Skip to main content

A g r i c u l t u r a l I n n ov a t i o n s Fact Sheet

T o m a t o G r a f t i n g f o r \f i s e a s e R e s i s t a n c e a n d

I n c r e a s e d \b r o d u c t i v i t y

Cary L. Rivard, Ph\S.D.

Kansas S\fa\fe Univers\Si\fy

H\br\ficul\fure Research \Sand Ex\fensi\bn Cen\fer\S

Inside \fhis fac\f she\Se\f:

• In\fr\bduc\fi\bn

• H\bw \f\b Graf\f

• Ec\bn\bmic Advan\fage\Ss \bf Graf\fing

• SARE Research Syn\bpsis

• References

• Fur\fher Res\burces

SARE Agricultural Inn ovations are based \bn

kn\bwledge gained fr\S\bm SARE-funded pr\bjec\fs. \S

Wri\f\fen f\br farmers, \Sranchers, and agricul\fural

educa\f\brs, \fhese pee\Sr-reviewed fac\f she\Se\fs pr\b -

vide prac\fical, han\Sds-\bn inf\brma\fi\bn \f\b \Sin\fegra\fe

well-researched su\Ss\fainable s\fra\fegies in\f\b farm -

ing and ranching s\Sys\fems.

Ge\bgraphic Applicabili\S\fy:

Graf\fing pr\bvides d\Sifferen\f advan\fages\S in vari\bus

ge\bgraphic clima\fes acr\S\bss \fhe Uni\fed S\fa\fes.\S Graf\f -

ing can be especia\Slly advan\fage\bus f\br\S gr\bwers using

high \funnels \br \b\fhe\Sr seas\bn ex\fensi\bn \f\Sechniques,

n\b ma\f\fer \fhe clima\fe\S.

PDF available a\f www\S.sare.\brg/fac\fshee\f/\S12AGI2011 Published Oc\f\bber 2\S011


esearchers around the world have demonstrated that

grafting—the fusing of a scion (young shoot) onto a

resistant rootstock—can protect plants against a variety of

soil-borne fungal, bacterial, viral and nematode diseases in

various climates and conditions. Grafting has been success -

fully implemented in Japan, Korea, Greece, Morocco, New

Zealand, Brunei and elsewhere to battle Verticillium and

Fusarium wilt (FW), corky root rot, root-knot nematodes,

bacterial wilt, southern blight and other diseases.

In particular, the worldwide use of grafting with resistant

rootstock has been a successful tool for managing bacterial

wilt of tomato, even in severely infested soils. In western

North Carolina, for example, a resistant rootstock was used

to reduce bacterial wilt in tomatoes. At season’s end, nearly

90 percent of the control plants died while 100 percent

of the grafted plants not only survived—their yield was

more than two fold that of the surviving non-grafted plants

(Figure 1). In most cases, popular commercial varieties are

grafted as scions onto inter-specific hybrids that have been

bred specifically for use as rootstocks.

Tomato grafting also offers benefits beyond disease control.

Scientists have discovered that it can increase stress toler -

ance and productivity while maintaining high fruit quality.

Using the right rootstock can also help overcome abiotic

stressors, such as high salinity, excess moisture and soil

temperature extremes, even allowing the extension of the

growing season. In addition, grafted plants have produced

increased yields and show increased water and nutrient


Still a relatively uncommon practice in the United States,

tomato grafting shows promise for growers who face dis -

ease challenges, specifically organic, heirloom and high-

Frank J. L\buws, Ph.D\S.

Na\fi\bnal Science F\bunda\fi\bn

Cen\fer f\br In\fegra\fed Pes\f Managemen\f

Ph\b\f\b c\bur\fesy C. Rivard

T\b m a \f \b G r a f \f i n g f \b r D i s e a s e R e s i s \f a n c e a n d I n c r e a s e d P r \b d u c \f i v i \f y w w w . s a r e . o r g 2

tunnel growers. With little opportunity for extended crop

rotation intervals in a high tunnel, disease pressure can be

very high. This is compounded further with organic heir -

looms as heirloom varieties are not bred for resistance and

other disease management practices are limited in organic

systems. Due to the phase-out of methyl bromide in the

United States, grafting could become a widespread pest

management strategy for a large segment of growers.

