sustainability

Article
Grafting Technology with Locally Selected Eggplant Rootstocks
for Improvement in Tomato Performance
Evy Latifah 1, * , Sri Satya Antarlina 2 , Sugiono Sugiono 1 , Wahyu Handayati 1 and Joko Mariyono 3, *

1 Research Center for Horticulture and Plantation, Research Organization for Agriculture and Food, National
Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Cibinong Science Center, Jl. Raya Jakarta-Bogor, KM. 46, Cibinong,
Bogor 16911, Indonesia
2 Research Center for Food Technology and Processing, Research Organization for Agriculture and Food,
National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), JL. Jogja-Wonosari, KM 31, 5, Kec. Playen, 174 WNO,
Gading II, Gading, Kec. Playen, Kabupaten Gunung Kidul, Jakarta Pusat 5586, Indonesia
3 Agribusiness Study Program, Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Animal and Agricultural Sciences,
Diponegoro University, Semarang 50275, Indonesia
* Correspondence: epilatip08@gmail.com (E.L.); jokomariyono@lecturer.undip.ac.id (J.M.)

Abstract: Grafting technology is one of the best alternatives to mitigate limiting factors to tomato
production (Solanum lycopersicum L). The study aimed to assess grafting combinations of tomato scions
and rootstocks of eggplant (S. melongena L.) varieties Gelatik, EG203 line, and Takokak (S. torvum Sw.).
Tomato varieties Cervo, Karina, and Timoty were used as scions. The grafted Cervo and Timoty
yielded 30% more than non-grafted plants. The results show that grafted tomatoes suppressed
disease incidence by more than 20%. The suppression resulted in higher shelf-life capacity and total
dissolved solids of more than 10%, red colour intensity (a+) of more than 16%, lycopene content, fruit
hardness level of more than 20%, and reduced water content by more than 1%. Vitamin C content was
not affected by grafting technology. There is the potential for economic performance in the market
for producers and consumers. Grafting technology in tomatoes using eggplants as rootstock could
reduce disease incidence and improve agronomic aspects, product quality, and nutrient contents.
Different cultivars of scions and rootstock showed different responses. Grafting technology could be
disseminated to farmers for economic advantages during the off-season.
Citation: Latifah, E.; Antarlina, S.S.;
Sugiono, S.; Handayati, W.;
Keywords: hybrid tomatoes; local rootstocks; Solanum lycopersicum; soil-borne wilt diseases; quantity
Mariyono, J. Grafting Technology
and quality of fruits
with Locally Selected Eggplant
Rootstocks for Improvement in
Tomato Performance. Sustainability
2023, 15, 855. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su15010855
1. Introduction
Tomato is one of the most highly valued vegetables grown in the world. In Indonesia,
Academic Editors: Georgios
tomatoes have become necessary because they are complementary in the daily diet to other
Koubouris and Ralf Kaldenhoff
vegetables [1,2]. Production of tomato year-round guarantees adequate supply to meet the
Received: 30 July 2022 demand. However, the production of tomatoes tends to be seasonal. In the wet season,
Accepted: 31 October 2022 tomato production decreases. In tropical areas, biotic and abiotic challenges can reduce
Published: 3 January 2023 tomatoes’ plant growth and productivity. Tomato is one of the vegetables produced with
application of many pesticides. Production of organic tomatoes will satisfy stakeholders
that harmful synthetic chemicals have not been used [3,4].
Reduced tomato production during the wet season is due to crop failure caused by
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
disease, high humidity, high temperature, and a lack of standard production technology.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
The problems can be addressed through plant breeding and appropriate management.
This article is an open access article
Farmers commonly adopt chemical measures to address biotic challenges to production [5].
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
However, agrochemicals have lost effectiveness and led to environmental pollution and hu-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
man health problems [6]. Environmental contamination from intensive vegetable farming,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ including tomatoes, is a concern in Asia [7,8].
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010855 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 2 of 15

The safest and most effective solution to overcome problems of disease and environ-
mental pressure is integrated pest management (IPM), applicable to various vegetable
crops, including tomatoes, and it can minimise use of pesticides. Grafting technology can
be an IPM component [9]. Grafting technology does not produce new characteristics of
crops, but it combines two desirable crop characteristics to obtain the advantage of good
plant characteristics from two crops [10].
Tomato scions combined with eggplant develop well and produce an acceptable
yield [11,12]. The World Vegetable Research Centre developed eggplant accessions EG195
and EG203, which are compatible with most tomato scions and are resistant to waterlogging,
salinity, high and low temperature, nematodes, and bacterial and fusarium wilt [7]. Some
eggplant genotypes are resistant to waterlogging [13] and can protect against limited
soil moisture because eggplant roots absorb water more efficiently than tomatoes [12].
Using eggplant as the rootstock may overcome wilting and rotten roots under waterlogged
conditions [14].
The appropriate rootstock determines tomato quality [15]. Use of grafting could
improve fruit and nutritional quality [9]. The number of fruit, total soluble solids (TSS)
content, and vitamin C increased in fruit harvested from grafted plants [16]. Other research
indicated that grafting does not affect fruit quality [17,18].
Adoption of grafting using resistant rootstocks, such as eggplant or tomatoes from
other varieties whose roots are resistant to challenges, is well known and will provide infor-
mation about the efficiency and effectiveness of grafting technology to achieve high-quality
yields of tomatoes [19]. Some researchers have examined various grafting techniques to
increase the effect of temperature and humidity by using controlled environmental con-
ditions [20,21]. However, grafting using local resources is still limited in warm, humid
agroecosystems. The study aimed to determine suitable combinations of tomato scions
and local eggplant rootstocks for grafting. The combination was expected to optimise the
quality and quantity of tomato production in a warm and humid agroecosystem, where a
high incidence of wilt caused by bacterial and fungal diseases and waterlogging occurs.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was conducted from July to December 2016 at the Agricultural Extension
Centre Experimental Garden, Sub-district Pare, Kediri, East Java, Indonesia at an altitude
of about 132 m, with the average temperature around 26 ◦ C, rainfall in the first month
(80 mm) increasing steadily in following months (102, 123, 279, and 280 mm/month) until
the end of the study. Scions were Cervo, Karina, and Timoty. Eggplant rootstocks were
Gelatik, line EG203, and Takokak (Solanum torvum). The Takokak rootstock was ready to be
grafted onto at 35 days after transplanting (DAT), and eggplants Gelatik and EG203 were
ready at 21 DAT. Scions of tomato varieties Karina, Cervo, and Timoty were ready to be
grafted at 15 DAT.
This experiment, arranged in a randomised block design (RBD), consisted of 12 treat-
ments. Treatment consists of:
Control (without grafting)
Cervo = scion of Cervo tomatoes variety without grafting
Karina = scion of Karina tomatoes variety without grafting
Timoty = scion of Timoty tomatoes variety without grafting
Gelatik varieties of eggplant as a rootstocks
Cervo–Gelatik = scion of the tomato variety of Cervo with Gelatik as a rootstock
Karina–Gelatik = scion of the tomato variety of Karina with Gelatik as a rootstock
Timoty–Gelatik= scion of the tomato variety of Timoty with Gelatik as a rootstock
Line of EG 203 of eggplant as a rootstock
Cervo–line of EG203 = scion of the tomato variety of Cervo with line of EG203 as
a rootstock
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 3 of 15

