4.7 Article

Towards Better Grafting: SCoT and CDDP Analyses for Prediction of the Tomato Rootstocks Performance under Drought Stress

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy12010153

关键词

Solanum lycopersicum L; rootstocks; yield; ABA; GA3; proline; APX; POD; DHAR; plant growth; fruit quality

资金

  1. Taif University [TURSP-2020/307]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found genetic relatedness among different tomato rootstocks under drought stress conditions, with heterografts showing better growth and yield. Cluster analysis based on various traits validated the reliability of SCoT and CDDP as screening tools for predicting grafting behavior on different rootstocks.
This study aims to predict the behavior of different tomato rootstocks under drought stress conditions. SCoT and CDDP analyses were employed to characterize the genetic relatedness among a commercial drought-sensitive tomato hybrid (cv. Bark) and four wild tomato accessions (LA2711, LA1995, LA3845, and LA4285) known for their tolerance to adverse conditions. The Bark plants were grafted onto the aforementioned wild accessions and self-grafted as control, and then the behavior of all graft unions was followed under normal and drought stress conditions. Our results showed a general genotype-dependent better growth and yield of heterografts than autografts under all growth conditions. Furthermore, clustering analysis based on growth, yield quantity and quality traits, and the leaf content of minerals, ABA, GA3, and proline, in addition to the activity of APX, POD, and DHAR reflected the same grouping pattern of the studied rootstocks exhibited by SCoT and CDDP. The identical grouping pattern supports the utilization of SCoT and CDDP as a robust screening tool helpful to predict the physiological and agronomical behavior of grafting on different tomato rootstocks. Furthermore, grafting could be a cost-efficient alternative method to improve drought tolerance in sensitive tomato genotypes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据