Relying on grafting principles that have worked for gen -

erations of growers across the globe, researchers from

a SARE-funded project at North

Carolina State University (NCSU)

have shown that tomato grafting has

potential as an integrated pest man -

agement strategy to increase U.S.

crop productivity. This fact sheet

provides information on how to graft

tomatoes to fight soil-borne disease

and improve the health and vigor of

tomato crops.

H o w t o G r a f t

Grafting to manage soil-borne

pathogens is a relatively simple

process. An above-ground portion of

a plant (scion) chosen for high fruit

quality is secured to the root system

(rootstock) of a disease-resistant


The researchers at NCSU used

“Japanese top-grafting” or “tube

grafting,” a technique popular for

tomato production in commercial

greenhouses worldwide, because the process is fast and

a large number of seedlings can be propagated

Plant Selec tion

Step one in the grafting process is to choose rootstock

and scion cultivars that will complement each other.

There are many tomato varieties, such as heirlooms,

that have highly desirable fruiting characteristics, but

may have low disease resistance and/or yield. Consider

using these cultivars as scions to graft onto rootstocks

that offer resistance to soil-borne diseases. Table 1 lists

rootstock varieties and their level of disease resistance.

Figure 1. Plan\f dea\fh \bver \fi\Sme due \f\b bac\ferial \Swil\f when using a s\Suscep\fi -

ble \f\bma\f\b line \br \fh\Se same \f\bma\f\b cul\fiva\Sr graf\fed \bn\f\b r\b\b\fs\f\bck r\Sesis\fan\f

\f\b bac\ferial wil\f.

Rootstocks TMV Corky


Fusarium Wilt Verticillium







Blight Race 1 Race 2

Beaufort* R R R R R MR S HR

Maxifort* R R R R R MR S HR

TMZQ7\f2** R S R R R R MR ?

Dai\bHonmei*** R R R S R R HR ?

RST-\f4-1\f5**** R R R R R R HR MR

Big\bPower***** R R R R R R S HR

Robusta****** R R S R R S S ?

HR =Highly Resis\fan\f \S R=Resis\fan\f \S MR =M\bdera\fely Resis\fan\S\f S=Suscep\fible

* = De ‘Rui\fer Seed\S C\b. ** = Saka\S\fa Seed C\b. ***\S = Asahi Seed C\b. \S**** = D Palmer Seed C\b. \S

***** = Rijk Zwaan ****** =\S Bruinsma Seed C\b.

Adapted from: Rivard\f C.L.\f 2\b1\b. Grafting for Open‐fiel\vd and High Tunnel Tomato Production. PhD Dissertation. pg 171.

Table 1. R\b\b\fs\f\bck and Diseas\Se Resis\fance

\blant death (%) due \fto Bacterial wilt

Observation date

T\b m a \f \b G r a f \f i n g f \b r D i s e a s e R e s i s \f a n c e a n d I n c r e a s e d P r \b d u c \f i v i \f y w w w . s a r e . o r g 3

Rootstock selection is the single most important step in

grafting tomatoes for disease resistance. To choose the right

rootstock, first try to identify potential pathogens on the

farm through basic diagnostic testing and history of prob -

lems (Table 1).

Ideally, you should find rootstock varieties specifically bred

for resistance, but typical hybrids or other modern variet -

ies can also be used. Use Table 2 to learn the “tomato code”

that breeders use to desig -

nate resistance in modern

rootstock varieties of root -

stock and scion cultivars.


Be sure to use good sanita -

tion measures and a sterile,

lightweight potting mix to

plant seeds. Sow both root -

stock and scion seeds two

weeks before typical, non-

grafted transplant produc -

tion begins to allow grafted

seedlings to spend about one

week in a healing chamber,

followed by a week of re-

acclimation in the greenhouse before planting in the field.

The rootstock and scion stems must be the same diameter

for grafting to be successful, so alter seeding times to allow

different cultivars to grow to the same size. For example,

many rootstock varieties take 2-5 days longer to germinate

than scion cultivars; however, hybrid rootstock cultivars

may germinate faster than the scion. To test the growth

rate, do a germination test with 10-15 rootstock seeds after

you receive them. If after seedling emergence you find

either the rootstock or scion is much larger, decreasing

temperature can help slow growth of the faster growing


Tube grafting should be done when seedlings have 2-4 true

leaves and stems are 2-2.5 millimeters in diameter. The

best time of day to graft is early in the morning or just after

dark, when there is little

water stress on the plants.

