12 WAT
V1 23.0 bc 28.5 c 27.6 c 21.4 bc V1 6.25 a 6.32 ab 5.95 a 6.48 ab
V2 24.4 bc 26.0 bc 11.2 a 19.2 b V2 6.82 abc 6.26 ab 7.68 c 7.09 bc
V3 22.6 bc 23.1 bc 25.0 bc 27.5 c V3 6.85 bc 6.29 ab 6.27 ab 6.44 ab
LSD 5% 7.08 LSD 5% 0.76
CV (%) 17.9 CV (%) 6.89
Numbers in the same column followed by the same letter are not signif- Numbers in the same column followed by the same letter are not signif-
icantly different based on LSD test at significant level of 5%. LSD: least icantly different based on LSD test at significant level of 5%. LSD: least
significant difference; CV: coefficient of variation. significant difference; CV: coefficient of variation.

tend to have a lower RGR because of the possibility of their 3.8. Net Assimilation Rate (NAR). Table 8 presents the effect
position being shaded [47]. on NAR of grafting the tomato varieties onto the eggplant
rootstocks. The NAR expresses the increase in plant dry
biomass per unit leaf area and is a complex physiological
3.7. Leaf Area Ratio (LAR). Leaf area ratio determines light variable related to photosynthesis and respiration [50]. Most
interception and is an essential parameter in determining of NAR is the net result of carbon gain (photosynthesis) and
plant productivity [48]. It expresses the potential for pho- loss of carbon (respiration, evaporation) expressed per unit
tosynthesis per unit of plant biomass [49]. The LAR was leaf area [47]. NAR is the highest when the plants are still
measured at 0–4 WAT, 4–8 WAT, and 8–12 WAT. At 0–4 young because at that stage, they are more efficient at ab-
WAT, for “Cervo,” the LAR of scions grafted onto the three sorbing sunlight directly [46].
rootstocks (“Gelatik,” EG203 line, and S. torvum) was lower There was an effect of the interaction between tomato
than the LAR of the nongrafted control plants, but this was and eggplant rootstocks on NAR. At 0–4 WAT, “Cervo”
only significant for S. torvum. This pattern repeated itself at grafted onto S. torvum rootstock had higher NAR than
4–8 WAT. However, at 8–12 WAT, the LAR for “Cervo” “Cervo” controls and other grafted treatments. In contrast,
grafted onto “Gelatik,” EG203 line, and S. torvum was not “Timoty” and “Karina” grafted onto S. torvum had lower
significantly different from the LAR of nongrafted control NAR than the other treatments.
plants (Table 7). At 8–12 WAT, NAR of “Cervo” grafted onto “Gelatik”,
In 0–4 WAT, the LAR of “Karina” scions grafted onto EG 203 line, and S. torvum lines was not significantly dif-
rootstocks of the EG203 line was lower than the LAR of ferent from NAR of the control. Many experts argue that
“Karina” on rootstocks of “Gelatik” and nongrafted control rootstock characteristics significantly affect the growth and
plants, but the LAR of “Karina” scions grafted onto S. torvum yield of grafted plants [33, 51, 52]. The rootstock’s strength
rootstocks was higher than the LAR of “Gelatik” and and compatibility are influenced by the connection of the
nongrafted control plants. At 4–8 WAT, the LAR of non- scion and rootstock, and its appearance is influenced by
grafted “Karina” and “Karina” scions grafted onto “Gelatik” different environmental conditions, giving different effects
was the lowest, LAR of scions grafted onto EG203 line was [42, 44]. The NAR of “Timoty” scion grafted onto “Gelatik,”
intermediate, and LAR of scions grafted onto S. torvum was EG203 line, and S. torvum was not significantly different
the highest. At 8–12 WAT, the LAR of “Karina” scions than the NAR of the control.
grafted onto rootstocks of EG203 line was lower than the
LAR of “Karina” scions grafted onto “Gelatik” and S. torvum
rootstocks and nongrafted control plants. 3.9. Specific Leaf Area (SLA). The SLA ratio describes the
At 0–4 WAT, the LAR of “Timoty” grafted onto S. efficiency of leaf area formation for every unit of available
torvum rootstock was higher than that of the control by carbohydrate. This index contains information on leaf
122%. At 4–8 WAT and at 8–12 WAT, the LAR of grafted thickness that reflects photosynthetic organelle units and
“Timoty” plants was not significantly different from the LAR photosynthetic rate. Leaf thickness differences are often
of the control plants. observed between environments with different light quanta.
