First Report: Grafting of Three Iranian Commercial Pomegranate Cultivars on Drought Tolerant Rootstocks

Document Type : Research paper

Authors

1 Department of Horticultural Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Arak University, 38156-8-8349& lrm;Arak, Iran

2 Department of Horticultural Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Arak University, 38156-8-8349& lrm;Arak, Iran

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the stenting (grafted cutting) propagation of commercial pomegranate cultivars as scions on drought tolerant genotypes as rootstocks. The effect of drought stress on nine pomegranate rootstocks was analyzed. Cultivars including ‘Daneshgah 13’, ‘Daneshgah 32’ and ‘Daneshgah 8’ that were used as rootstocks showed the maximum drought tolerance among the studied cultivars; therefore, these three rootstocks were used to investigate the stenting propagation. Furthermore, three pomegranate cultivars including ‘Malas Saveh’, ‘Robab’ and ‘Bihasteh’ were used as scions. The highest percentage of graft success (58.88%) was obtained from grafting on ‘Daneshgah 13’. In addition, the highest percentage of graft success (84.22) was found in ‘Robab’. ‘Robab’ and ‘Malas Saveh’ had the longest shoot (11.50-11.93 cm) and highest shoot fresh weight (33.66-35.00 g) when grafted on ‘Daneshgah 13’. ‘Daneshgah 13’ had higher shoot dry weight (5.47 g) compared to the other rootstocks. Regarding the scion cultivars, ‘Robab’ and ‘Malas Saveh’ showed higher shoot dry weight (6.76-6.96 g) in comparison with ‘Bihasteh’. Using ‘Daneshgah 13’ as rootstock resulted in the highest content of chlorophyll a (18.11 mg/g), chlorophyll b (8.02 mg/g) and total chlorophyll (26.13 mg/g) in the scion leaves. ‘Robab’ and ‘Malas Saveh’ had highest content of chlorophyll a (18.11-18.33 mg/g), chlorophyll b (8.58-8.62 mg/g) and total chlorophyll (26.73-26.92 mg/g) among the scion cultivars. In all three rootstocks, a negative correlation was observed between the total phenolic content and the percentage of graft success. In addition, there was a negative correlation between the total phenolic content and the percentage of graft success in ‘Bihasteh’ scion.