Moving the seedlings into

a shaded area for 2-4 hours

prior to grafting will also

reduce water stress. Graft -

ing should always be done

indoors and under shade.

When making the graft,

wash your hands with

anti-microbial soap and

use latex gloves and sterile

tools to reduce exposure

of plants to pathogenic

bacteria, fungi and viruses.

Sever the bottom half of a

rootstock seedling from its top at an approximate 45-de -

gree angle, making sure to cut the stem of the scion at the

same angle. It makes no difference whether the scion is cut

above or below the cotyledon. Be sure to cut the scion in a

place where stem diameters of rootstock and scion will best

match. Make the graft union below the cotyledon of the

rootstock to prevent rootstock suckers that may form later

in the crop. Attach the rootstock to the scion with a silicon

Scientific Name Common Name Traditional


2005 International


Tomato\bmosaic\bvirus Tomato\bmosaic Tm ToMV

Tomato\bspotted\bwilt\bvirus Spotted\bwilt TSWV TSWV

Ralstonia solanace\parum Bacterial\bwilt R Rs

Fusarium f. sp. lycopersici Fusarium\bwilt\b(Races\7\b\f\b&\b1) FF\bor\bF2 Fol:\b\f,1

Fusarium o\fysporum f. sp. radicis-


Fusarium\bcrown\band\bro\7ot\brot Fr For

Pyrenoc\baeta lycose\prsici Corky\broot\brot K Pt

Verticillium albo-atrum Verticillium\bwilt V Va

Verticillium da\bliae\p Verticillium\bwilt V Vd

Meloidogyne \bspp. Root-knot\bnematodes\7 N Mj,\bMi,\bMa

Adapted from: Rivard\f C. L.\f and Louws\f F. J. 2\b\b6. Grafting for Disease R\vesistance in Heirloom Tomatoes. North

Carolina Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. AG - 675.

Table 2. Tradi\fi\bnal and 2005 in\ferna\fi\bnal re\Ssis\fance c\bdes f\br \f\S\bma\f\b cul\fivars

Tips for Successful Grafting

1. Diagn\bse y\bur s\bil d\Siseases c\brrec\fly.

2. Ch\b\bse \fhe righ\f r\b\b\fs\S\f\bck f\br disease res\Sis\fance.

3. Plan ahead s\b r\b\b\fs\f\b\Sck and sci\bn gr\bw \f\b \fhe same

size \bn \fhe same da\Sy.

4. Pr\bvide pr\bper mana\Sgemen\f f\br \fhe heali\Sng cham -


5. Use appr\bpria\fe mana\Sgemen\f \fechniques s\Such

as spacing, prunin\Sg, suckering, e\fc. \Swhen plan\fing

graf\fed \fransplan\fs. \S

6. Ensure \fhe graf\f uni\bn is ab\bve \S\fhe s\bil line.

T\b m a \f \b G r a f \f i n g f \b r D i s e a s e R e s i s \f a n c e a n d I n c r e a s e d P r \b d u c \f i v i \f y w w w . s a r e . o r g 4

grafting clip used for tube grafting (Figure 2). The clip will

easily slide over the rootstock stem, and the scion stem

should be inserted into it so that the cut angles match. See

Figure 2.

Caring for Grafted Plants

Immediately after grafting, place the transplants into a

healing chamber—a highly regulated area that provides

specific amounts of humidity, light and temperature. This

will facilitate a reconnection of vascular tissue so water and

nutrients can be supplied to the scion. While the grafts are

in the chamber, they must receive 80-95 percent humidity,

minimal direct sunlight and a temperature of 70-80 degrees

F. Be sure that the healing chamber has high humidity lev -

els and is operating properly prior to grafting.

