Grafting Tomato for Production in the Hot-Wet Season

Grafting tomato for production in the hot-wet season

Jaw-Fen Wang and Willie Chen

Outline

• Production constraints during the hot-wet season • Use of flooding tolerant rootstocks to alleviate flooding damage • Use of disease resistant rootstocks to manage soil-borne diseases • Effect of grafting on fruit yield and quality • Impact of tomato grafting • Outlooks Tomato is an important vegetable crop.

2.00E+09 Production (tonnes) 1.80E+09 Production (1000$ Int) 1.60E+09

1.40E+09

1.20E+09 163.4 million tons 1.00E+09 59.9 billion 8.00E+08 Int’l dollars

6.00E+08

4.00E+08

2.00E+08

0.00E+00

Source: FAO, 2013 dataset Growing tomatoes in the subtropics and tropics Weather patterns in subtropics and tropics (2000 – 2012)

Source: http://www.worldweatheronline.com Production constraints during the hot-wet seasons • Poor fruit set when average temperature higher than 30 oC – Apply fruit-set hormone • Excess soil water promoting fruit cracking – Use crack-resistance cultivars, raised bed, and mulching • Frequent leaf wetness favoring emergence of foliar diseases – Use resistant cultivars and rain-shelter, apply pesticides • High temperature and soil humidity favoring emergence of soil-borne diseases – Use resistant cultivars or rootstocks, apply field sanitation • Poor growth or death under prolonged waterlogging condition – Use flooding tolerant rootstocks, raised bed, and mulching Flooding

Flooding caused by heavy rainfall, especially during typhoon season

(CWB, Taiwan)

(AVRDC Photo Bank) Flooding is a major abiotic stress.

• A serious problem for the growth and yield of flood- sensitive crops. • Flood-sensitive plants are severely damaged after a 24- hour period of anoxia (lack of oxygen). • Problems caused by flooding may be solved by growing flood-tolerant crops or grafting sensitive plants onto tolerant ones. Flooding tolerant tomato rootstocks were identified from field evaluation. (AVRDC 1994) Three tropical storms and four artificial floods created water-lodging condition. Rootstock Yield/plant (kg) Original code Country of origin L 123 1.17 a-c TK-3 Japan L 125 1.07 a-d DIVISORIA-2 Japan L 143 1.00 a-d LA 1280 SAL 369-2 Peru L 146 1.27 ab LA 1291 SAL 374-3 Peru L 150 1.34 a LA 1311 SAL 395-1 Peru L 163 1.33 a-d LA 1388 SAL 472 Peru L 191 1.00 a-d LA 393 Peru L 973 1.33 a PI 129084 USA L 3072 0.86 c-e PI 298943 Poland L 3091 0.76 de PI 303716 USA L 4313 0.81 c-e PI 3855935 Malawi L 4360 0.86 c-e PI 390510 Ecuador L 4422 0.89 b-e PI 390716 Peru FMTT 22 (Self-grafted) 0.92 b-e (AVRDC F fresh FMTT 22 (Non-grafted) 0.53 e 1 market tomato) Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level (DMRT). Tomato/tomato grafted plants tolerated prolonged flooding First flood occurred 40 days after transplanting. 1400

1200 SED (14df)

1000 1st harvest – 98

2nd harvest – 128 800

3rd harvest – 38 600

Total yield - 163 Fruit weight (g) weight Fruit 400

200

0 FMTT 22 FMTT 22 L 143 L 146 L 123 L 150 L 973 ─ Rootstock non- FMTT 22 FMTT 22 FMTT 22 FMTT 22 FMTT 22 FMTT 22 ─ Scion grafted Tomato/tomato graft had heavier plant parts, but fewer fruits.

Fresh weight (g/plant) Plant Fruit no. Total height Root Leaf Stem Fruit (/plant) biomass (cm) Non-grafted 98 a 23 a 29 b 124 b 417 b 262 b 833 b rootstock plant

Self-grafted 103 a 23 a 29 b 125 b 470 b 325 b 949 b rootstock plant

Grafted with FMTT 22 98 a 14 b 36 a 276 a 880 a 648 a 1,841 a Tomato/eggplant grafted plants tolerated prolonged flooding

First flood occurred 23 days after transplanting. SED (32df) 1st harvest-111 2nd harvest-65 Total yield - 142

1000

800

600

400 Fruit weight (g) weight Fruit 200

0 FMTT 22 TS 63 TS 126 TS 125 TS 50 TS 98 TS 88 TS 111 TS 64 TS 91 TS 28 Rootstock lines Tomato/eggplant graft had less fine roots and lower oxygen uptake comparing with eggplant rootstocks.

Fine root Oxygen uptake Oxygen uptake

(g/plant) (μl/g/h) (μl/plant/h) Non-grafted 20.6 a 0.052 ab 1.070 a eggplant Self-grafted 20.4 a 0.057 a 1.192 a eggplant Grafted with 10.3 b 0.047 b 0.491 b FMTT22 *

Non-grafted FMTT22 3.85 0.073 0.281

* For graft types averaged over 32 eggplant lines Eggplant primary root develops obvious aerenchyma.

Tomato primary root At 2 weeks At 4 weeks

aerenchyma

Eggplant primary root At 2 weeks At 4 weeks aerenchyma Use of flooding tolerant rootstock

• Palada (2007) – Tomato/ EG203 (eggplant) • Petran (2013) – ‘Celeberty’ (tomato)/S. torvum (eggplant) – shorter height and internode length – reduced visible symptoms of flooding stress • Bhatt et al. (2015) – Arka Rakshak (tomato)/ Arka Neelkanth (eggplant) – better survival and yield after flooding

Major soil-borne diseases

Bacterial wilt Fusarium wilt Root knot nematode Ralstonia solanacearum Fusarium oxysporium f.sp. Meloidogyne spp. lycopersici Broad host range Narrow host range Broad host range Races, biovars, Races Multiple species phylotypes Cultural control, host Host resistance, cultural Cultural control, host resistance control resistance Integrated management of tomato bacterial wilt

Control Specific control measures Potential principles efficacy

Pathogen Use a plot without disease history ** exclusion Use clean water ** Pathogen Apply soil amendments * reduction Field sanitation * Practice rotation * Host resistance Use locally effective resistant cultivars/ *** rootstock Induced resistance * Direct protection Use sterilized pruning tools * Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporium f.sp. lycopersici)

Differential Disease reaction variety Race 1 Race 2 Race 3 Bonny Best (susceptible) Sa S S UC82-L (possess I ) Rb S S Fla. MH-1 (possess I, I-2) R R S I3R-1 (possess I, I-2, I-3) R R R a Susceptible b Resistant

Race 2 is the predominant race in Taiwan.

Bonny Best UC 82-L Fla. MH-1 Inoculum preparation

125ml sterilized 1-wk old water / plate culture

Inoculation

2-wks old seedling sterilized sand and peat-moss (1:1 v/v)

Evaluation 5 mins 3 wk Root dipping Disease severity rating: (Sheu & Wang, 2006)

Evaluate the reaction of individual plants 3 weeks after inoculation by stem cutting.

0 = Healthy without external symptoms 1 = No or with stunted growth but with slight vascular discoloration 2 = severely stunted growth and with vascular discoloration 3 = wilted beyond recovery or dead Resistant = DSR< 1 Moderately susceptible = 1 < DSR < 2 Susceptible = DSR > 2

Susceptible Resistant

ASVEG ASVEG ASVEG ASVEG No.9 No.10 No.20 No.21 Use of resistant tomato rootstocks can manage fusarium wilt in natural infested field.

Scion: Heirloom tomato German Johnson

Rivard and Louws, 2008 Other resistance sources to F. oxysporium f.sp. lycopersici (Fol) • Reis et al. (2004) identified five tomato accessions displaying an immune-like response to all three Fol races. They were L. pennellii ‘LA 716’, L. chilense ‘LA 1967’, L. peruvianum ‘LA 444-1’, L. peruvianum ‘PI128659’ and L. peruvianum ‘CGO 6713’. • AVRDC has recommended eggplant rootstocks VI046103 (EG195) and VI045276 (EG203) for grafting with commercial tomato scions to provide substantive protection from flooding, bacterial wilt, and root-knot nematodes. Because of the high specificity of Fol on tomato, use of eggplant rootstocks automatically provides resistance against tomato fusarium wilt. Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita, M. javanica, and M. arenaria ) • Mi-1 from S. peruvianum is the only commercially available source of resistance in tomatoes. • Mi-1 resistance was ineffective at soil temperature above 28 oC. • Mi-9 from S. arcanum is a heat-insensitive resistance source. Root knot nematode (RKN) resistance screening at seedling stage • Inoculate 500 eggs in 3 ml per one-month-old seedling • Score 45 days after inoculation with 0 to 4 scales based on percentage of root covered by root knots

Susceptible tomato Florida 47 had lower RKN severity when grafted with resistant tomato rootstocks.

