How does grafting affect the ionome of cherry tomato plants under water stress?

Figures & data

Figure 1 Outline of the grafting design.

Figure 2 Influence of moderate water stress on root biomass and root efficiency in ungrafted, grafted and self-grafted tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants. Columns are mean ± SE (n = 9) and differences between means were compared by Fisher’s least-significant difference test (LSD; P = 0.05). Asterisk (*) indicates significant difference with control groups. DW, dry weight.

Table 1 Influence of moderate water stress on foliar concentration of macronutrients (mg g⁻¹ dry weight, DW) in ungrafted, grafted and self-grafted tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants.

Cultivar/water treatment	N	P	S	Ca	Mg	K
Zar ungrafted
Well-watered	15.9 ± 0.9	3.3 ± 0.3	31.7 ± 0.9	13.1 ± 0.2	2.3 ± 0.0	20.7 ± 0.2
Water stress	18.5 ± 1.4*^a	5.1 ± 0.2*	21.8 ± 2.8*	11.9 ± 0.2	2.4 ± 0.1	26.6 ± 1.0*
LSD0.05	2.6	0.9	8.19	1.9	0.2	2.9
ZarxZar
Well-watered	16.2 ± 0.3	2.7 ± 0.3	30.3 ± 0.7	16.7 ± 2.4	1.8 ± 0.1	28.4 ± 5.4
Water stress	19.4 ± 1.2*	4.4 ± 0.3*	24.3 ± 2.2*	13.2 ± 0.7	2.1 ± 0.1	27.9 ± 2.2
LSD0.05	2.8	1.0	4.4	7.0	0.5	6.3
Jos ungrafted
Well-watered	18.7 ± 1.2	5.4 ± 2.8	28.4 ± 0.6	13.4 ± 0.9	2.3 ± 0.0	21.8 ± 1.9
Water stress	14.4 ± 1.3*	2.8 ± 0.3*	28.3 ± 0.8	12.3 ± 0.1	2.5 ± 0.1	18.5 ± 0.7
LSD0.05	2.9	1.1	3.1	2.6	0.4	5.7
JosxJos
Well-watered	15.8 ± 0.4	4.1 ± 0.1	33.1 ± 0.8	13.9 ± 1.4	2.0 ± 0.0	23.7 ± 0.8
Water stress	13.2 ± 0.9*	3.3 ± 0.1*	27.8 ± 1.3*	13.3 ± 1.6	2.1 ± 0.0	17.1 ± 1.4*
LSD0.05	2.2	0.5	4.4	2.1	0.1	4.5
JosxZar
Well-watered	18.1 ± 0.6	4.2 ± 0.1	19.0 ± 3.1	10.7 ± 0.1	2.9 ± 0.1	30.3 ± 0.4
Water stress	17.7 ± 0.4	3.8 ± 0.3	29.1 ± 2.1	11.2 ± 0.3	2.1 ± 0.2*	23.5 ± 0.6*
LSD0.05	1.6	0.6	10.5	1.0	0.4	2.1
ZarxJos
Well-watered	15.6 ± 0.3	3.9 ± 0.4	33.1 ± 0.8	16.1 ± 0.9	1.7 ± 0.0	11.4 ± 0.5
Water stress	19.8 ± 0.4*	5.8 ± 0.4*	25.8 ± 0.6*	14.2 ± 0.6	2.4 ± 0.1*	16.8 ± 1.6*
LSD0.05	1.1	1.3	2.9	3.1	0.2	2.7
Analysis of variance
Cultivars (C)	***^b	**	***	***	***	***
Treatments (T)	ns	ns	**	***	**	***
C × T	*	*	***	*	***	***
LSD	1.82	1.75	1.65	1.06	0.10	1.94

Values are mean ± S.E. (n = 9) and differences between means were compared by Fisher’s least-significance test (LSD; P = 0.05).

^aAsterisk (*) indicates significant difference with controls groups (well-watered).

^bThe levels of significance were represented by p > 0.05: ns (not significant), p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***).N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; S, sulfur; Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium; K, potassium.

Table 2 Influence of moderate water stress on foliar concentration of micronutrient (µg g⁻¹ dry weight, DW) in ungrafted, grafted and self-grafted tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants.