Healing Chamber

Healing chambers generally consist of a frame covered by

polyethylene sheeting. The floor of the chamber should be

covered with plastic/poly to contain humidity, with a few

small holes for drainage. Use an opaque covering on the

chamber the first days after grafting to keep out all light,

then fluorescent lights or low levels of natural light during

the final days of healing. The ideal place for a healing cham -

ber is indoors, in a heated storage area or garage.

Building a Healing Chamber

1. Stretch a tarp or dense shade cloth above a frame or

greenhouse bench to reduce sunlight in the area where

the healing chamber will reside. Be sure that the shaded

area is much larger than the chamber in order to pro -

vide reduced light levels throughout the day and reduce

the risk of excessive heat building up inside the cham -


2. Place a layer of plastic sheeting on the surface of the

frame or bench, so if the bench has raised edges, a shal -

low pool of water can be placed on the chamber floor.

If a raised lip is not available to help hold water in the

chamber, shallow pans of water can be distributed on

the bench among the grafts. Cool-water vaporizers are

an excellent way to increase chamber humidity as long

as they do not also increase the internal temperature.

3. Construct a frame using 1/2” to 1” polyvinyl chloride

(PVC) piping or wire hoops as illustrated in Figure 3.

The frame should have a peak to keep condensation

from dripping onto the newly grafted transplants.

4. Cover the PVC frame with a layer of clear plastic so that

the sides and ends can be easily pulled up to check on

the grafts.

Make sure humidity, light and temperature levels inside

the chamber are constant before beginning the grafting

procedure so that the grafts will be placed into a well-

functioning chamber. As noted above, the relative humidity

level should be high, 80-95 percent, and the temperature

should be a constant 70-80 degrees F. Use black plastic to

block all available sunlight from entering the chamber until

the leaves of the newly grafted transplants attain normal

turgor levels, meaning they no longer show signs of mois -

ture stress.

(Instructions adapted from NCSU’s Extension Bulletin

“Grafting for Disease Resistance in Heirloom Tomatoes”).

Figure 2. De\fails \bf \fhe Graf\S\fing Pr\bcess. Ph\b\f\b c\bur\fesy C. Rivard

T\b m a \f \b G r a f \f i n g f \b r D i s e a s e R e s i s \f a n c e a n d I n c r e a s e d P r \b d u c \f i v i \f y w w w . s a r e . o r g 5

Transplanting to the Field

Closely monitor the healing process, as

well as acclimation of the plants when

you remove them from the healing

chamber. Typically, the whole process

from seeding to grafting to healing to

transplanting in the field is five weeks

(see Figure 4). However, specific tim -

ing of rootstock and scion seeding as

well as the total time of propagation

will vary based on the greenhouse

environment and light intensity within

a given propagation area.

Grafted transplants have specific spac -

ing, fertility management, pruning,

planting depth and suckering require -

ments. For example, fruit from root -

stock suckers will be poor quality for

eating, so be sure to remove rootstock

suckers. This will increase production

of high-quality fruit and ensure that

the scion receives more water and nu -

trients. Proper planting depth is also

very important. The graft union must

remain above the soil line when trans -

planting; otherwise the scion will grow

roots into the soil and become infected

by the pathogen, losing the advantage

of the resistant rootstock.

For more information on how to graft,

see “Grafting for Disease Resistance

in Heirloom Tomatoes” at http:// , as well as this instruc -

tional video from Ohio State University:

grafting-english.htm .

E c o n o m i c A d v a n t a g e s o f G r a f t i n g

As tomato grafting is adopted as an environmentally sound practice to fight soil-

borne diseases in the United States, researchers and farmers alike are finding it

to be economically viable.

When NCSU researchers developed economic models based on work with

growers who produced their own grafted plants, they found that it costs about

43-74 cents more per plant to

produce grafted rather than

non-grafted plants. These

costs reflect additional root -

stock and scion seeds, direct

costs of grafting (labor, clips,

healing chamber, etc.) and

indirect costs of growing both

a rootstock and scion crop

before grafting. (See Table 3).

However, when used in a

system where plants generate

high-value fruit (such as or -

ganics or heirlooms), tomato

grafting can provide a net eco -

nomic gain for tomato fruit

growers as well as transplant

propagators. In the case of the

economic modeling done by

NCSU, grafted tomato trans -

plant propagation yielded a

Figure 3. Healing chamber. Ph\b\f\b c\bur\fesy C. Rivard

Figure 4. Timeline f\br Graf\fin\Sg. Taken fr\bm Har\fmann and Kes\fer’s Plan\f Pr\bpag\Sa\fi\bn: Principles

and Prac\fices. 8\fh \SEdi\fi\bn.