8 International Journal of Agronomy

Table 9: Effect of grafting on specific leaf area. rootstocks produced higher yields than nongrafted plants.
Treatment R0 R1 R2 R3
This indicates that the absorption of water and nutrients is
higher in grafted plants. This finding is consistent with a
SLA (cm2g−1) 4 WAT
study showing that the number of fruits and yield of
V1 256 def 114 abc 171 bcde 141 abc
V2 107 abc 169 bcde 52.1 a 79.7 ab rootstock S. incanum with S. melongena was significantly
V3 162 bcde 266 ef 192 cdef 288 f higher than for nongrafted or self-grafted “Black Beauty”
LSD 5% 90.3 eggplant [53]. Similarly, the rootstock S. melongena with S.
CV (%) 31.9 aethiopicum had a much higher number of fruits and yield
SLA (cm2g−1) 8 WAT than “Black Beauty” grafted onto S. macrocarpon rootstock.
V1 239 ab 339 bc 337 bc 270 abc There was no significant difference in the number of fruits
V2 366 c 209 a 218 a 286 abc and yield between control plants and the “Black Beauty” self-
V3 302 abc 301 abc 295 abc 360 c grafted eggplant.
LSD 5% 92.8 Studies show that vascular vessels are formed during the
CV (%) 18.6 grafting process, which connects the rootstock to the scion,
SLA (cm2g−1) 12 WAT affecting the translocation of air and nutrients and other
V1 343 ab 529 bc 1077 de 1164 e physiological properties [54, 55]. Nevertheless, grafted
V2 215 ab 333 ab 157 a 168 a plants demonstrate improved resistance acquired from the
V3 257 ab 1033 de 881 de 794 cd rootstock root system. Thus, they show increased absorption
LSD 5% 284
of water and nutrients and subsequently higher yield [56].
CV (%) 28.9
Nongrafted “Karina” and “Karina” grafted onto the three
Numbers in the same column followed by the same letter are not signif-
icantly different based on LSD test at significant level of 5%. LSD: least
rootstocks resulted in low production. This is because cv.
significant difference; CV: coefficient of variation. Karina is susceptible to viruses and was attacked by viruses
during the research. The plant apex is attacked by a virus that
causes stunted growth, and photosynthate translocation
Table 10: Effect of grafting on production (t.ha−1). from the stem to the rootstock is blocked, causing a decrease
Treatment R0 R1 R2 R3 in yield and poor fruit quality [57].
V1 24.53 b 34.27 de 35.50 e 30.25 cd Table 11 presents correlations among the different plant
V2 4.46 a 4.51 a 4.57 a 4.69 a growth indices (RGR, LAR, NAR, SLA, and production).
V3 22.13 b 29.47 c 30.12 c 30.74 cd Relative growth rate at 0–4 WAT is negatively correlated
LSD 5% 3,8 with LAR at 4–8 WAT (-0.754) and NAR at 8–12 WAT
CV (%) 11 (−0.466) and positively correlated with LAR at 8–12 WAT
(0.44), NAR at 0–4 WAT (0.527) and 4–8 WAT (0.453), SLA
at 0–4 WAT (0.346) and production (0.562). It shows a
Leaf area growth determines light interception and is an direct and mutually supportive relationship among RGR,
important parameter in determining plant productivity [48]. LAR, NAR, and SLA. Meanwhile, RGR at 4–8 WAT had a
Table 9 shows the effect of tomato grafted onto eggplant significant positive correlation only with SLA at 8–12 WAT.
rootstock on SLA. At 0–4 WAT, the SLA of grafted “Cervo” The RGR at 9–12 WAT had a significant positive correlation
plants was lower than the SLA of the control, but this was not with NAR at 4–8 WAT and 8–12 WAT. Previous research
significant for EG203 line. In contrast, grafted “Timoty” has shown that NAR is the most critical predictor of RGR
plants at 0–4 WAT had higher SLA than control “Timoty [49]. Fast-growing plants always have a high NAR, and
plants,” but this was significant only for S. torvum. plants with high assimilation rates always grow fast.
