HomeAnnals of Tropical Researchvol. 29 no. 2 (2007)

Influence of waterlogging stress and benzyladenine application on tomato grafted to eggplant

Mary Ann Jully B. Regis | Misael T. Diputado Jr.

 

Abstract:

Under waterlogged conditions, the non-grafted tomato plants had significantly lower survival rate (53%) compared to the grafted plants (100% survival rate). Under waterlogged conditions both the grafted and non-grafted plants had high leaf stomatal resistance, low transpiration rate and high stress rating, compared to those under nonwaterlogged conditions. However, one week after resumption of aerobic soil conditions. both stomatal resistance and transpiration as well as stress rating returned to normal in grafted plants while the non-grafted plants continued to show high stomatal resistance, low transpiration rates and high stress rating. The morphological changes associated with stress in the plant regardless of treatments were cupping, drooping and eventual wilting of leaves. Due to severe stress under waterlogged conditions, the non-grafted plants had significantly lower yield which was just about 41% of that in grafted plants. The grafted, non-waterlogged plants had comparable yield with the non-grafted, nonwaterlogged plants. Application of benzyladenine was not effective in alleviating waterlogging stress effects on both grafted and non-grafted tomato.



References:

  1. AVRDC. 1993. Progress Report. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan. (ROC).
  2. BLACK, L.L., D. L. WU, J. F. WANG, T. KALB, D. ABBASS and J. H. CHEN. 2003. Grafting tomatoes for hot-wet season. AVRDC International Cooperator’s Guide. http://www.avrdc.org.
  3. BPI. 2005. Crop Varieties. Bureau of Plant Industry. Plant Variety Gazette. Vol. 1, Issue 1.
  4. BRADFORD, K. J. and T.L. HSIAO. 1982. Stomatal behavior and water relations of waterlogged tomato plants. Plant. Physiol. 70:1508-1513.
  5. DIPUTADO, M. T. and D. A. DEL ROSARIO. 1985. Response of cowpea (Vigna sinesis L.) to moisture stress and seed pretreatment. Phil J. Crop Sci. 10(2):51-56.
  6. HARTMANN, H. T., D. E. KESTER, F. T. DAVIES, JR. and R. L. GENEVE. 1997. Plant Propagation: Principles and Practices. 6th edition. Prentice Hall Int. Inc., USA. 770p.
  7. JACKSON, M. B. 1990. Hormones and developmental changes inplant subjected to submergence or soil waterlogging. Aquatic Bot., 38:49-72.
  8. KOZLOWSKI, T. T. 1997. Response of woody plants to flooding and salinity. http://www.heronpublishing.com/tp/monograph/kozlowski.pdf
  9. LIN, S. H., Y. X. HUANG, R. Z. HAN and Y. YAO. 2005. Using stomatal resistance index of plants to evaluate the quality of atmospheric environment in Fuzhou. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology (Acta Botanica Sinica).
  10. LOPEZ, M. V. and D. A. DEL ROSARIO. 1983. Performance of tomatoes (Lypersicon esculentum) under waterlogged conditions. Phil. J. Crop. Sci. 8:75-80.
  11. NOODEN, L. D., G. M. KAHANAK and Y. OKATAN. 1979. Prevention of monocarpic senescence in soybeans with auxin and cytokinin: An antidote for self-destrcution. Science 206:841.