Plant Root wt. (g) Root Gall index J2/100ml J2/g root materials condition soil Florida 47 46.8 a 2.3 a 6.6 a 104.9 a 180.8 a Multifort 27.8 b 1.4 b 3.0 b 43.9 ab 54.0 b Aloha 22.5 b 1.3 b 0.1 c 5.7 b 1.3 b TX301 27.7 b 0.7 b 2.2 b 24.1 b 47.1 b LSD (0.05) 14.4 0.9 1.3 64.3 59.7

Root condition: 0 – 4, 0= 0-20%, 1=21-40%, 2=41-60%, 3=61-80%, 4=81-100% discolored, necrotic roots. Gall index 0 – 10, 0 = no galling and 10 = root system completely galled

Burelle and Rosskopf , 2011 Eggplant rootstock resistant to RKN

• Solanum melongena (AVRDC, 2000) Galling Yield Fruit size Solids Acid Rootstock index (t/ha) (g) (brixo) (% citrate) EG190 0.7 c 7.9 b 7.5 a 7.1 a 0.46 a EG203 0.8 c 10.8 a 7.3 a 7.0 a 0.46 a EG219 1.2 b 10.4 a 7.5 a 6.9 a 0.45 a Non -grafted 4.0 a 7.2 b 7.9 a 6.5 b 0.44 a tomato (ASVEG #6) • Solanum integrifolium (Si) and S. sisymbriifolium (Ss) (Wang et al. 2008) (Data shown were number of root knot per plant) Rootstock 10 DAI 25 DAI 40 DAI 55 DAI Si 0 0 0 0 Ss 0 0 0 0 Non-grafted tomato 14.8 21.2 29.2 34.6 (Rainbow 101) Bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum Disease cycle

(Genin, 2010) R. solanacearum is a species complex Races of R. solanacearum

Race Host range 1 tobacco, tomato, other solanaceous plants, diploid bananas, and others 2 triploid bananas, Heliconia sp.

3 potato and tomato

4 ginger

5 mulberry Biovars of R. solanacearum

1 2 2T 3 4 5 Mannitol - - - + + + Sorbitol - - - + + - Dulcitol - - - + + - myo-Inositol + + + + + + D-Ribose d - + + + + Trehalose + - + + - + Lactose - + + + - + Maltose - + + + - + D-(+)-Cellobiose - + + + + + Gas from nitrate - - - + + + Phylotypes of R. solanacearum

"American" Bv 1 "Antillean" Bv1 & MLG 28

Phylotype I (Asia) MLG 25 SFR/A 0.01 MLG 24 H/B

Biovar 2/2T Rs BDB

Rs, Phylotype II P.syzygii Phylotype III (America) (Africa) Phylotype IV (Indonesia)

Figure courtesy to P. Prior Hawaii 7996 is one of the most stable resistance sources to bacterial wilt based on multi-location evaluation. (Wang

et al. 1998)

E D D D

- - - -

ABC

A A A A

100 F

F F

- -

EFG E C DEF C

80 J

H G

- J 60 J

20 P

MT L390

F7 285 L

BRS

TmL46 TmL11 3034 R

Caraibo CRA66 Caravel Rodade 65 CLN 219 GA

Fla 7421 Fla 5915 CL 1565 GA

CLN 1463 CLN 1464 CLN

Intan PutihIntan Hawaii 7996 Hawaii R. solanacearum strains in Taiwan showing 100

75 large variation in virulence

% W 100 25 75 0 50

1 2 3 4 5 6 Group 4 % W 25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 100

% W 25

0 Group 5 Group 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 100

% W Group 6 25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

100 Group 3 100

75 75

50 50 % W % W Group 1 25 25 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Jaunet and Wang, 1999 Selection of rootstocks with multiple resistance

Disease Strain Hawaii BF R3034 EG219 EG190 EG203 7996 Okitsu BW Pss190 23.3 6.7 46.7 50.0 40.0 3.3 Pss180 3.3 10.0 0.0 46.7 20.0 3.3 Pss219 3.3 10.0 3.3 30.0 23.3 0.0 Pss187 0.0 10.0 3.3 33.3 16.7 0.0 Pss4 3.3 3.3 0.0 26.7 23.3 0.0 Pss97 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 16.7 0.0

BW-Mean 5.6 A 6.7 B 8.9 A 36.1 a 23.3 b 1.1 c FW race 1 R R R 0.0 0.0 0.0 race 2 R R S 0.0 0.0 0.0

RKN field nt nt nt 0.0 1.6 0.0 Rootstock resistance contributes largely to the additive resistance of grafted plants.

