Search for: All records

Previous studies of tomato rootstock effects on fruit quality have yielded mixed results, and few attempts have been made to systematically examine the association between rootstock characteristics and tomato fruit quality. In this study, grape tomato (‘BHN 1022’) and beefsteak tomato (‘Skyway’) were grafted onto four rootstocks [‘Estamino’ (vigorous and “generative”), ‘DR0141TX’ (vigorous and “vegetative”), ‘RST-04-106-T’ (uncharacterized), and ‘SHIELD RZ F1 (61–802)’ (mid-vigor, uncharacterized)] and compared to non-grafted scion controls for two growing seasons (Spring and Fall in Florida) in organically managed high tunnels. In both seasons and for both scions, the two vigorous rootstocks, regardless of their designation as “vegetative” (‘DR0141TX’) or “generative” (‘Estamino’), exhibited negative impacts on dry matter content, soluble solids content (SSC), SSC/titratable acidity (TA), lycopene, and ascorbic acid contents. Similar effects on fruit dry matter content and SSC were also observed with the ‘RST-04-106-T’ rootstock, although little to no change was seen with grafting onto ‘SHIELD RZ F1 (61–802)’. Further studies are needed to elucidate the impact of rootstock vigor on tomato volatile profiles and consumer sensory acceptability in order to better determine whether any of the documented effects are of practical importance. On the other hand, the evident effects of scion cultivar and planting season on fruit quality were observed in most of the measurements. The scion by rootstock interaction affected fruit length, firmness, pH, and total phenolic content, while the planting season by rootstock interaction impacted fruit firmness, pH, total antioxidant capacity, and ascorbic acid and lycopene contents. The multivariate separation pattern of planting season, scion, and rootstock treatments as revealed by the canonical discriminant analysis further indicated that the influence of scion cultivar and planting season on tomato fruit quality could be much more pronounced than the rootstock effects. The fruit color ( C * and H °), length and width, SSC, pH, total antioxidant capacity, ascorbic acid, and lycopene contents were the main attributes distinguishing different scion-planting season groups. 

The appropriate selection of rootstock-scion combinations to improve yield and fully realize grafting benefits requires an in-depth understanding of rootstock-scion synergy. Toward this end, we grafted two determinate-type scions [grape tomato (‘BHN 1022') and beefsteak tomato (‘Skyway')] onto four rootstocks with different characteristics to examine plant growth, yield performance, biomass production, and fruit mineral nutrient composition. The study was conducted during two growing seasons (spring and fall plantings in Florida) under organic production in high tunnels with the non-grafted scions as controls. Rootstocks had previously been designated as either “generative” (‘Estamino') or “vegetative” (‘DR0141TX') by some commercial suppliers or had not been characterized [‘RST-04-106-T' and ‘SHIELD RZ F1 (61-802)']. Also, ‘Estamino', ‘DR0141TX', and ‘RST-04-106-T' had been described as more vigorous than ‘SHIELD RZ F1 (61-802)'. In both planting seasons (with low levels of soilborne disease pressure), the “vegetative” and “generative” rootstocks increased marketable and total fruit yields for both scions except for the beefsteak tomato grafted with the “vegetative” rootstock in fall planting. Positive effects of ‘RST-04-106-T' on fruit yield varied with scions and planting seasons, and were most manifested when grafted with the beefsteak tomato scion in fall planting. ‘SHIELD RZ F1 (61-802)' led to similar yields as the non-grafted controls except for grafting with the grape tomato scion in fall planting. For vegetative and fruit biomass, both the “vegetative” and “generative” rootstocks had positive impacts except for the beefsteak tomato in fall planting. For fruit mineral composition, the “vegetative” and “generative” rootstocks, both highly vigorous, consistently elevated fruit P, K, Ca, Zn, and Fe contents on a dry weight basis, whereas the other rootstocks did not. Overall, although the more vigorous rootstocks enhanced tomato plant productivity and fruit minerals, the evidence presented here does not support the suggestion that the so-called “vegetative” and “generative” rootstocks have different impacts on tomato scion yield, biomass production, or fruit mineral contents. More studies with different production systems and environmental conditions as well as contrasting scion genotypes are needed to further categorize the impacts of rootstocks with different vigor and other characteristics on plant biomass production and their implications on fruit yield development. 

Abstract Plants transmit signals long distances, as evidenced in grafting experiments that create distinct rootstock-scion junctions. Noncoding small RNA is a signaling molecule that is graft transmissible, participating in RNA-directed DNA methylation; but the meiotic transmissibility of graft-mediated epigenetic changes remains unclear. Here, we exploit the MSH1 system in Arabidopsis and tomato to introduce rootstock epigenetic variation to grafting experiments. Introducing mutations dcl2 , dcl3 and dcl4 to the msh1 rootstock disrupts siRNA production and reveals RdDM targets of methylation repatterning. Progeny from grafting experiments show enhanced growth vigor relative to controls. This heritable enhancement-through-grafting phenotype is RdDM-dependent, involving 1380 differentially methylated genes, many within auxin-related gene pathways. Growth vigor is associated with robust root growth of msh1 graft progeny, a phenotype associated with auxin transport based on inhibitor assays. Large-scale field experiments show msh1 grafting effects on tomato plant performance, heritable over five generations, demonstrating the agricultural potential of epigenetic variation. 

In this paper, we present a review of how the various aspects of any study using an eye tracker (such as the instrument, methodology, environment, participant, etc.) affect the quality of the recorded eye-tracking data and the obtained eye-movement and gaze measures. We take this review to represent the empirical foundation for reporting guidelines of any study involving an eye tracker. We compare this empirical foundation to five existing reporting guidelines and to a database of 207 published eye-tracking studies. We find that reporting guidelines vary substantially and do not match with actual reporting practices. We end by deriving a minimal, flexible reporting guideline based on empirical research (Section “An empirically based minimal reporting guideline”). 

Abstract In this paper, we present a review of how the various aspects of any study using an eye tracker (such as the instrument, methodology, environment, participant, etc.) affect the quality of the recorded eye-tracking data and the obtained eye-movement and gaze measures. We take this review to represent the empirical foundation for reporting guidelines of any study involving an eye tracker. We compare this empirical foundation to five existing reporting guidelines and to a database of 207 published eye-tracking studies. We find that reporting guidelines vary substantially and do not match with actual reporting practices. We end by deriving a minimal, flexible reporting guideline based on empirical research (Section “An empirically based minimal reporting guideline”).