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
R
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
uptake.
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
seedling.
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
Root
Fusarium Wilt Verticillium
Wilt
Root-knot
Nematode
Bacterial
Wilt
Southern
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.
Grafting
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
cultivars.
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
Code
2005 International
Code
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-
lycopersci
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 -
ber.
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 -
ber.
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://
www4.ncsu.edu/~clrivard/TubeGraftingTechnique.pdf , as well as this instruc -
tional video from Ohio State University: http://oardc.osu.edu/graftingtomato/
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 -
Description
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
Transplant\b
production
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
Miscellaneous\b
supplies
1.33
Healing\bchamber S Chamber\bsupplies 42.11 3.93
Total 321.\f4 187.36 794.2\f 458.\f8
Total\b(materials\b&\b
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
www.extension.org/article/25443
Webinar on tomato grafting
www.hydro-gardens.com
General supplies and rootstocks
www.johnnyseeds.com
General supplies and rootstocks
http://oardc.osu.edu/graftingtomato/grafting-english.htm
Ohio State University instructional video
www.rijkzwaanusa.com
Rootstocks
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
94:1015-1021.
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
www.sare.org > Project Reports > ‘Search the
database’ > Enter text ‘GS05-046’. Related proj -
ects include GS07-060, LS06-193 and OS09-046.