Rootstock Scion Wilted plant (%)

Hawaii 7996 Hawaii 7996 3.3 e Hawaii 7996 ASVEG No.4 10.0 de Hawaii 7996 Farmer 301 26.7 d ASVEG No.4 Hawaii 7996 66.7 c ASVEG No.4 ASVEG No.4 76.7 bc ASVEG No.4 Farmer 301 93.3 ab Farmer 301 Hawaii 7996 93.3 ab Farmer 301 ASVEG No.4 100.0 a Farmer 301 Farmer 301 100.0 a 7 8 BW resistance9 QTLs10 in Hawaii11 799612 1 2 3 4 5 6

0.0 afh46c6 12 1.6 afh60a 0.0 SSR46 0.0 SSR47 0.0 D1233M2 0.0 afh14aafh4a 0.0 D1233O12 3.3 afh39a 3.1 D1305J6 0.0 SLM12-16 5.8 SLM6-5 0.0 afh38b 0.0 SLM2-7 0.0 SLM3-5 4.0 D1233K20D1233O18 0.0 D1305O10 4.8 afh19d 5.3 SLM11-11 7.3 SLM6-4 4.8 SLM12-19 5.46.3 D1233C6SLM4-6 8.4 SLM10-25 9.1 SLM11-2 6.0 SSR96 9.0 SLM8-33SSR450 11.2 SLM6-7 11.2 D1232M9 10.2 11.77.9 SLM9-7D1232C22 8.9 SLM10-48 10.9 afh60b 15.5 SLM12-54 10.8 D1243B6 12.6 SLM8-9SSR306 15.0 SLM6-10 12.5 afh21b 13.4 D1233J7 11.3 13.0 D1233F3 9.6 D1262E2 13.7 SLM11-4 18.5 SLM12-57 14.9 SLM3-14afh46a 11.8 SSR310 18.1 SLM6-113 16.2 D1233O14 17.7 20.7 SLM8-35 15.3 D1232D2310.3 SSR526 15.6 D1305G22 21.6 SLM12-59

19.3 SLM1-24 21.1 afh10a 12.0 SSR638 22.4 D1261G15 10.8 21.5 SSR318SLM6-116 Thai

D1249F11 Pss186 17.4 Indo SLM12-60 TW

24.5 Pss4

22.0 SLM8-36 Pss4

Tm151 JT519 SLM9-4 24.9 SLM6-14 Pss4 22.7 SSR40 23.6 D1233D20 15.9 SSR603 23.1 12.1 SSR301 20.6 afh23c Pss186 28.8 SLM12-9 28.425.0 SLM9-2D1249P19 26.5 SLM6-48 25.9 D1249E23 26.1 SLM2-18 28.4 SLM7-1 20.4 SLM4-12 15.1 D1232E4 - 25.4 D1233G23 TC 31.0 SLM8-10 SLM12-12 - 30.0 -

SLM3-8 SLM5-6

29.0 29.1 SLM6-47 - 28.0 -

24.3 D1304O20 EW

D1232M4 Bwr-12 EW

- c 35.8 D1232K1 16.5 26.2 SLM11-12 30.5 SLM12-10 GH

Bwr-6a SH

32.3 SLM1-5

33.9 SLM2-44 35.3 SLM7-8

D1232I3 30.7 SLM6-124 TW

36.0 35.0 afh35d 28.637.0 D1233F12D1242D24 35.2 SLM5-32 20.3 SLM10-29 33.9 JT516 SLM11-26 32.8 SLM12-2

SLM2-43

34.9

32.3 SLM6-118

SSR593 33.6 Bwr-6b 23.8 D1233I4 Thai 39.7 afh37h 41.0 D1250A15 JT519 33.1 SLM12-5 SSR19 - 42.6 D1244M23 43.2 34.3 SLM6-11943.3 D1232J3TC 42.9 SLM1-26 42.4 D1233C17 27.4 SLM10-36 D1233J19 42.1 afh36c SLM6-136 35.3 SLM12-72 45.2 Bwr-6c 40.3

SLM7-31 SLM10-49 - 45.1 D1261A5 48.1 SSR231 36.1 39.5 SLM12-65 46.2 SLM5-43 48.8 SLM2-36 53.1 SSR38 47.7 Bwr-6d 41.6 SLM6-17 EW 51.6 D1305G6 49.6 SLM3-29 44.1 SLM10-13 42.6 SLM12-69 49.2 D1232N23 51.6 SLM5-14 44.2 SLM6-94 SLM11-40 SLM1-3 53.7 SSR594 54.8 SLM12-70 52.5 SLM3-19 45.2 51.5 D1261P15 53.8 57.5 SSR383 46.2 SLM6-110 D1304J20 49.4 D1232I10 57.5 SLM2-39 57.2 58.0 SLM4-34 48.7 SLM6-107 51.4 SLM12-74 66.0 SLM9-12 53.2 SLM6-82 66.6 SLM7-43 64.0 SLM5-36 52.5 SLM12-76 afh34a 69.3 SLM8-20 54.3 SLM6-91 68.6 SML1-53 68.5 SLM5-1 62.8 SLM12-31 70.2 SLM2-24 SLM3-24 69.6 59.3 SLM6-106 71.4 69.5 SLM12-36 73.2 SLM1-52 SLM2-27 72.8 SLM5-49 66.2 SLM6-96 75.8 73.977.5 SLM3-30SLM7-12 SLM12-81 SLM6-53 75.2 79.8 SLM1-41 77.4 SLM2-40 70.3 84.282.0 SLM9-13D1243E24 76.5 SLM6-57 84.6 SLM1-29 86.0 SLM7-35 79.5 SLM6-26 88.7 D1233M23 89.2 SLM12-28 89.5 SLM3-32 85.0 SLM6-29 91.8 D1305C19 93.5 SLM7-15 94.791.6 SLM9-17SLM5-48 94.3 SLM12-78 94.4 D1242N22 97.7 SSR22 98.3 D1249P18 102.4 SLM7-18 102.4 SLM9-21 99.6 SLM6-35 103.6 SLM9-24 102.2 SLM6-37 SLM12-30 108.5 SLM7-24 106.9 109.8 SSR350 113.1 SSR117 Ho et al. 2013 Origin of and relationships between core tomato accessions resistant to bacterial wilt

Mulua (Guatemala) PI129080 (Colombia) S. lycopersicum S. pimpinellifolium or S. lycopersicum var. cerasiforme

Univ. North Carolina PI127805A (Peru) NC 72 TR 4-4 NC1953-64N Saturn Venus S. pimpinellifolium

Beltsville3814 Hawaii 7996 Kewalo S. lycopersicum var. 199 UPR pyriforme Univ. Hawaii Univ. Puerto Rico

West indies landrace (tomadose) OTB2 TML114 R3034 TML46 BF-Okitsu UPCA1169 VC8-1-2-1 VC8-11-3-1-8 Hort. Res. Stn. Japan Univ. Philippines

IRAT L3 CRA66 CRA84-26-3

IRAT INRA CLN1463 CLN5915 L285 (Martinique) (Guadeloupe) French West Indies Institutes AVRDC, Taiwan modify from Lebeau et al 2011 and Daunay et al 2010. Novel BW resistance source in S. pennellii

Hai et al. 2008 Fruit quality

• Visual stimuli – size – shape – color • Sensory properties – sweetness – acidity – Aroma • Fruit quality can increase or decrease, depending on the scion-rootstock combination Effect of grafting on tomato yield and fruit quality

Summer Autumn Scion Rootstock Wilt Yield3 Wilt Yield Acid Vitamin C oBrix (%) (t/ha) (%) (t/ha) (% citrate) (mg/100 g)

EG190 31.8*2 14.2* 12.5 61.6 7.93* 0.39* 37*

EG203 29.0* 19.0* 6.3 72.2 7.82* 0.38 37* ASVEG No.6 EG219 23.7* 17.5* 2.1 58.7 8.02* 0.40* 38*

Non-grafted 100.0 0.0 17.2 52.4 7.12 0.37 34

EG190 55.0* 3.2 4.7 54.7 8.02* 0.36 36*

EG203 38.8* 3.4 3.2 66.6 7.63 0.36 34 Senta EG219 34.7* 4.4* 11.0 58.7 7.93* 0.37 36*