Keywords

References

1. Atkinson C.J, Policarpo M., Webster A.D, Kuden A.M. 1999. Drought tolerance of apple rootstocks: Production and partitioning of dry matter. Plant Soil 206, 223–235.
2. Barden J.A, Ferree D.C. 1979. Rootstock does not affect net photosynthesis, dark respiration, specific leaf weight, and transpiration of apple leaves. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 104, 526–528.
3. Basile B., Marsal J., DeJong T.M. 2003. Daily shoot extension growth of peach trees growing on rootstocks that reduce scion growth is related to daily dynamics of stem water potential. Tree Physiology 23, 695–704.
78 Int. J. Hort. Sci. Technol; Vol. 7, No. 1; March 2020
4. Boonanunt S., Krisanapook K., Boonprakob U., Pichakum A., Phavaphutanon L. 2014. Suitable criteria for drought-tolerant peach rootstocks grown in northern Thailand. Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology 8(02), 190–197.
5. Burdett A.N. 1979. A nondestructive method for measuring the volume of intact plant parts. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 9, 120–122. doi:10.1139/x79-021.
6. Cantin C.M, Pinochet J., Gogorcena Y., Gogorcena M., Moreno Á. 2010. Growth, yield and fruit quality of Van and Stark Hardy Giant sweet cherry cultivars as influenced by grafting on different rootstocks. Scientia Horticulturae 123(3), 329–335. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2009.09.016.
7. Dietmar S., Youssef R., Giuseppe C., Jan H.V. 2010. Grafting as a tool to improve tolerance of vegetables to abiotic stresses: thermal stress, water stress and organic pollutants. Scientia Horticulturae 127, 162–171. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.09.016.
8. Errea P., Garay L., Marin J.A. 2001. Early detection of graft incompatibility in apricot (Prunus armeniaca) using in vitro techniques. Physiologia Plantarum 112, 135– 141. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2001.1120118.
9. Fayek M.A, El-Zather M.H.A, El-Kubaisy A., Al-Darweesh M.H. 2004. Stock- scion relationship in olive at the nursery stage. Annals of Agricultural Sciences 42, 205– 224.
10. Fernandez R.T, Perry R.L, Flore J.A. 1997. Drought response of young apple trees on three rootstocks: Growth and development. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 122, 14–19.
11. Gainza F., Opazo I., Carlos M. 2015. Graft incompatibility in plants: metabolic changes during formation and establishment of the rootstock/scion union with emphasis on Prunus species. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 75, 28–35. doi: 10.4067/S0718-58392015000300004.
12. Hartman H.T, Kester D.E, Davies F.T, Geneve R.L. 2002. Plant Propagation: Principles and Practice, p. 770. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
13. Hernández F., Pinochet J., Moreno M.A, Martínez J.J, Legua P. 2010. Performance of Prunus rootstocks for apricot in Mediterranean conditions. Scientia Horticulturae 124, 354–359. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.01.020.
14. James A. 2012. Performance of Local Variety Mango Graft Union under Nursery Conditions. Uganda Christian University. B.S.C Diss.
15. Kahramanoğlu I., Usanmaz S. 2016. Pomegranate Production and Marketing. CRC Press. pp 148
16. Karadeniz T., Balta F., Tekintas F.E, Sen S.M. 1993. Investigations on relations between phenolic compounds and grafting in chestnut (Castanea sativa). Proccedings of the International Congress on Chestnut, Spoleto, Italy, 20–23 Oct.
17. Karadeniz T., Kazankaya A. 1997. Relations between phenolic compounds and graft success in walnut (Juglans regia). Acta Horticulturae 442, 193–196. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.
18. Karimi H.R, Nowrozy M. 2017. Effects of rootstock and scion on graft success and vegetative parameters of pomegranate. Scientia Horticulturae 214, 280–287. doi: .1016/j.scienta.2016.11.047.
19. Karimi R. 2011. Stenting (cutting & grafting): A new technique for propagation pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Journal of Fruit and Ornamental Plant Research 19, 73–79.
20. Lichtenthaler H.K. 1987. Chlorophylls and carotenoids pigments of photosynthetic biomemberanes. Methods in Enzymology 148, 350–382. doi: 10.1016/0076-6879(87)48036-1.
21. Martínez-Ballesta M.C, Alcaraz-López C., Muries B., Mota-Cadenas C., Carvajal M. 2010. Physiological aspects of rootstock-scion interactions. Scientia Horticulturae 127, 112–118. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2010.08.002.
22. Misra K.K, Ranvir S., Singh R. 1992. Seasonal variation in chlorophyll content in leaves of lemon budded on various rootstocks. Annals of Agricultural Sciences 13, 105– 108.
23. Mngomba S.A, Du Toit E.S, Akinnifesi F.K. 2008. The relationship between graft incompatibility and phenols in Uapaca kirkiana Muell. Arg. Scientia Horticulturae 117, 212–218. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2008.03.031.
24. Morinaga K., Ikeda F. 1990. The effect of several rootstocks on photosynthetic, distribution of photosynthesis production and growth young Satsuma of Mandarin tree. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science 59, 29–34. doi: 10.2503/jjshs.59.29.
25. Nazari F., Khosh-Khui M., Salehi H. 2009. Growth and flower quality of four Rosa hybrida L. cultivars in response to propagation by stenting or cutting in soilless culture. Scientia Horticulturae 119, 302–305. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2008.08.004.
First report: Grafting of Three Iranian Commercial Pomegranate Cultivars on … 79
26. Orlova A.A. 2007. Effect of type of rootstock on development of plum seedlings. Russian Agricultural Sciences 23, 373–374. doi: 10.3103/S1068367407060079.
27. Sadowski A., Gorski M. 2003. Quality of apple planting stock depending on its methods of production. Plant Science 11, 394–398.
28. Serra I., Strever A., Myburgh P., Deloire A. 2014. A Review: the interaction between rootstocks and cultivars to enhance drought tolerance in grapevine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20, 1–14. doi: 10.1111/ajgw.12054.
29. Singleton V.L, Orthofer R., Lamuela-Raventos R.M. 1999. Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin Ciocalteu reagent. Methods in Enzymology 299, 152–178. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(99)99017-1.
30. Stover E., Mercure E.W. 2007. The pomegranate: a new look at the fruit of paradise. Scientia Horticulturae 42, 1088–1092.
31. Tuwel G., Kaptich F.K.K, Langat M.C, Chombol K.C, Corley R.H.V. 2008. Effects of grafting on tea: growth, yield and quality. Experimental Agriculture 44, 521– 535. doi: 10.1017/S0014479708006765.
32. Usenik V., Krska B., Vican M., Stampar F. 2006. Early detection of graft incompatibility in apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) using phenol analyses. Scientia Horticulturae 109, 332–338. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2006.06.011.
33. Usenik V., Stampar F. 2000. Influence of various rootstocks for cherries on p- coumaric acid, genistein and prunin content and their involvement in the incompatibility process. Gartenbauwissenschaft 65, 245–250.
34. ValizadehKaji B., Abbasifar A. 2017. Transformation of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) a difficult-to-transform tree. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology 10, 46–52. doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2017.02.007.
35. Webster A.D. 1998. Strategies for controllig the size of sweet cherry trees. Acta Hortticulture 468, 229–240.
36. Zarrouk О., Testillano P.S, Risueño M.C, Moreno M.A, Gogorcena Y. 2010. Changes in cell/tissue organization and peroxidase activity as markers for early detection of graft incompatibility in peach/plum combinations. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 135, 9–17.
International Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology
Volume 7, Issue 1
March 2020
Pages 69-79

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 July 2019
  • Revise Date: 18 August 2019
  • Accept Date: 15 October 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics