4.7 Article

Selecting vegetative/generative/dwarfing rootstocks for improving fruit yield and quality in water stressed sweet peppers

期刊

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
卷 214, 期 -, 页码 9-17

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2016.11.012

关键词

Capsicum annum; Vegetative growth; Grafting; WUE; Vigour; Drought

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)-Region de Murcia [FEDER 1420-08]
  2. Spanish MINECO-ERDF [AGL2014-59728-R]
  3. European Commission (ROOTOPOWER) [289365]
  4. COST Association [FA1204]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rootstock breeding for vegetable crops includes desirable traits such as compatibility with the scion, increased productivity and quality under stressful environments and improved use of soil, water and fertilizer resources. The effects of three commercial rootstocks (Atlante, Creonte and Terrano) on the agronomical and physiological responses of a commercial sweet pepper variety (cv Herminio) to deficit irrigation (50% of optimal) have been studied. Although the three rootstocks increased total and marketable yield under control and deficit irrigation, Creonte produced the most productive and water use efficient plants, with until 25% more marketable yield than the ungrafted cv Herminio, and about 10% more than the other rootstocks, although in detriment of some chemical fruit quality traits. Moreover, the plants grafted onto Creonte registered the highest photosynthetic activity and leaf water content and more stable leaf area and biomass under water stress, while those parameters were more reduced in the other graft combinations. These Creonte-mediated effects were not related to root biomass (since it was more affected by the stress in this rootstock) but rather to the capacity of maintaining a high reproductive/vegetative ratio, while Atlante is a vigorous vegetative rootstock and Terrano is rather a dwarfing -reproductive rootstock that produces efficient compact plants without negative effects on fruit quality. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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