Karina–line of EG203 = scion of the tomato variety of Karina with line of EG203 as
a rootstock
Timoty–line of EG203 = scion of the tomato variety of Timoty with line of EG203 as
a rootstock
Takokak of eggplant as a rootstock
Cervo–Takokak = scion of the tomato variety of Cervo with Takokak as a rootstock
Karina–Takokak = scion of the tomato variety of Karina with Takokak as a rootstock
Timoty–Takokak = scion of the tomato variety of Timoty with Takokak as a rootstock
This study used three replications, with 12 × 3 = 36 units. Each treatment consisted of
40 plants, with a total number of 1440 grafted plants. This study used factorial analysis
with three factors: grafted vs. non-grafted plants, different varieties, and observation time.
The grafting process started with preparing the scions and rootstocks using planting
media consisting of soil and compost with a ratio of 3:1. The rootstocks and scions were
planted in polybags with a diameter of 6 cm. Each polybag contains two seeds. Seedlings
can be grafted after 2–3 true leaves have grown, about 14–16 days after planting. Rootstocks
were cut over the cotyledons at a 30◦ angle, and then the tomato stems were cut at a
30◦ angle above the cotyledons or the first genuine leaf. By holding the upper stem piece,
put a rubber tube slice into the scions and then push the rootstocks in the opposite direction
such that the scion and rootstock joined. This study adopted the technique of splicing
rubber pipe joints [22]. This technique is considered practical, and there is no need to
remove the rubber tube from the grafted plant as the plant grows in the field. After grafting,
immediately put into a shaded grafting chamber with a temperature of 25–32 ◦ C. The
grafting chamber door is closed to maintain high humidity. After 4–5 days, grafting occurs,
hardening the grafting stem and preventing the entry of insect attacks. Maintain this
condition for 2–3 days. Put the grafted plants outside the grafting chamber and place them
in the greenhouse. Nine days after grafting, the seedlings were given foliar fertiliser and
placed in the greenhouse for 7–8 days for further development.
During the study, high temperature and humidity provided a micro-climate that
created susceptibility of tomatoes to bacterial and fusarium wilts. Varieties of tomatoes
grown in lowlands are more likely to undergo some constraints due to susceptibility to
bacterial wilt disease in a warm, humid environment [23]. The percentage of bacterial wilt
and fusarium wilt was observed every two weeks using the formula:

P = a/b × 100%

where
P = percentage of bacterial wilt/fusarium wilt
a = number of wilted plants
b = number of plants in the treatment plot.
Grafting success was determined by the total percentage of surviving plants, percent-
age of wilted plants, flowering stage, number of flowers, fruit set, harvest period, number
of fruits per plant, the weight of fruits per plant, and yield. Tomato fruits were picked two
months after transplanting at 3-day intervals. Fruit length, width, diameter, weight per
seed, and fruit hardness were determined. Vitamin C was measured using iodine titration.
Iodine is an oxidising agent that oxidises vitamin C and uses starch as an indicator [24].
Total dissolved solids were measured using a refractometer. Red colour intensity (a+),
to measure the colour using a colour reader Conica Minolta CR-10 and lycopene content
determined. Lycopene level was estimated using a spectrophotometer [25,26].
This study analysed data using analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the significant
difference among the treatments. If the ANOVA shows significance at the 5% level, the
test proceeds with a post hoc test using the least significant difference (LSD) tested at the
5% level [27]. The data were analysed using DSAASTAT software (Version 1. 101).
 5% level [27]. The data were analysed using DSAASTAT software (Version 1. 101).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Dynamics of Disease Incidence

Sustainability 2023, 15, 855

Different varieties showed different levels of disease incidence, as shown by ANOVA 4 of 15
(see Table A1). The un-grafted tomatoes were affected by wilt diseases starting two weeks
after transplanting (Figure 1). The disease incidence increased until 12 weeks after trans-
planting. The wilt incidence of grafted tomatoes (undotted lines) was much lower than
3. Results and Discussion
the counterparts (dotted lines) during the same period.
3.1. Dynamics of Disease
At the starting Incidence
point of two weeks after transplanting, the un-grafted tomatoes suf-
feredDifferent varieties
more highly fromshowed
diseasesdifferent
than thelevels of disease
grafted incidence,
ones. For the caseas
ofshown by ANOVA
un-grafted plants,
(see Table A1). The un-grafted tomatoes were affected by wilt diseases starting
the growth rate of disease incidence in the un-grafted Timoty and Karina was higher two weeks
than
after transplanting (Figure 1). The disease incidence increased until 12 weeks after
in un-grafted Cervo, indicating that Timoty and Karina are more susceptible to soil-borne trans-
planting. The Cervo.
diseases than wilt incidence of grafted
The grafted tomatoes
tomatoes (undotted
onto all lines) was
the rootstocks much
showed lower than
a similar the
growth
counterparts (dotted
rate to un-grafted lines)
Cervo during
but the same
were lower thanperiod.
un-grafted Timoty and Karina.

70

60

50
Disease incidence (%)

40

30

20

10

0
2 4 6 8 10 12
Week after transplanting

NG-Cervo NG-Karina NG-Timoty GG-Cervo

GG-Karina GG-Timoty EG-Cervo EG-Karina
EG-Timoty TG-Cervo TG-Karina TG-Timoty

Figure 1. Dynamics of disease incidence of grafted and un-grafted tomato by treatments.

Figure 1. Dynamics of disease incidence of grafted and un-grafted tomato by treatments.

At the starting point of two weeks after transplanting, the un-grafted tomatoes suffered
more highly from diseases than the grafted ones. For the case of un-grafted plants, the
growth rate of disease incidence in the un-grafted Timoty and Karina was higher than in
un-grafted Cervo, indicating that Timoty and Karina are more susceptible to soil-borne
diseases than Cervo. The grafted tomatoes onto all the rootstocks showed a similar growth
rate to un-grafted Cervo but were lower than un-grafted Timoty and Karina.
Grafted Cervo, Karina, and Timoty onto EG203 rootstock had higher resistance to wilt
disease than the un-grafted, as did Karina and ‘Tymoty’ grafted onto Takokak rootstock.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 5 of 15