T\b m a \f \b G r a f \f i n g f \b r D i s e a s e R e s i s \f a n c e a n d I n c r e a s e d P r \b d u c \f i v i \f y w w w . s a r e . o r g 6

per plant profit that was 38 cents higher than non-grafted

plants. Similarly, the grafted plants made better use of

greenhouse heating costs which correlate directly with

the amount of space used during propagation. On-farm

research and other case studies are emerging that demon -

strate the profitability of tomato grafting in a wide diversity

of tomato production systems.

An analysis of two U.S. farms that successfully produced

grafted tomato plants and recorded their costs showed that

seeds—not labor—were the highest cost (see Figure 5). This

is probably because there are very few rootstock cultivars

available to U.S. growers. These seed costs could go down if

a larger market develops here.

At both sites, tomato grafting improved per acre profits

since deploying resistant rootstocks resulted in healthier

plants and increased production. The use of grafting al -

lowed one of the growers to retain organic tomato sales for

retail and wholesale markets since the grower did not have

to employ non-organic means to keep plants disease-free.

The economics of tomato grafting have also proved posi -

tive in high tunnel on-farm trials. In a SARE-funded farmer

grant, Pennsylvania grower Steve Groff, collaborating with

NCSU scientists, found that grafting with Maxifort root -

stock increased yield in his high tunnel, where he faced

disease pressure from Verticillium wilt. He also noted that

in-row spacing can be manipulated to reduce the economic

constraints of grafting. For example, even when plant den -


Nongrafted Grafted

Materials Z Labor Y Materials Z Labor Y

($/1000 plants) ($/1000 plants)

Seed\bcosts X Rootstock\b(‘Maxifor\7t’) W 242.69

Scion\b(‘BHN\b589’) V 72.92 78.13



Custom\bplug\bcosts U 57.6\f 1.38 124.8\f 2.95

Potting\bmix 3\f.65 37.37

Plastic\btrays 65.78 76.58

Heating 88.41 138.\f4

Transplanting 73.69 1\f4.15

Transplant\bcare 5.68 112.3\f 6.96 166.77

Grafting Manual\bgrafting T 18\f.29

Grafting\bclips 46.2\f




Healing\bchamber S Chamber\bsupplies 42.11 3.93

Total 321.\f4 187.36 794.2\f 458.\f8


labor) 1525.2\f 1252.28

Cost\b($/plant) \f.51 1.25

Selling\bprice\b(5\f%\bmark-up) \f.76 1.88

ZBased \bn prices dur\Sing budge\f devel\bpm\Sen\f in Fall 2009.YBased \bn average h\b\Surly agricul\fural wages (U\S.S. Depar\fmen\f \bf Agricul\fure, 2009).XSeed c\bs\fs were calc\Sula\fed \f\b reflec\f \fhe\S \f\b\fal c\bs\f required \Sf\br 20% \bvers\bwing and 9\S0% graf\fing success (wh\Sere

applicable).WIn\ferspecific r\b\b\fs\f\b\Sck (De Rui\fer Seeds\S, Bergschenh\bek, The Ne\fherlands).VDe\ferminan\f fresh-m\Sarke\f varie\fy (BHN Seed, Imm\bkalee, \SFL).USeedlings were germ\Sina\fed by a l\bcal c\Sus\f\bm plug pr\bpaga\f\br\S (Y\brk, PA).TGraf\fing ra\fe was 1\S00 plan\fs/h per w\br\Sker and graf\fing wage was $1\S4.00/h. Graf\fing su\Sccess was 90%.SOnce graf\fed, \f\bma\f\b \fransp\Slan\fs were placed i\Sn a healing chambe\Sr \fha\f h\blds 3300 plan\fs f\br 7d.