At 4–8 WAT, the SLA of “Cervo” and “Timoty” plants The NAR at 0–4 WAT was positively correlated with
grafted onto all three eggplant rootstocks was no different to NAR at 4–8 WAT (0.470), SLA at 8–12 WAT (0.412), and
SLA of the controls. In contrast, the SLA was lower in production (0.374). At 4–8 WAT, NAR had a significant
“Karina” plants grafted onto “Gelatik” and EG 203 line positive correlation with SLA at 8–12 WAT (0.474) and
eggplant rootstocks compared to the control. At 8–12 WAT, production (0.491). The NAR at 8–12 WAT was significantly
SLA of “Cervo” and “Timoty” plants grafted onto the three negatively correlated with SLA at 8–12 WAT (−0.470) and
eggplant rootstocks was higher than the control (only production (−0.489). The RGR is mainly affected by NAR at
“Cervo” on “Gelatik” was not significant). high radiation and by SLA at low radiation [39]. Specific leaf
area has been shown to decrease when light availability
decreases [58, 59].
3.10. Production. The interactive effect of tomato scions and The LAR at 0–4 WAT was negatively correlated only with
eggplant rootstocks on production is shown in Table 10. NAR at 0–4 WAT (−0.775). At 4–8 WAT, LAR had a
The combinations of “Cervo” scion grafted onto EG203 significant positive correlation only with NAR at 8–12 WAT
rootstock and “Cervo” on “Gelatik” produced the highest (0.345) as well as significantly negative correlations with
yields. The yield level of “Cervo” grafted onto S. torvum, and LAR at 8–12 WAT (−0.369), NAR at 0–4 WAT (−0.475) and
“Timoty” grafted onto S. torvum was not significantly dif- 4–8 WAT (-0.733), SLA at 0–4 WAT (−0.428), and 8–12
ferent from the yield of “Cervo” on “Gelatik.” For these WAT (−0.532) and production (−0.650). Subsequently, LAR
two tomato varieties, tomato plants grafted onto eggplant at 8–12 WAT had a significant negative correlation with
International Journal of Agronomy 9

Table 11: Correlation of RGR, LAR, NAR, SLA at 4, 8, and 12 WAT and yield.
RGR RGR RGR LAR 4 LAR 4 LAR 12 NAR 4 NAR 8 NAR 12 SLA 4 SLA 8 SLA 12
WAT Yield
0–4 4–8 8–12 WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT
RGR
1 −0.323 0.03 −0.29 −0.754∗∗ 0.449∗∗ 0.527∗∗ 0.453∗∗ −0.466∗∗ 0.346∗ 0.023 0.325 0.562∗∗
0–4
RGR
1 −0.201 0.217 0.005 −0.158 −0.74 0.289 0.161 −0.047 0.048 0.424∗∗ 0.216
4–8
RGR
1 −0.079 0.156 0.151 0.026 −0.352∗∗ −0.68∗∗ 0.117 0.218 0.192 0.146
8–12
LAR
1 0.327 0.186 −0.775∗∗ −0.268 0.083 0.26 0.174 −0.18 −0.142
0–4
LAR
1 −0.369∗ −0.475∗∗ −0.733∗∗ 0.345∗∗ −0.428∗∗ −0.71 −0.532∗∗ −0.65∗∗
4–8
LAR
1 −0.19 0.043 −0.622∗∗ 0.288 0.256 0.306 0.424∗∗
8–12
NAR
1 −0.47∗∗ −0.194 −0.117 −0.137 0.412∗ 0.374∗
0–4
NAR
1 0.023 0.174 −0.73 0.474∗∗ 0.491∗∗
4–8
NAR
1 −0.39 −0.084 −0.47∗∗ −0.489∗∗
8–12
SLA
1 0.145 0.509∗∗ 0.522∗∗
0–4
SLA
1 0.22 0.347∗∗
4–8
SLA
1 0.747∗∗
8–12
Yield 1

NAR at 8–12 WAT (−0.622) and was positively correlated course of the experiments. There was a significantly positive
with production (0.424). relationship between production and several parameters of
At 0–4 WAT, SLA had a significant positive correlation plant growth and photosynthetic organs. Higher values of
with SLA at 8–12 WAT (0.509) and production (0.522). scion stem diameter, root length, RGR, LAR, NAR, and SLA
Meanwhile, at 4–8 WAT and 8–12 WAT, SLA had a sig- increased production. The tomato cv. Cervo grafted onto
nificant positive correlation with production 0.347 and EG203 line and eggplant cv. Gelatik produced the largest
0.747, respectively). A study by Amarullah et al. [60] con- stem diameter, longest roots, fastest RGR, highest LAR,
cluded that the initial vegetative growth phase was associated highest NAR, and highest yield. The eggplant cv. Gelatik is a
with a high assimilation rate for root formation, while the local eggplant variety that has potential as a rootstock for
optimum vegetative growth phase significantly affected final tomato, increasing SLA, LAR, and RGR, thus supporting
yield. increased yields. Thus, it is recommended to use this
The resulting yield production is strongly influenced by rootstock for tomatoes grown by local farmers in Indonesia.