The grafted plants using EG203 as a rootstock were resistant to Pseudomonas bacteria and
Bacillus in the rhizosphere of about 105 cfug of dry soil weight [28]. This finding means
that grafting technology works as expected, and this supports a study conducted in Taiwan
that selected eggplant rootstocks suppress wilt disease incidence [29].
The disease incidence of Cervo grafted onto Takokak rootstock was low. When grafted
with Gelatik rootstock, the incidence increased and decreased to deficient levels in Cervo
with the EG203 line as a rootstock at 2 and 4 weeks after transplanting. Six weeks after
transplanting, there was a difference between all the varieties of tomatoes grafted onto all
the rootstocks compared to un-grafted Cervo and Timoty.
At 8, 10, and 12 weeks after transplanting either grafted or non-grafted, Karina almost
wholly suppressed wilt disease. Un-grafted Karina exhibited resistance to wilt disease.
Karina is resistant to wilt disease but susceptible to viruses for agronomic characteristics.
Timoty grafted onto EG203 and Takokak rootstocks were not different from Cervo grafted
onto the EG203 line, with almost total suppression of wilt disease. In contrast, Cervo
grafted onto Gelatik and Takokak rootstock resulted in a slightly higher intensity of wilt
disease and suppression of wilt disease from 8 to 10 weeks after transplanting. Timoty and
Cervo grafted onto EG203 line rootstock almost completely suppressed wilt disease from
8–12 weeks after transplanting.
The differences in disease incidence by treatments indicate that soil-borne diseases
play limiting factors in the study site. Laboratory tests showed that the soil contained the
fungus Fusarium sp. and the bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum. Tested soil samples using
the total plate count (TPC) method contained Fusarium sp. 3.4 × 106 Cfu/propagul·g−1
and R. solanacearum of 1.7 × 107 Cfu/propagul·g−1 . Fungal and bacterial populations were
considered high. Fusarium wilt infection on more than 20% attacked susceptible varieties
in the field due to a pathogenic propagule content range from 100 to 1200 CFU·g−1 of
soil [30].

3.2. Generative Stages

Soil-borne diseases in the field significantly influenced plant development (see Table A2).
At the flowering stage, un-grafted Cervo was significantly affected by wilt diseases, fol-
lowed by un-grafted Timoty. Flowering was affected by treatment and variety. Timoty
generally flowered more than others, especially non-grafted plants, because there is no
inhibition to plant growth.
Table 1 shows that non-grafted Timoty flowered the most quickly and was not different
from Timoty grafted onto Takokak rootstock or rootstocks of Gelatik. The longest time
to the flowering stage was Karina grafted onto EG203 rootstock and Karina grafted onto
Gelatik and Takokak rootstock. Karina scions had the most extended time flowering due to
a virus attack that inhibits plant growth. The flowering period of Cervo grafted on EG203
rootstock was not different from un-grafted plants and not different from Cervo grafted on
Gelatik and Takokak rootstock.
Timoty and Cervo grafted onto Gelatik and EG203 line had high flowering rates,
which were not different from Timoty and Cervo onto Takokak. The number of flowers
increased in Cervo and Timoty grafted onto Gelatik and the EG203 line. The number of
flowers produced by plants grafted on eggplant rootstock is compatible because eggplant
varieties have a strong root structure, which could improve plant hormone levels, causing
an increase in photosynthesis [23,31].
Cervo scions grafted onto Gelatik or EG203 rootstock had a high fruit set, which
was not different from Timoty grafted on Takokak rootstock. Cervo grafted onto Takokak
was not different from Timoty grafted on Gelatik and the EG203 line. Cervo showed an
improved fruit set if grafted on Gelatik, EG203, and Takokak rootstocks.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 6 of 15

Table 1. Flowering period, number of flowers, and average fruit set. Tomato scions grafted onto
eggplant rootstocks.

Treatment b Flowering Period (DAT) b Number of Flowers b Fruit Set (%)

Control (non-grafted)
Cervo variety 27.00 bc 126.67 a 60.33 cd
Karina variety 29.00 cde 87.33 ab 38.33 a
Timoty variety 23.67 a 114.7 a–d 61.67 d
a RS Gelatik eggplant (grafted)

Scion Cervo variety 28.67 cd 156 ef 85.33 i

Scion Karina variety 30.67 e 115 a–d 58.67 c
Scion Timoty variety 27.00 bc 150 def 75.33 f
a RS EG203 line (grafted)

Scion Cervo variety 27.33 bc 161.7 f 86.33 i

Scion Karina variety 33.33 f 83 a 43.00 b
Scion Timoty variety 27.33 bc 173 f 73.33 e
a RS Takokak (grafted)

Scion Cervo variety 28.33 c 124.3 c–e 79.00 g

Scion Karina variety 30.33 cde 92.3 a–c 41.67 b
Scion Timoty variety 26.00 b 123 b–e 83.33 h
LSD 5% 1.6 16.3 1.81
CV 6.7 15.0 3.3
a RS = rootstock; b values in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different; LSD test at 5%.

3.3. Production of Tomatoes

The results of ANOVA show significant differences in production aspects (see Table A2).
There was a significant difference in the first harvest time. Table 2 shows the differences
in the first harvest, the number of fruits per plant, fruit weight per plant, and the yield of
tomatoes with various varieties and treatments. The first harvest for Cervo, Karina, and
Timoty grafted onto Gelatik rootstock was short. Cervo, Karina, and Timoty grafted onto
Takokak rootstock were longer than un-grafted plants. Rapid harvest of the non-grafted
Timoty and Cervo was not different from Timoty grafted onto Takokak. This phenomenon
is possible because Takokak rootstock is compatible with Timoty scion, allowing the plants
to grow faster than other combinations. Non-grafted Karina had a more extended harvest
period, which was not different from Karina and Cervo grafted onto Gelatik, EG203 line,
and Takokak rootstock, and Timoty grafted on Gelatik and Cervo rootstocks.
Grafted Cervo, Karina, and Timoty onto Gelatik or EG203 rootstock increased the
number of fruits. Cervo and Timoty scions grafted onto Gelatik or Takokak rootstock in-
creased the number of fruits. Cervo, Karina, and Timoty grafted onto EG203 also increased
the number of fruits. Cervo and Timoty grafted onto Takokak increased the weight of fruit
per plant.
The yield of Cervo grafted onto EG203 rootstock was higher than for Cervo grafted
onto Gelatik and Takokak rootstock. Timoty grafted onto Gelatik, EG203, and Takokak had
a good yield. Karina grafted onto Gelatik, EG203, and Takokak had a yield that was not
different from un-grafted plants. In general, the yield of tomatoes increased when grafting
technology using eggplant was applied. There was increasing crop yield with tomato
grafted to ‘Beaufort’ eggplant rootstock [32]. Rootstock selection with high resistance and
compatibility in grafting increases crop yield [33]. The higher yield of fruit from grafted
tomato plants was most likely an effect of the robust root system of the rootstock and
also due to enhanced water and mineral uptake [34,35]. Grafted plants can improve the
quality of growth and yield, extend the harvest, and increase the efficiency of water use
and nutrition [31,36]. The yield of Karina grafted onto Gelatik, EG203, and Takokak was
not different from un-grafted Karina, which is resistant to bacterial wilt but not to viruses.
This study supports this finding.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 7 of 15

Table 2. Production aspects of tomatoes grafted onto eggplant rootstocks.