Adapted from: Rivard\f C. L.\f Sydorovych\f O.\f O’Connell\f S.\f Peet\f M.\v M.\f and Louws\f F. J. 2\b1\b. An Economic

Analysis of Two Grafted Transplant Production Systems in the US. HortTechnology 2\b:794-8\b3

Table 3. Variable c\bs\fs \bf \f\bma\S\f\b \fransplan\fs a\f G\b\bd\S Harves\f Farms, S\frasburg, PA.

T\b m a \f \b G r a f \f i n g f \b r D i s e a s e R e s i s \f a n c e a n d I n c r e a s e d P r \b d u c \f i v i \f y w w w . s a r e . o r g 7

sity was reduced 25 percent (from 24” spacing to standard

18” spacing), the Maxifort graft still had significantly higher

per acre yields than non-grafted plants at standard spacing.

In Groff’s study, grafting allowed for an approximate 20

percent increase in yield, representing 9.4 more tons per

acre, or 752 more boxes per acre at $12 per box. According

to Groff, the 20 percent yield increase translated into an

additional gross income of $9,024 per high tunnel acre, or

$1.88 per plant.

S A R E R e s e a r c h S y n o p s i s

In 2005, SARE began supporting innovative tomato graft -

ing research at NCSU and continues to fund projects to

determine the environmental and economic feasibility for

controlling disease and increasing productivity.

The objectives of one project, “Inducing Disease Resistance

and Increased Production in Organic Heirloom Tomato

Production through Grafting,” were to evaluate rootstock/

scion combinations through field trials, and to determine

the dynamics of induced resistance mechanisms when heir -

loom scions are grafted onto rootstocks.

Grafted tomatoes were planted in fields where bacterial

wilt incidence was historically high, and data was collected

on disease incidence, yield and fruit quality. Production

techniques were analyzed to increase yield and offset added

costs of grafting.

Grafted and non-grafted plants were produced in NCSU

greenhouse facilities. The bacterial wilt and organic crop

productivity on-farm trials were set up in a randomized

complete block design with four replications. Seven plants

were used per plot, and typical cultural practices were

employed. Other trials were set up in split-plot design with

four replications. All results were analyzed using ANOVA,

and significant findings were identified using a protected

LSD test.

For the induced resistance study, plants were raised and

grafted in a growth chamber at the NCSU Phytotron. Tis -

sue from grafted and non-grafted plants was destructively

sampled at 24 hours through 24 days after grafting. Plant

tissue was frozen in liquid nitrogen and RNA was extracted

and reverse-transcribed. Real-time PCR was used to moni -

tor the induction of PIN II, a gene known to be associated

with wounding in tomato that is used by the plant to reduce

insect herbivory. Grafting was found to elevate the expres -

sion of PIN II, although it returned to normal levels 16 days

after grafting.

In the bacterial wilt trials, plants grafted with resistant

rootstock breeding lines CRA 66 and Hawaii 7996 showed

no symptoms of wilt in multiple years. Yield in 2005 was

significantly higher in Hawaii 7996 rootstock treatments

compared to the non-grafted control. CRA 66 and Hawaii

7996 were highly effective at preventing bacterial wilt from

endemic populations of the bacterial pathogen Ralstonia

solanacearum in eastern North Carolina.

In organic productivity trials, scientists tested the efficacy

of using commercial rootstocks Maxifort and Robusta to

increase crop productivity for organic heirloom production.

While controls were susceptible to Fusarium wilt, Maxifort

rootstock completely controlled incidence of the disease.

Robusta offered moderate control. Cumulative marketable

and total yields were not impacted by FW incidence or root -

stock treatment. In another organic trial, Maxifort showed

50 percent higher yield than controls.

Figure 5. Dis\fribu\fi\bn \bf Add\Sed C\bs\fs. Taken fr\bm Rivard, C\S.L. O. Syd\br\bvych, S. O’C\bnn\Sell, M.M. Pee\f and F. J. L\buws. 2010. An

ec\bn\bmic analysis \bf\S \fw\b graf\fed \f\bma\f\b \franspl\San\f pr\bduc\fi\bn sys\fem\Ss in \fhe Uni\fed S\fa\fe\Ss. H\br\fTechn\bl\bgy 20:794-803.