Non-grafted 100.0 0.0 15.6 64.0 7.13 0.36 33

1 Both trials were conducted in a disease nursery of bacterial wilt. The summer trial was transplanted on 2 June 1999 and the winter trial on 12 Oct. 1998. 2 Significant difference between each grafting treatment and non-grafted control of the same scion is indicated by * based on LSD at 0.05 level. 3 Yield was calculated based on six harvests from 7 Jan to 31 Mar 1999 for the autumn trial and from 4 Aug to 13 Oct 1999 for the summer trial. Nutrient content of grafted tomato

LYCOPENE β-CAROTENE VITAMIN C (mg in 100g fresh weight edible portion) FMTT 1728 non-grafted 9.33 ± 1.04 a 0.23 ± 0.03 a 34.73 ± 1.57 a self-grafted 9.22 ± 2.03 a 0.16 ± 0.02 ab 32.90 ± 2.48 a EG195 8.56 ± 1.34 a 0.22 ± 0.01 ab 30.20 ± 3.52 a EG203 7.82 ± 2.33 a 0.17 ± 0.04 ab 34.77 ± 2.80 a Hawaii 7996 9.05 ± 0.84 a 0.20 ± 0.02 ab 31.50 ± 0.50 a S. pimpinellifolium 1 8.12 ± 1.10 a 0.19 ± 0.02 ab 34.53 ± 1.80 a S. pimpinellifolium 2 8.57 ± 0.87 a 0.20 ± 0.05 ab 35.40 ± 1.77 a S. sisymbriifolium 6.88 ± 2.44 a 0.15 ± 0.04 b 32.20 ± 1.95 a Impact of tomato grafting

• Introduction of rootstock materials • Evaluation of grafting combinations • Promotion of grafting technology – Training on grafted seedling production – Demonstrating cost-benefit rate – Advising on crop management • Taiwan case • Vietnam case • Bangladesh case Dissemination of tomato grafting in Taiwan

• Evaluation of rootstock and grafting combinations – 1998 - 1999; Collaboration between World Vegetable Center and Tainan DARES on cherry tomato grafted on eggplant rootstocks • Promotion of grafting technology – 1999; Training provided for extension officers and nursery operators Cherry tomato grafted on eggplant rootstock, Chai-yi, Taiwan Dissemination of tomato grafting in Vietnam

• Key scientists trained – 1998; Dr. Ngo Quang Vinh, IAS and Pham My Linh, FAVRI • Evaluation of rootstock and grafting combinations – 2002-2003; Vinh found Hawaii 7996 as a suitable rootstock to overcome bacterial wilt

• Lam Dong – 2003-2010; Training on grafted seedling production – 2004-2011; TV broadcast, handout, leaflet etc. • Hanoi and Red River Delta area – 2004-2005; FAVRI found EG203 as a suitable rootstock – 2010; field demonstration; free grafted seedlings Production of grafted seedlings in Lam Dong Genova C, Schreinemachers P, Afari-Sefa V. 2013.

An impact assessment of AVRDC’s tomato grafting in Vietnam.

AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan. AVRDC Publication No. 13-773. 52 p. (Research in Action; no. 8). Adoption of tomato grafting in Vietnam

Main rootstock and scion varieties used by farmers and reasons for selection

Seed source of main rootstock and scion varieties

Yield of grafted versus non-grafted tomatoes by month, 2010-2011 (t/ha) Profitability of grafted versus non-grafted tomato production in the Red River Delta, 2011-2012 (in million VND/ha) Summer tomato production in Jessore, Bangladesh

Slides from Mandy Lin Training on summer tomato production including tomato grafting in 2012

Slides from Mandy Lin Slides from Mandy Lin Slides from Mandy Lin Slides from Mandy Lin Outlooks

• Establishment of private nursery on production and marketing grafted seedling • Promotion of integrated crop management concept for managing biotic and abiotic stresses collectively • Identification of diverse rootstocks for different locations • Breeding of rootstock with combined abiotic and biotic stresses • Further research on rapid evaluation of grafting compatibility