bNumber of b Weight of Fruit b Yield

Treatment b First Harvest (DAT)
Fruits/Plant (kg/Plant) (t·ha−1 )
Control (non-grafted)
Cervo variety 59 b 76.4 bc 3.833 b 24.53 b
Karina variety 56 b 33.7 a 0.901 a 4.46 a
Timoty variety 51 a 70.9 bc 3.389 b 22.13 b
a RS Gelatik eggplant (grafted)

Scion Cervo variety 60 c 133.8 e 5.913 c 34.27 de

Scion Karina variety 65 d 67.8 bc 1.042 a 4.51 a
Scion Timoty variety 60 c 113.3 de 5.654 c 29.47 c
a RS EG203 line (grafted)

Scion Cervo variety 66 d 140.0 e 6.106 c 35.50 e

Scion Karina variety 66 d 36.0 a 1.153 a 4.57 a
Scion Timoty variety 60 c 127.3 e 5.472 c 30.12 c
a RS Takokak (grafted)

Scion Cervo variety 64 d 98.7 cd 5.540 c 30.25 cd

Scion Karina variety 64 d 38.7 a 0.879 a 4.69 a
Scion Timoty variety 59 b 102.6 d 5.671 c 30.74 cd
LSD 5% 3.1 11.74 0.651 3.80
CV 6.1 16.01 20 11.0
a RS = rootstock; b values in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; LSD test at 5%.

3.4. Fruit Characteristics

Treatment affected fruit shape and size (see Table A3). Cervo is oval, and the size is
more extensive than Timoty and Karina. Table 3 shows the fruit characteristics of tomatoes
with different varieties and treatments. The fruit length of Cervo, Karina, and Timoty
grafted on Gelatik differed from un-grafted plants. The fruit size and higher yields on
grafted plants are likely due to their resistance to soil-borne diseases, robust root systems,
and increased photosynthesis [37]. The yields were higher than un-grafted plants because
the grafted plants have larger fruit sizes and a higher number of fruits per plant [38]. Cervo,
Karina, and Timoty grafted onto Gelatik increased fruit diameter, and so did those grafted
onto EG203 and Takokak rootstocks. As fruit diameter increases, fruit tends to be more
rounded. Fruit shape becomes a determinant of quality in the selection of tomatoes [39].
Tomato fruit varies in size, shape, colour, hardness, taste, and content of solid ingredients.
Physical characteristics affect the prevailing price. Oval and hard fruits are famous, making
them easy to market [40]. In another study, grafting technology using selected eggplant
rootstock improved the morphological characteristics of tomato fruits [41].
There was an increase in the fruit weight of Cervo and Karina grafted onto Takokak
compared to un-grafted Cervo, Karina, and Timoty. The study found no difference among
treatments against the control since weight loss measures tomato quality. Tomato fruit
has a high water content, which determines its freshness and durability. The longer the
tomatoes are stored, the lower the weight because water loss during storage reduces the
freshness and durability of the fruit. Refs. [42,43] showed that tomatoes after harvest still
respire, causing weight loss [44].
Varieties of scions affect size, yield, and quality, and the rootstock can affect charac-
teristics. Different production environments, combinations of scions and rootstock, and
harvest periods can affect responses [17]. Rootstock affects fruit shape, skin colour, texture,
smoothness, and dissolved solid content [45].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 8 of 15

Table 3. Tomato shape and size grafted onto eggplant rootstocks.

b Fruit Length b Fruit Width b Fruit Weight

Treatment
(cm) (cm) (g)
Control (non-grafted)
Cervo variety 5.0 e 3.99 d 68.80 d
Karina variety 2.2 a 2.81 a 20.07 a
Timoty variety 3.9 c 2.90 a 53.33 c
a RS Gelatik eggplant (grafted)

Cervo variety 4.5 d 4.29 e 69.30 d

Karina variety 2.3 a 2.81 a 21.33 a
Timoty variety 4.03 c 3.85 c 54.10 c
a RS EG203 line (grafted)

Cervo variety 5.3 f 4.25 e 72.40 d

Karina variety 2.2 a 2.90 a 22.60 ab
Timoty variety 4.0 c 4.10 d 53.67 c
a RS Takokak (grafted)

Cervo variety 5.4 f 4.80 f 78.83 e

Karina variety 2.7 b 3.20 b 27.33 b
Timoty variety 4.0 c 4.10 d 51.50 c
LSD 5% 0.2 0.11 4.80
CV 8.1 3.36 5.60
a RS = rootstock; b values in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different; LSD test at 5%.

3.5. Fruit Contents

The nutrient contents of tomatoes were significantly different when the treatments
and varieties were different (see Table A4). Table 4 indicates the level of differences in the
contents of tomatoes. Brix content, fruit hardness, and lycopene content in other crops
could increase due to grafting treatment [15]. Fruit quality (Brix, fruit hardness, fruit
thickness, and fruit shape) was influenced by grafting [46], as was the case in this work.
Grafting technology can be used to improve fruit quality [47]. Fruit from grafting plants
could produce better quality than non-grafted depending on the type of rootstock [48].
Grafting, as a substitute for soil fumigation in control of pests and diseases, did not affect
the concentration of dissolved solids of grafted and un-grafted plants [49].
The vitamin C contents of various treatments were not different. The vitamin C content
decreased in tomato fruit of plants grafted onto ‘Beaufort F10 and ‘Maxifort F10 rootstocks
compared to un-grafted plants [50,51].
Total dissolved solids is a chemical change that affects sweetness. The fruits contained
most total solids in the form of sugar. Cervo grafted onto Gelatik had TDS values higher
than un-grafted Cervo. When Timoty was grafted on Gelatik rootstock, there was no change
in TDS. Compared to the control, Cervo scions grafted on the EG203 line increased TDS,
but Timoty grafted on EG203 decreased TDS. Grafted Cervo and Timoty on Takokak could
increase TDS. Grafted Karina had a TDS level similar to un-grafted.
Fruit texture softened during storage. Fruit hardness is an essential indicator in
determining the maturity of tomatoes. Fruits that begin the maturation process tend to
have fruit hardness softer than before the maturation process. Grafting Cervo, Karina,
and Timoty onto Gelatik increased the fruit hardness levels; Gelatik has the highest fruit
hardness [52]. Varieties of tomatoes grafted onto Gelatik also had high fruit hardness. This
is because of no genetic exchange. It uses the rootstock as Gelatik and Takokak have roots
that absorb nutrients and are robust, so the fruit of tomatoes becomes hard.
Grafting Cervo, Karina, and Timoty onto EG203 and Takokak increased the fruit
hardness. Fruit hardness is related to water content. If tomato fruit has a high fruit
hardness level, it indicates low water content; if there is high water content, the fruit will
have a low hardness level. Consumers prefer a tomato with a high fruit hardness level
and moderate water content [53]. The water content of fruit decreased when EG203 was
used as a rootstock. The water contents of Cervo, Karina, and Timoty grafted on Takokak
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 9 of 15

decreased. A more mature fruit will increase in water content, total dissolved solids, red
colour intensity, and fruit aroma and texture, but vitamin C content, total acid, and fruit
hardness level will decrease [54].