T\b m a \f \b G r a f \f i n g f \b r D i s e a s e R e s i s \f a n c e a n d I n c r e a s e d P r \b d u c \f i v i \f y w w w . s a r e . o r g 8

Maxifort rootstock also improved plant growth on land with

a history of Verticillium wilt compared to controls, indicat -

ing that these vigorous rootstocks provide tolerance to Ver -

ticillium wilt. Grafting with vigorous rootstock could help

manage Verticillium wilt by giving growth advantage over

non-grafted plants. However, further research is warranted

to determine if this trend is consistent across locations and

growing seasons.

F u r t h e r R e s o u r c e s

Webinar on tomato grafting

General supplies and rootstocks

General supplies and rootstocks

Ohio State University instructional video


R e f e r e n c e s

Clement, B. 2009. Grafting Tomatoes on Disease Resistant

Rootstocks for Small-Scale Organic Production. Tomato

Magazine 13 (6): 10-11.

Groff, Steve. Grafting Tomatoes in Multi-Bay High Tunnels

as a Way to Overcome Soil-Borne Disease. 2009. USDA

SARE program final report for project number FNE08-636.

O’Connell, S. Grafted Tomato Performance in Organic Pro -

duction Systems: Nutrient Uptake, Plant Growth and Yield.

December 2008. North Carolina State University MS thesis.

Rivard, C. Grafting for Disease Resistance in Heirloom

Tomatoes. September 2006. North Carolina Cooperative

Extension Service.

Rivard, C. and F.J. Louws. 2006. Grafting for Disease Re -

sistance in Heirloom Tomatoes. North Carolina Cooperative

Extension Service Bulletin AG-675.

Rivard, C. and F.J. Louws. Inducing Disease Resistance and

Increased Production in Organic Heirloom Tomato Produc -

tion through Grafting. 2007. USDA SARE program final

report for project number GS05-046.

Rivard, C.L. and F.J. Louws. 2008. Grafting to Manage

Soilborne Diseases in Heirloom Tomato Production. Hort -

Science 43: 2104-2111.

Rivard, C.L., S. O’Connell, M.M. Peet and F.J. Louws. 2010.

Grafting Tomato with Inter-Specific Rootstock Provides Ef -

fective Management Against Diseases Caused by Sclerotium

Rolfsii and Southern Rootknot Nematodes. Plant Disease


Rivard, C.L., O. Sydorovych, S. O’Connell, M.M. Peet and

F.J. Louws. 2010. An Economic Analysis of Two Grafted To -

mato Transplant Production Systems in the United States.

HortTechnology 20:794-803.

T h i s p u b l i c a \f i \b n w a s d e v e l \b p e d b y \f h e S u s \f a i n a b l e A g - r i c u l \f u r e R e s e a r c h a n d E d u c a \f i \b n ( S A R E ) p r \b g r a m w i \f h f u n d i n g f r \b m N a \f i \b n a l I n s \f i \f u \f e \b f F \b \b d a n d A g r i c u l \f u r e , U S D A . A n y \b p i n i \b n s , f i n d i n g s , c \b n c l u s i \b n s \b r r e c \b m m e n - d a \f i \b n s e x p r e s s e d h e r e d \b n \b \f n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c \f \f h e v i e w \b f \f h e U . S . D e p a r \f m e n \f \b f A g r i c u l \f u r e .

S A R E O u \f r e a c h \b p e r a \f e s u n d e r c \b \b p e r a \f i v e a g r e e m e n \f s w i \f h \f h e U n i v e r s i \f y \b f M a r y l a n d a n d \f h e U n i v e r s i \f y \b f V e r m \b n \f \f \b d e v e l \b p a n d d i s s e m i n a \f e i n f \b r m a \f i \b n a b \b u \f s u s \f a i n a b l e a g r i c u l \f u r e .

P r e p a r e d w i t h a s s i s t a n c e f r o m L i s a B a u e r

S A R E P u b l i c a t i o n # 1 2 A G I 2 0 1 1

This fact sheet is based on a SARE-funded

project. For more information, please visit > Project Reports > ‘Search the

database’ > Enter text ‘GS05-046’. Related proj -

ects include GS07-060, LS06-193 and OS09-046.


Please add some content in Animated Sidebar block region. For more information please refer to this tutorial page:

Add content in animated sidebar