several components of growth and photosynthetic organs.
According to Table 11, higher scion stem diameter, root
length, RGR, LAR, NAR, and SLA produce a higher yield.
Data Availability
The carbon used in photosynthesis is distributed to plant The data used to support the findings of this study are
organs to produce sucrose and starch. Since the supply of available from the corresponding author upon request.
carbon decreases at night because of the respiration process,
the remaining carbon forms new biomass [53]. The surplus
carbon is used for leaf thickening and leaf area growth and Conflicts of Interest
for promoting further plant growth depending on the plant’s
All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
developmental phase. Previous research has shown that
regarding the publication of this paper.
plant development influences optimal production in the
early growth phase and the maximum vegetative phase and
depends on the variety used [60]. Acknowledgments
4. Conclusions The authors thank the Indonesian Agency for Agricultural
Research and Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Re-
The initial growth of grafted tomato plants was lower than public of Indonesia, for financial support (no. 117.1/Kpts/
that of the nongrafted control tomato plants, but the grafted KP.320/H.1/4/2017) for this research. The authors also thank
tomato plants grew faster than the control plants during the the colleagues who supported them during the study.
10 International Journal of Agronomy

References [16] M. Lee, “Jung, “Cultivation of grafted vegetables, I. current

status, grafting methods and benefits”,” HortScience, vol. 29,
[1] J. Mariyono, “Profitability and determinants of smallholder no. 1, pp. 235–239, 1994.
commercial vegetable production,” International Journal of [17] M. Edelstein, “Grafting vegetable-crop plants: pros and cons,”
Vegetable Science, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 274–288, 2018. in ISHS Acta Horticulturae 659: VII International Symposium
[2] J. Mariyono, “Micro-credit as catalyst for improving rural on Protected Cultivation in Mild Winter Climates: Production
livelihoods through agribusiness sector in Indonesia,” Journal Pest Management and Global CompetitionUI Press, Jakarta,
of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, vol. 11, no. 1, Indonesia, 2004.
pp. 98–121, 2019. [18] M. C. Kyriacou, Y. Rouphael, G. Colla, R. Zrenner, and
[3] J. Mariyono, “Empowering rural livelihoods through farmers’ D. Schwarz, “Vegetable grafting: the implications of a growing
field school on vegetable production in aceh province- agronomic imperative for vegetable fruit quality and nutritive
Indonesia,” Journal of Rural Development, vol. 37, no. 1, value,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 8, no. 741, pp. 1–23,
pp. 129–145, 2018. 2017.
[4] J. Mariyono, “Microcredit and technology adoption,” Agri- [19] L. A. Gaion, L. T. Braz, and R. F. Carvalho, “Grafting in
cultural Finance Review, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 85–106, 2019. vegetable crops: a great technique for agriculture,” Interna-
[5] J. Mariyono, A. Kuntariningsih, and T. Kompas, “Pesticide tional Journal of Vegetable Science, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1–18,
use in Indonesian vegetable farming and its determinants,” 2017.
Management of Environmental Quality: An International [20] L. Sabatino, G. Iapichino, A. Maggio, E. Anna, M. Bruno, and
Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 305–323, 2018. F. Anna, “Grafting affects yield and phenolic profile of So-
[6] J. Mariyono, T. Kompas, and R. Q. Grafton, “Shifting from lanum melongena L. landraces,” Journal of Integrative Agri-
green revolution to environmentally sound policies: tech- culture, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1017–1024, 2016.
nological change in Indonesian rice agriculture,” Journal of [21] N. Kacjan Maršić, M. Mikulić-Petkovšek, and F. Štampar,
the Asia Pacific Economy, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 128–147, 2010. “Grafting influences phenolic profile and carpometric traits of
[7] J. Mariyono, “Green revolution- and wetland-linked tech- fruits of greenhouse-grown eggplant (Solanum melongena
nological change of rice agriculture in Indonesia,” Manage- L.),” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 62,
ment of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, no. 43, pp. 10504–10514, 2014.
vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 683–700, 2015. [22] C. Leonardi and A. Paratore, “Response to salinity of grafted
[8] J. Mariyono, “Socially inefficient use of pesticides due to plants of tomato and eggplant,” Atti IV Giornate Science SOI,
negative externalities: a case of Indonesian rice agriculture,” vol. 45, pp. 607-608, 1998.
International Journal of Ecology & Development, vol. 13, no. 9, [23] F. Giuffrida, C. Cassaniti, and C. Leonardi, “Tomato and
pp. 93–107, 2009. eggplant scions influence the effect of rootstock under
[9] J. Mariyono, A. Kuntariningsih, E. Suswati, and T. Kompas, Na2SO4salinity,” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section
“Quantity and monetary value of agrochemical pollution from B-Soil & Plant Science, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 700–709, 2014.
intensive farming in Indonesia,” Management of Environ- [24] G. D. Semiz and D. L. Suarez, “Tomato salt tolerance: impact
mental Quality: An International Journal, vol. 29, no. 4, of grafting and water composition on yield and ion relations,”
pp. 759–779, 2018. Turkish Journal of Agricultural, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 876–886,
[10] A. S. Isah, E. B. Amans, E. C. Odion, and A. A. Yusuf, “Growth 2015.
rate and yield of two tomato varieties (lycopersicon escu- [25] G. D. Semiz and D. L. Suarez, “Impact of grafting, salinity and
lentumMill) under green manure and NPK fertilizer rate irrigation water composition on eggplant fruit yield and ion
samaru northern Guinea savanna,” International Journal of relations,” Scientific Report, vol. 8, no. 537, pp. 1–9, 2019.
Agronomy, vol. 2014, Article ID 932759, 8 pages, 2014. [26] D. Romano and A. Paratore, “Effects of grafting on tomato
[11] P. Pandey, V. Irulappan, M. V. Bagavathiannan, and and eggplant,” In Acta Horticulturae, vol. 559, no. 21,
M. Senthil-Kumar, “Impact of combined abiotic and biotic pp. 149–154, 2001.
stresses on plant growth and avenues for crop improvement [27] A. Rahmatian, M. Delshad, and R. Salehi, “Effect of grafting
by exploiting physio-morphological traits,” Frontiers in Plant on growth, yield and fruit quality of single and double
Science, vol. 8, no. 537, pp. 1–18, 2017. stemmed tomato plants grown hydroponically,” Horticulture,
[12] G. Nkansah, O. Ahwireng, C. Amoatey, and A. W. Ayarna, Environment, and Biotechnology, vol. 55, 2014.
“Grafting onto African eggplant enhances growth, yield and [28] M. L. Grieneisen, J. A. Brenna, and M. Zhang, “Yield and fruit
fruit quality of tomatoes in tropical forest ecozones,” Journal quality of grafted tomatoes, and their potential for soil fu-
of Applied Horticulture, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 16–20, 2013. migant use reduction,” A Meta-Analysis, vol. 38, no. 29,
[13] M. Oda, K. Okada, and H. Sasaki, “Effects of transplant pp. 1–16, 2018.