Table 4. Nutrient contents of tomato fruit grafted onto eggplant rootstocks.

b b b b b Red Colour Intensity b Lycopene

Treatment Vit C TDS Fruit Hardness Water
Content (%) (Brix) (mm·g−1 ·s−1 ) Content (%) L a+ b+ Content (%)
Control (Non-grafted)
Cervo
0.23 ab 3 b 30.33 a 96.7 d 44.0 e 30.5 b 27.8 h 0.18 ab
variety
Karina
0.27 a 5 e 31.67 ab 95.5 c 38.7 ab 31.6 bc 19.3 b 0.17 a
variety
Timoty
0.53 a 3 b 31.67 ab 95.8 c 39.7 b 37.1 g 22.7 de 0.31 i
variety
a RS Gelatik eggplant (grafted)

Cervo
0.22 a 4.5 d 36.00 cde 93.8 a 39.3 ab 35.6 g 20.9 c 0.27 g
variety
Karina
0.31 a 5 e 33.63 bc 94.6 b 38.5 a 28.1 a 16.6 a 0.21 de
variety
Timoty
0.93 a 3 b 38.20 e 93.9 a 41.6 d 36.0 fg 23.2 de 0.24 f
variety
a RS EG203 line (grafted)

Cervo
0.25 a 3.3 c 37.07 de 94.3 b 41.7 d 34 ef 24.4 f 0.44 k
variety
Karina
0.78 a 5 e 34.33 b-d 94.0 a 47.8 f 28.1 a 34.1 i 0.42 j
variety
Timoty
0.65 a 2.8 a 32.60 ab 95.7 c 40.7 c 33.7 de 22.5 d 0.28 h
variety
a RS Takokak (grafted)

Cervo
0.16 a 5 e 38.57 e 94.1 b 41.7 d 33.2 cd 23.7 ef 0.2 cd
variety
Karina
0.25 a 5 e 38.47 e 94.3 b 43.5 e 26.6 a 25.8 g 0.19 bc
variety
Timoty
0.37 a 5 e 32.83 ab 95.6 c 41.4 cd 34.4 ef 24.4 f 0.22 e
variety
LSD 5% 2.15 0.1 2.8 0.68 0.89 1.71 1.1 0.01
CV 6.17 4.0 9.7 0.85 2.6 6.33 5.3 2.7
a RS = rootstock; b values in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; LSD test at 5%.

The colour parameters include brightness (L), red and green colour intensity (a+), and
yellow and blue colour intensity (b+). Higher L values result in a brighter or almost white
colour, while higher a+ indicates red colour, and lower greenness and higher b+ indicate
more yellow colour than blue. The longer the storage time, the smaller the value of L and
b+. Grafting Cervo and Karina onto Gelatik caused darker fruit than the control or Cervo
grafted onto the EG203 line and Takokak. Karina and Timoty grafted onto EG203 and
Takokak rootstocks had higher brightness than Karina onto the same rootstocks. Freshness
level is closely related to water content, which affects brightness. This finding is consistent
with another study [55]. If the L value is >50, tomatoes are classified as bright; <50 tomatoes
are classified as dull [56].
Cervo grafted with Gelatik, EG203 line, and Takokak tended to have a redder colour
intensity (a+) than non-grafted Cervo. Karina and Timoty grafted on Gelatik, EG203, and
Takokak had fruit with a tendency toward green colour compared to un-grafted Karina
and Timoty. They had more yellowness than their counterparts. Lycopene is a bright red
carotenoid pigment with antioxidant properties in tomatoes [43,57]. Likewise, Cervo and
Karina grafted on Gelatik rootstock increased lycopene content. Cervo and Karina grafted
on EG203 rootstock increased lycopene content. Cervo and Karina grafted on Takokak
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 10 of 15

rootstock had decreased lycopene content compared to un-grafted plants. The lycopene
content in Timoty grafted onto Gelatik, EG203, and Takokak decreased. The findings
support evidence that lycopene content was affected by genotype but not by the growing
environment [58] and the grafting technology [59].
Grafting Cervo and Timoty onto EG203 was not different from Gelatik and Takokak
in terms of disease incidence since rootstocks of Gelatik, EG 203, and Takokak are more
resistant to disease. Grafting Gelatik on Takokak and EG203 suppressed plant disease
compared to un-grafted plants. The EG203 line as a rootstock produced higher resistance
to wilt disease than the control. Gelatik and Takokak rootstocks suppressed diseases
compared to controls. Gelatik and Takokak were moderately resistant to wilt. Using
Gelatik, Takokak, and EG203 as rootstocks with scions of Cervo produced higher quality
because of increased fruit hardness, reduced water content, TDS, red colour intensity, and
lycopene content. The EG203 line has limited availability, but it could be substituted with
Gelatik and Takokak local and wild eggplants. Grafting technology applied in tomatoes
using local eggplants as rootstocks improved crop performance in terms of reduction
in disease incidence, agronomic aspects, quality and quantity of product, and nutrient
contents. The agronomic performance simultaneously provides a potential for economic
performance. During the rainy season, the prices of tomatoes and other vegetables are
high because the off-season for vegetables is in the wet season when the incidences of
diseases are high. Grafting technology can provide a plausible alternative for farmers to
generate high profits during the off-season because the technology potentially reduces the
incidences of soil-borne diseases of tomatoes.

4. Conclusions
Tomato is one of the highly valued vegetables in Indonesia. Production in tropical
areas faces severe limiting factors from biotic and abiotic stresses. Grafting technology
using local eggplants as a rootstock can potentially mitigate the stresses. Two local types of
eggplants were compared to a recommended line of eggplant imported from The World
Vegetable Center—Taiwan. Three high-yielding hybrid varieties of tomatoes were used
as the scion. Tested in the field where wilt diseases and water logging problems persist,
grafting technology worked as expected. The wilt disease incidence in grafted tomatoes
was significantly lower than in un-grafted ones. Due to grafting technology, the healthy
plants of tomatoes agronomically performed much better and produced fruits higher in
terms of quality and quantity. This condition leads to economic advantages during the
wet season, which is off-season for most vegetables. Farmers can potentially gain more
return when they grow tomatoes using grafting technology during the off-season. It is
recommended that the selected local rootstocks can substitute for imported ones. Other
local potential rootstocks need to be tested to provide more alternatives.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, E.L. and J.M.; data curation, E.L., J.M. and S.S.A.; formal
analysis, J.M. and E.L.; funding acquisition, E.L., W.H. and S.S.; investigation, J.M., S.S. and S.S.A.;
methodology, E.L., J.M., W.H., S.S.A. and S.S.; project administration, E.L., W.H. and S.S.; resources,
J.M. and S.S.A.; supervision, J.M. and S.S.A.; validation, S.S.; visualisation, J.M. and S.S.; writing—
original draft, E.L. and J.M.; writing—review and editing, E.L., S.S. and J.M. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The field trials were conducted on infrastructure supported by a project from the Indonesian
Ministry of Agriculture, financial support Number: 117.1/Kpts/KP.320/H.1/4/2017.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the authors.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 11 of 15

Acknowledgments: The project was financed by the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture; the authors
also thank Eko Widaryanto, Dawam Maghfoer, and Ariffin of Brawijaya University, who assisted
provide feedbacks and constructive suggestions to this article. All interpretations and shortcomings
are the responsibility of the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Results of analysis of variance related to disease incidences.

Source Sum of Square df Mean Square F p>F

Model 77,831.555 a 72 1,080.994 431.469 0.000
Grafted 28,289.112 3 9,429.704 3,763.783 0.000
Variety 8,124.325 2 4,062.163 1,621.376 0.000
Grafted × Variety 12,819.812 6 2,136.635 852.819 0.000
Grafted × Time 3,185.523 15 212.368 84.765 0.000
Variety × Time 1,049.399 10 104.940 41.886 0.000
Grafted × Variety × Time 1,657.151 30 55.238 22.048 0.000
Error 360.775 144 2.505
Total 78,192.330 216
Note: the variable weeks after transplanting (T) is to be considered along with variety (V), and it is to be
determined if the main effects or the T by V interaction controls the results. a R Squared = 0.995 (adjusted R
squared = 0.993).

Table A2. Results of analysis of variance related to flowering and fruiting stages.

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p>F

Flowering age (DAT)
Replication 21.0555556 2 10.52777778 4.606629834
Varieties 202.8888889 11 18.44444444 8.070718232 1.9 × 10−5
Error 50.2777778 22 2.28535354
Total 274.2222222 35 7.83492064
Number of Flower (Flower/plant)
Replication 3,712.38889 2 1,856.194444 4.99122693
Varieties 29,080.88889 11 2,643.717172 7.10884164 5.2 × 10−5
Error 8,181.61111 22 371.891414
Total 40,974.88889 35 1,170.711111
Number Fruit Set (%)
Replication 1.722222222 2 0.861111111 0.187671987
Varieties 10,158.30556 11 923.4823232 201.2652724 2.0 × 10−19
Error 100.9444444 22 4.588383838
Total 10,260.97222 35 293.1706349

Table A3. Results of analysis of variance related to yield aspects.

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p>F

Time to early age (DAT)
Replication 40.05555556 2 20.02777778 1.636269858
Varieties 636.2222222 11 57.83838384 4.725397153 0.000962
Error 269.2777778 22 12.23989899
Total 945.5555556 35 27.01587302
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 12 of 15

Table A3. Cont.

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p>F

Number of fruit/plant
Replication 1497.625817 2 748.8129083 3.894014193
Varieties 48612.3982 11 4419.308927 22.98151046 1.5 × 10−9
Error 4230.565983 22 192.2984538
Total 54340.59 35 1552.588286
Weight of fruit (g/plant)
Replication 7513428.222 2 3756714.111 6.3483301
Varieties 162789261.2 11 14799023.75 25.00831448 6.7 × 10−10
Error 13018811.11 22 591764.1414
Total 183321500.6 35 5237757.159
Yield (t·ha−1 )
Replication 29.20621667 2 14.60310833 2.793267704
Varieties 5526.696408 11 502.4269462 96.10371509 5.8 × 10−16
Error 115.01525 22 5.227965909
Total 5670.917875 35 162.026225

Table A4. Results of analysis of variance related to shape and size of fruit.

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p>F

Length of fruit (cm)
Replication 46.87262222 11 4.261147475 45.51857117
Varieties 1.152438889 2 0.576219444 6.1553105 0.00753243
Error 2.059494444 22 0.093613384
Total 50.08455556 35 1.430987302
Diameter of fruit (cm)
Replication 14.89008889 11 1.353644444 81.7849656
Varieties 0.320205556 2 0.160102778 9.673145874 0.000967937
Error 0.364127778 22 0.016551263
Total 15.57442222 35 0.444983492
Weight of fruit (g)
Replication 2.451805556 2 1.225902778 0.158506513
Varieties 15242.14576 11 1385.649615 179.1614247 7.1 × 10−19
Error 170.1498611 22 7.734084596
Total 15414.74743 35 440.4213552

Table A5. Results of analysis of variance related to nutrient contents.

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p>F

Vitamin C content
Replication 0.000682722 2 0.000341361 0.208282038
Varieties 2.046082536 11 0.186007503 113.4927811 9.7 × 10−17
Error 0.036056611 22 0.001638937
Total 2.08282187 35 0.059509196
TSS (Brix)
Replication 0.166666667 2 0.083333333 3.14285714
Varieties 33.5625 11 3.051136364 115.071429 8.4 × 10−17
Error 0.583333333 22 0.026515152
Total 34.3125 35 0.980357143
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 13 of 15

Table A5. Cont.

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p>F

Hardness
Replication 4.270555556 2 2.135277778 0.189933355
Varieties 285.6830556 11 25.97118687 2.310141894 0.045541
Error 247.3294444 22 11.24224747
Total 537.2830556 35 15.35094444
Water content
Replication 2.246666667 2 1.123333333 1.816266536
Varieties 28.00666667 11 2.546060606 4.116609505 0.002307
Error 13.60666667 22 0.618484848
Total 43.86 35 1.253142857
Colour intensity (L)
Replication 3.401666667 2 1.700833333 1.514197073
Varieties 228.5941667 11 20.78128788 18.5009105 1.2 × 10−8
Error 24.71166667 22 1.123257576
Total 256.7075 35 7.3345
Colour intensity (a+ )
Replication 8.523888889 2 4.261944444 1.040658778
Varieties 382.3947222 11 34.76315657 8.488281467 1.3 × 10−5
Error 90.09944444 22 4.095429293
Total 481.0180556 35 13.74337302
Colour intensity (b+ )
Replication 15.36347222 2 7.681736111 4.876608621
Varieties 631.3407639 11 57.3946149 36.43591367 1.5 × 10−11
Error 34.65486111 22 1.57522096
Total 681.3590972 35 19.46740278
Lycopene levels
Replication 0.000193898 2 9.6949 × 10−5 1.926509837
Varieties 0.267789301 11 0.024344482 483.7572456 1.4 × 10−23
Error 0.001107123 22 5.0324 × 10−5
Total 0.269090322 35 0.007688295

References
1. Wijaya, A.F.; Kuntariningsih, A.; Sarwono, S.; Suryono, A. Malnutrition mitigation and community empowerment through the
sustainable food reserve programme in Indonesia. Dev. Pract. 2021, 31, 37–48. [CrossRef]
2. Wijaya, A.F.; Kuntariningsih, A.; Sarwono, S.; Suryono, A. Role and contribution of vegetables in mitigating malnutrition through
a sustainable food reserve program. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2021, 27, 65–75. [CrossRef]
3. Gatahi, D.M. Challenges and Opportunities in Tomato Production Chain and Sustainable Standards. Int. J. Hortic. Sci. Technol.
2020, 7, 235–262.
4. Garrido, J.; Luque-Romero, J. Integrated pest management in mediterranean greenhouses. European Crop Protection; Cajamar: Almeria,
Spain, 2014.
5. Mariyono, J.; Kompas, T.; Grafton, R.Q. Shifting from Green Revolution to environmentally sound policies: Technological change
in Indonesian rice agriculture. J. Asia Pac. Econ. 2010, 15, 128–147. [CrossRef]
6. Mariyono, J. Socially inefficient use of pesticides due to negative externalities: A case of Indonesian rice agriculture. Int. J. Ecol.
Dev. 2009, 13, 93–107.
7. De la Pena, R.; Hughes, J. Improving vegetable productivity in a variable and changing climate. SAT eJournal 2007, 4, 1–22.
8. Schreinemachers, P.; Afari-Sefa, V.; Heng, C.H.; Dung, P.T.M.; Praneetvatakul, S.; Srinivasan, R. Safe and sustainable crop
protection in Southeast Asia: Status, challenges and policy options. Env. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 357–366. [CrossRef]
9. Kyriacou, M.C.; Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G.; Zrenner, R.; Schwarz, D. Vegetable grafting: The implications of a growing agronomic
imperative for vegetable fruit quality and nutritive value. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 741. [CrossRef]
10. Hartmann, H.T.; Kester, D.E.; Davies, F.T.; Geneve, R.L. Plant Propagation: Principles and Practices; Prentice Hall: New York, NY,
USA, 2001.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 14 of 15

11. Midmore, D.J.; Roan, Y.; Wu, M. Management Practices To Improve Lowland Subtropical Summer Tomato Production: Yields,
Economic Returns And Risk. Exp. Agric. 1997, 33, 125–137. [CrossRef]
12. Schwarz, D.; Oztekin, G.; Tuzel, Y.; Brucknera, B.; Krumbeina, A. Rootstocks can enhance tomato growth and quality characteristics
at low potassium supply. Sci. Hort. 2013, 149, 70–79. [CrossRef]
13. Petran, J.A. Interspecific Grafting of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) onto Wild Eggplant (Solanum torvum) for Increased Environ-
mental Tolerances. Master’s Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA, September 2013.
14. Kariada, K.; Aribawa, I. Grafting of tomato with eggplant rootstock at Panyabangan Village Payangan subdistrict of Gianyar Bali.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security: A Comprehensive Approach,
Jatinangor, Indonesia, 12–13 October 2015.
15. Sánchez-Rodríguez, E.; Ruiz, J.M.; Ferreres, F.; Moreno, D.A. Phenolic profiles of cherry tomatoes as influenced by hydric stress
and rootstock technique. Food Chem. 2012, 134, 775–782. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Rahmatian, A.; Motjaba, D.; Reza, S. Effect of grafting on growth, yield and fruit quality of single and double stemmed tomato
plants grown hydroponically. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2014, 55, 115–119. [CrossRef]
17. Davis, A.R.; Perkins-Veazie, P.; Hassell, R.; Levi, A.; King, S.R.; Zhang, W. Grafting effects on vegetable quality. HortScience 2008,
43, 1670–1672. [CrossRef]
18. Vrcek, I.V.; Samobor, V.; Bojic, M.; Medicsaric, M.; Vukobratovic, M.; Erhatic, R.; Horvat, D.; Matotan, Z. The effect of grafting on
the antioxidant properties of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Span. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 9, 844–851. [CrossRef]
19. Yassin, H.; Hussen, S. Review on role of grafting on yield and quality of selected fruit vegetables. Glob. J. Sci Front Res. 2015, 15,
1–17.
20. Achim, G.; Botu, I. Results in walnut propagation using different methods. Acta Hortic. 2001, 544, 503–509. [CrossRef]
21. Ebrahimi, A.; Vahdati, K. Improved success of Persian walnut grafting under environmentally controlled conditions. Int. J. Fruit
Sci. 2007, 6, 3–12. [CrossRef]
22. Lee, J.-M.; Kubota, C.; Tsao, S.J.; Bie, Z.; Echevarria, P.H.; Morra, L.; Oda, M. Current status of vegetable grafting: Diffusion,
grafting techniques, automation. Sci. Hort. 2010, 127, 93–105. [CrossRef]
23. Som, P.B.; Madhava, S.R. Evaluation of tomato varieties for pest and disease adaptation and productivity in Botswana. Int. J.
Agric. Food Res. 2013, 2, 20–29.
24. Nur Fitriana, Y.A.; Fitri, A.S. Analisis Kadar Vitamin C pada Buah Jeruk Menggunakan Metode Titrasi Iodometri (Analysis of
Vooooitamin C Levels in Citrus Fruits Using the Iodometric Titration Method). Sainteks 2020, 17, 27–32. [CrossRef]
25. Sharma, S.K.; Sharma, S.K.; Le Maguer, M. Lycopene in Tomatoes and Tomato Pulp Fractions. Ital. J. Food Sci. 1996, 8, 107–113.
26. Regina, A.; Maimunah; dan Yovita, L. Penentuan Aktivitas Antioksidan, Kadar Fenolat Total dan Likopen pada Buah Tomat
(Solanum lycopersicum L.). J. Sains Dan Teknol. Farm. 2008, 13, 31–37.
27. Gomez, K.A.; Gomez, A.A. Statistical Procedures for Agriculture Research, 2nd ed.; John Wiley Sons: Los Banos, Philippines, 1984.
28. Suhartiningsih. Penyakit Layu Bakteri Masih Ancam Petani Tomat. 2015. Available online: https://ugm.ac.id/id/berita/10002-
penyakit.layu.bakteri.masih.ancam.petani.tomat (accessed on 28 March 2021).
29. Manickam, R.; Chen, J.-R.; Sotelo-Cardona, P.; Kenyon, L.; Srinivasan, R. Evaluation of Different Bacterial Wilt Resistant Eggplant
Rootstocks for Grafting Tomato. Plants 2021, 10, 75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Zhou, X.G.; Everts, K.L. Races and inoculum density of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum in commercial watermelon fields in
Maryland and Delaware. Plant Dis. 2003, 87, 692–698. [CrossRef]
31. Oztekin, G.B.; Tuzel, Y. Effects of Grafting on Organic Seedling Quality and Tomato Production in Greenhouse. Tekirdağ Ziraat
Fakültesi Dergisi 2017, 41–47.
32. Azis, A.A.H.; Al Omran, R.A.; Alqardaeai, T.; Razzak, A.H.; Khadejah, A.; Saad, M.; Obiad, A. Tomato grafting impacts on yield
and fruit quality under water stress conditions. J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2017, 5, 137–5147.
33. Melnyk, C.W.; Meyerowitz, E.M. Plant grafting. Cur. Bio. 2015, 25, 183–188. [CrossRef]
34. Lee, J.M.P. Cultivation of grafted plants, I. Current status, grafting methods and benefits. HortScience 1994, 29, 235–239. [CrossRef]
35. Turhan, A.; Ozmen, N.; Serbeci, M.; Seniz, V. Effects of grafting on different rootstocks on tomato fruit yield and quality. Hortic.
Sci. 2011, 38, 142–149. [CrossRef]
36. Rouphael, Y.; Schwarz, D.; Krumbein, A.; Colla, G. Impact of grafting on product quality of fruit vegetables. Sci. Hort. 2010, 127,
172–179. [CrossRef]
37. Qi, H.; Li, T.; Liu, Y. Effects of grafting on photosynthesis characteristics, yield, and sugar content in melon. J. Shenyang Agric.
Univ. 2006, 37, 155–158.
38. Salam, M.A.; Masum, A.S.M.H.; Chowdhury, S.S.; Dhar, M.; Saddeque, A.; Islam, M.R. Growth and yield of watermelon as
influenced by grafting. J. Biol. Sci. 2002, 2, 298–299.
39. Murti, R.H.; Kurniawati, T.; Nasrullah. Pola pewarisan karakter buah tomat (Pattern of inheritance of tomato characters). Zuriat J.
2004, 15, 140–149.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 855 15 of 15