container and solanam rootstocks on the incidences of [29] R. Hunt, D. R. Causton, B. Shipley, and A. P. Askew, “A
overgrowth and unmarketable fruits in tomato plants planted modern tool for classical plant growth analysis,” Annals of
with plug seedlings,” Environment Control in Biology, vol. 38, Botany, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 485–488, 2002.
no. 4, pp. 273–280, 2000. [30] H. Ghamari and G. Ahmadvand, “Growth analysis of dry bean
[14] C. Miles, P. Devi, X. Zhao, and W. Guan, “Watermelon and (phaseolus vulgaris l.) in different weed interference situa-
melon grafting,” in Grafting Manual: How to Produce Grafted tions,” Notulae Scientia Biologicae, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 394–399,
Vegetable PlantsNational Institute of Food and Agriculture, 2013.
Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [31] D. H. Pangaribuan, “Analisis pertumbuhan tomat pada
[15] Y. Mohsenian and H. R. Roosta, “Effects of grafting on alkali berbagai jenis pupuk kandang,” in Sains dan Teknologi III.
stress in tomato plants: datura rootstock improve alkalinity Peran Strategis Sains dan Teknologi Dalam mencapai
tolerance of tomato plants,” Journal of Plant Nutrition, vol. 38, Kemandiarian BangsaSains dan Teknologi Universitas, Sur-
no. 1, pp. 51–72, 2015. abaya, Indonesia, 2010.
International Journal of Agronomy 11

[32] H. Poorter and E. Gamier, “An evaluation of experimental [49] V. Ivetić, S. Stjepanović, J. Devetaković, D. Stanković, and
design and computational methods,” Journal of Experimental M. Škorić, “Relationships between leaf traits and morpho-
Botany, vol. 47, no. 302, pp. 1343–1351, 1996. logical attributes in one-year bareroot Fraxinus angustifolia
[33] F. B. Gardner, D. Pearce, and R. L. Mitchen, Physiological of Vahl. seedlings,” Annals of Forest Research, vol. 57, no. 2,
Crop Plants, Lowa State University Press, Detroit, MI, USA, pp. 197–203, 2014.
1985. [50] H. Konings, “Physiological and morphological differences
[34] K. A. Gomez and A. A. Gomez, Statistical Procedurs for between plants with a high NAR or a high LAR as related to
Agricultural Research, UI Press, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2nd edi- environmental conditions,” Causes consequences Variation
tion, 1995. growth rate Production of Higher Plants, vol. 96, no. 2, 1989.
[35] C. W. Melnyk and E. M. Meyerowitz, “Plant grafting,” Current [51] F. Bletsos, C. Thanassoulopoulos, and D. Roupakias, “Effect of
Biology, vol. 25, no. 18, pp. 1306–1318, 2015. grafting on growth, yield, and verticillium wilt of eggplant,”
[36] E. J. Warschefsky, L. L. Klein, M. H. Frank et al., “Rootstocks: HortScience, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 183–186, 2003.
diversity, domestication, and impacts on shoot phenotypes,” [52] H. Yetişir and N. Sari, “Effect of hypocotyl morphology on
Trends in Plant Science, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 418–437, 2016. survival rate and growth of watermelon seedlings grafted on
[37] G. Mahunu and P. Adjei, “Anatomical studies on graft for- rootstocks with different emergence performance at various
mation in Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.),” Agriculture temperatures,” Turkish Journal of Agricultural, vol. 28, no. 1,
and Biology Journal of North America, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 231–237, 2004.
pp. 150–153, 2012. [53] C. Gisbert, J. Prohens, M. D. Raigón, J. R. Stommel, and
[38] R. P. Pasaribu, H. Yett, and S. Nurbaiti, “Pengaruh F. Nuez, “Eggplant relatives as sources of variation for de-
pemangkasan cabang utama dan pemberian pupuk pelengkap veloping new rootstocks: effects of grafting on eggplant yield
cair organik terhadap pertumbuhan dan produksi tanaman and fruit apparent quality and composition,” Scientia Hor-
tomat (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.), the Effect of main ticulturae, vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 14–22, 2011.