40. Ambarwati, E.; Maya, G.A.P.; Trinowati, S.; Murti, R.H. Mutu buah tomat dua galur harapan keturunan “GM3” dengan Gondol
Putih. (Fruit quality of two tomato lines “GM3” with Gondol Putih). In Proceedings of the Seminar Nasional Hasil Penelitian
Pertanian dan Perikanan “Peranan Penelitian Bidang Pertanian dan Perikanan dalam Mewujudkan Kedaulatan Pangan untuk
Kesejahteraan Petani dan Masyarakat” (National Seminar on Agriculture and Fisheries Research Results on The Role of Research
in Agriculture and Fisheries in Achieving Food Sovereignty for the Welfare of Farmers and Communities), Yogyakarta, Indonesia,
1–2 September 2012.
41. Musa, I.; Rafii, M.Y.; Ahmad, K.; Ramlee, S.I.; Md Hatta, M.A.; Oladosu, Y.; Muhammad, I.; Chukwu, S.C.; Mat Sulaiman, N.N.;
Ayanda, A.F.; et al. Effects of Grafting on Morphophysiological and Yield Characteristic of Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.)
Grafted onto Wild Relative Rootstocks. Plants 2020, 9, 1583. [CrossRef]
42. Mohammed, M.; Wilson, L.A.; Gomes, P.L. Postharvest sensory and physiochemical attributes of processing and non-processing
tomato cultivar. J. Food Qual. 1999, 22, 167–182. [CrossRef]
43. Tigist, M.; Tilahun, S.W.; Kebede, W. Effects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient conditions. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 2013, 50, 477–486. [CrossRef]
44. Saiduna; Madkar, O.R. Pengaruh Suhu dan Tingkat Kematangan Buah terhadap Mutu dan Lama Simpan Tomat (Lycopersicum
esculentum Mill.). J. Agroswagati 2013, 1, 43–50.
45. Zhu, J.; Bie, Z.L.; Huang, Y.; Han, X.Y. Effects of different grafting methods on the grafting work efficiency and growth of
cucumber seedlings. China Veg. 2006, 15, 24–25.
46. Yetisir, H.; Sari, N.; Yncel, S. Rootstock resistance to Fusarium wilt and effect on water melon fruit yield and quality. Phytoparasitica
2003, 31, 163–169. [CrossRef]
47. Martínez-Ballesta, M.C.; López-Pérez, L.; Hernández, M.; López-Berenguer, C.; Fernández-García, N.; Carvajal, M. Agriculture
practices for enhanced human health. Phytochem. Rev. 2008, 7, 251–260. [CrossRef]
48. Fernández-García, N.; Martinez, V.; Carvajal, M. Effect of salinity on growth, mineral composition, and water relations of grafted
tomato plants. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2004, 167, 616–622. [CrossRef]
49. Miguel, A.; Maroto, J.; Bautista, A.S.; Baixauli, C.; Cebolla, V.; Pascual, B.; López, S.; Guardiola, J. The grafting of triploid
watermelon is an advantageous alternative to soil fumigation by methyl bromide for control of Fusarium wilt. Sci. Hort. 2004, 103,
9–17. [CrossRef]
50. Di Gioia, F.; Serio, F.; Buttaro, D.; Ayala, O.; Santamaria, P. Vegetative growth, yield, and fruit quality of ‘Cuore di Bue’, an
heirloom tomato, as influenced by rootstock. J. Hort. Sci. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 477–482. [CrossRef]
51. Ellenberger, J.; Bulut, A.; Blömeke, P.; Röhlen-Schmittgen, S. Novel S. pennellii × S. lycopersicum Hybrid Rootstocks for Tomato
Production with Reduced Water and Nutrient Supply. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 355. [CrossRef]
52. Sahid, O.T.; Murti, R.H.; Trisnowati, S. Hasil dan mutu enam galur terung (Solanum melongena L.) (Yield and quality of six
eggplants (Solanum melongena L.) lines). Vegetalika 2014, 3, 45–58.
53. Ryall, M.; Lipton, L. Tomatoes commodity requirements of ryie fruits handling. In Transportation and Storage of Fruit and Vegetables;
The AVI Publ. Con.: West Point, CT, USA, 1972.
54. Julianti, E. Pengaruh tingkat kematangan dan suhu penyimpanan terhadap mutu buah terong belanda (Effect of maturity and
temperature storage on quality of Dutch eggplant) (Cyphomandra betacea). J. Hort. Indones. 2011, 2, 14–20. [CrossRef]
55. Arthur, J.D.; Li, T.; Lalk, G.T.; Bi, G. High Tunnel Production of Containerized Hybrid and Heirloom Tomatoes Using Grafted
Plants with Two Types of Rootstocks. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 319. [CrossRef]
56. Wuryani, S.; Heti, H.; Dedik, S. Respon kualitas hasil tomat cherry (Lycopersicon cerasiforme Mill.) terhadap penggunaan teknologi
sonic bloom dengan berbagai pupuk daun (Quality response of cherry tomato (Lycopersicon cerasiforme Mill.) toward use of sonic
bloom technology with various foliar fertilizers). Agrivet 2014, 18, 1–5.
57. Woodall, A.A.; Lee, S.W.; Weesie, R.J.; Jackson, M.J.; Britton, G. Oxidation of carotenoids by free radicals, relationship between
structure and reactivity. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1997, 1336, 33–42. [CrossRef]
58. Rana, N.; Kumar, M.; Walia, A.; Sharma, S. Tomato fruit quality under protected environment and open field conditions. Int. J.
Bio-Resour. Stress Manag. 2014, 5, 422–426. [CrossRef]
59. Naik, S.; Hongal, S.; Harshavardhan, M.; Chandan, K.; Kumar, A.; Ashok; Kyriacou, M.; Rouphael, Y.; Kumar, P. Productive
Characteristics and Fruit Quality Traits of Cherry Tomato Hybrids as Modulated by Grafting on Different Solanum spp. Rootstocks
under Ralstonia solanacearum Infested Greenhouse Soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1311. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.