branch pruning and giving liquid organic fertilizer comple- [54] E. Khah, E. Kakava, A. Mavromatis, D. Chachalis, and
mentary on the growt,” Jurnal Online Mahasiswa Faperta, C. Goulas, “Effect of grafting on growth and yield of tomato
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–14, 2015. (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in greenhouse and open-
[39] L. Shivarama and S. Srinivasan, “Conversion of unproductive field,” Journal of Applied Horticulture, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 3–7,
coffee plants through grafting,” Journal of Coffee Research, 2006.
vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 81–83, 1983. [55] M. Johkan, K. Mitukuri, S. Yamasaki, G. Mori, and M. Oda,
[40] S. Kouser and M. Qaim, “Impact of bt cotton on pesticide “Causes of defoliation and low survival rate of grafted sweet
poisoning in smallholder agriculture: a panel data analysis,” pepper plants,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 119, no. 2,
Ecological Economics, vol. 32, 2011. pp. 103–107, 2009.
[41] D. Pranowo and H. Supriadi, “Evaluation of grafted plants [56] J. M. Ruiz, A. Belakbir, L. Cantarero, and L. Romero, “Leaf-
from nine of robusta coffee clones with local rootstock,” macronutrient content and yield in grafted, melon plants. A
Jurnal Tanaman Industri dan Penyegar, vol. 4, no. 3, model to evaluate the influence of rootstock genotype,” Sci-
pp. 231–236, 2013. entia Horticulturae, vol. 7, no. 3-4, pp. 227–234, 1997.
[42] W. A. Susilo and A. Sobadi, “Analisis daya gabung kompa- [57] G. H. Barry, W. S. Castle, and F. S. Davies, “Rootstocks and
tibilitas penyambungan bibit antara beberapa jenis klon plant water relations affect sugar accumulation of citrus fruit
batang atas dan famili batang bawah,” Pelita Perkebunan, via osmotic adjustment,” Journal of the American Society for
vol. 24, pp. 175–187, 2008. Horticultural Science, vol. 129, no. 6, pp. 881–889, 2004.
[43] R. Salehi-Mohammadi, “Assessing the survival and growth [58] X. Li, B. Schmid, F. Wang, and C. E. T. Paine, “Net assim-
performance of Iranian melon to grafting onto cucurbita ilation rate determines the growth rates of 14 species of
rootstocks,” Korean Journal of Horticultural Science and subtropical forest trees,” PLoS One, vol. 11, 2016.
Technology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2009. [59] A. M. Petritan, B. Von Lüpke, and I. C. Petritan, “Influence of
[44] E. M. Khah, A. Mavromatis, D. Chachalis, and C. Goulas, light availability on growth, leaf morphology and plant ar-
“Effect of grafting on growth and yield of tomato (Lyco- chitecture of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), maple (Acer pseu-
persicon esculentum Mill) in greenhouse and open filed,” doplatanus L.) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) saplings,”
Journal of Applied Horticulture, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 3–7, 2002. European Journal of Forest Research, vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 61–74,
[45] M. C. Martı́nez-Ballesta, C. Alcaraz-López, B. Muries, 2009.
C. Mota-Cadenas, and M. Carvajal, “Physiological aspects of [60] A. Amarullah, D. Indradewa, P. Yudono, and
rootstock-scion interactions,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 127, B. H. Sunarminto, “Correlation of growth parameters with
no. 2, pp. 112–118, 2010. yield of two cassava varieties,” Ilmu Pertanian (Agricultural
[46] A. Sutikno, S. Marniza, and N. Musita, “Pengaruh konsetrasi Science), vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 100–104, 2017.
enzim selulase,α–amilase dan glukoamilase terhadap kadar
gula reduksi Dari onggok,” Jurnal Teknologi & Industri Hasil
Pertanian, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 29–34, 2016.
[47] H. Poorter and C. Remkes, “Leaf area ratio and net assimi-
lation rate of 24 wild species differing in relative growth rate,”
Oecologia, vol. 83, no. 14, pp. 553–559, 1990.
[48] R. P. Koester, J. A. Skoneczka, T. R. Cary, B. W. Diers, and
E. A. Ainsworth, “Historical gains in soybean (Glycine max
Merr.) seed yield are driven by linear increases in light in-
terception, energy conversion, and partitioning efficiencies,”
Journal of Experimental Botany, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 3311–3321,
2014.