Cultivar/Water Treatment	Fe	Cu	Mn	Zn	B	Cl (mg g^−1 DW)
Zar ungrafted
Well-watered	271 ± 28.7	98 ± 11.1	597 ± 73.7	35.0 ± 5.9	132 ± 15.6	20.9 ± 0.3
Water stress	306 ± 77.9*^a	134 ± 2.4*	654 ± 61.3	32.5 ± 1.4	149 ± 3.1	22.7 ± 0.4*
LSD0.05	25.6	31.5	166.1	7.1	33.8	1.1
ZarxZar
Well-watered	202 ± 9.0	100 ± 12.9	789 ± 81.7	24.6 ± 2.6	140 ± 6.8	21.3 ± 0.3
Water stress	341 ± 41.5*	125 ± 9.1	831 ± 75.5	18.9 ± 0.5	142 ± 6.8	20.5 ± 0.2
LSD0.05	78.0	44.1	76.1	7.5	20.5	0.9
Jos ungrafted
Well-watered	281 ± 21.6	89 ± 7.2	579 ± 88.4	15.7 ± 3.4	155 ± 3.2	17.4 ± 0.3
Water stress	230 ± 21.0	66 ± 7.6*	380 ± 19.1*	8.9 ± 2.2*	105 ± 6.4*	17.2 ± 0.1
LSD0.05	83.8	15.3	68.2	1.2	15.2	0.8
JosxJos
Well-watered	191 ± 19.9	92 ± 15.4	645 ± 79.8	16.8 ± 2.0	136 ± 7.8	18.3 ± 0.1
Water stress	248 ± 15.5	117 ± 22.2	634 ± 56.1	7.0 ± 3.1*	154 ± 5.5	16.2 ± 0.4*
LSD0.05	70.2	25.2	36.6	1.2	20.3	0.8
JosxZar
Well-watered	236 ± 7.1	92 ± 11.4	592 ± 61.7	50.6 ± 0.8	156 ± 2.3	16.3 ± 0.1
Water stress	277 ± 6.3	105 ± 8.9	668 ± 87.9	21.1 ± 2.4*	139 ± 1.8*	15.4 ± 0.2*
LSD0.05	86.4	40.3	98.9	7.2	6.4	0.7
ZarxJos
Well-watered	240 ± 31.6	75 ± 6.8	830 ± 64.9	11.7 ± 1.8	161 ± 6.8	18.2 ± 0.1
Water stress	435 ± 62.1*	117 ± 13.2*	780 ± 21.3*	20.2 ± 6.7	161 ± 4.7	18.3 ± 0.6
LSD0.05	53.6	41.4	68.6	9.3	17.7	1.4
Analysis of variance
Cultivars (C)	***^b	***	***	***	***	***
Treatments(T)	ns	***	ns	***	ns	***
C × T	***	ns	ns	***	***	**
LSD	35.34	12.51	130.79	3.27	13.69	0.64

Values are mean ± SE. (n = 9) and differences between means were compared by Fisher’s least-significance test (LSD; P = 0.05).

^aAsterisk (*) indicates significant difference with controls groups (well-watered).

^bThe levels of significance were represented by p > 0.05: ns (not significant), p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***).Fe, iron; Cu, copper; Mn, manganese; Zn, zinc; B, boron; Cl, chloride.

Table 3 Influence of moderate water stress on uptake fluxes of macronutrients (mg plant⁻¹ day⁻¹) in ungrafted, grafted and self-grafted tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants.

Cultivar/water treatment	N	P	S	Ca	Mg	K
Zar ungrafted
Well-watered	140 ± 8.2	95 ± 8.6	105 ± 11.7	24.3 ± 2.3	11.1 ± 1.6	48.8 ± 5.2
Water stress	178 ± 12.5*^a	126 ± 14.3*	40 ± 1.6*	12.3 ± 1.0*	14.7 ± 0.3	37.2 ± 1.5
LSD0.05	31.5	16.4	32.9	7.1	4.5	15.1
ZarxZar
Well-watered	223 ± 48.1	105 ± 19.6	144 ± 17.4	40.7 ± 2.9	8.5 ± 0.6	73.8 ± 7.3
Water stress	320 ± 33.7*	169 ± 17.1*	50 ± 9.3*	16.2 ± 2.4*	6.6 ± 1.3	63.8 ± 6.1
LSD0.05	63.1	52.4	54.9	10.6	2.2	15.8
Jos ungrafted
Well-watered	389 ± 81.9	268 ± 5.4	104 ± 1.4	13.3 ± 1.0	10.7 ± 1.1	45.4 ± 4.0
Water stress	177 ± 11.3*	86 ± 6.1*	96 ± 3.5	11.1 ± 0.5	12.8 ± 0.3	36.2 ± 0.6
LSD0.05	29.8	22.6	10.5	3.2	3.3	11.4
JosxJos
Well-watered	300 ± 53.8	151 ± 19.0	101 ± 13.6	24.4 ± 4.2	11.1 ± 1.5	42.2 ± 5.2
Water stress	148 ± 6.2*	69 ± 0.2*	47 ± 0.7*	12.2 ± 1.1*	4.4 ± 0.2*	18.5 ± 1.0*
LSD0.05	50.3	52.8	7.7	2.0	2.2	14.8
JosxZar
Well-watered	115 ± 31.5	171 ± 7.6	118 ± 28.8	14.8 ± 4.4	10.2 ± 2.9	37.5 ± 11.5
Water stress	147 ± 44.9	166 ± 13.6	40 ± 4.4*	10.7 ± 2.4	4.7 ± 0.6*	19.9 ± 4.4*
LSD0.05	52.4	23.0	51.1	13.9	1.2	4.4
ZarxJos
Well-watered	119 ± 9.5	72 ± 21.4	44 ± 10.6	31.6 ± 8.6	5.1 ± 1.4	33.9 ± 9.1
Water stress	221 ± 55.6*	80 ± 18.5	21 ± 7.5*	12.5 ± 1.4*	5.3 ± 1.3	25.5 ± 1.7
LSD0.05	39.4	8.8	6.2	14.2	1.3	15.8
Analysis of variance
Cultivars (C)	***^b	***	***	***	***	***
Treatments (T)	***	***	***	***	***	***
C × T	***	***	***	***	***	*
LSD	44.30	18.47	12.00	3.43	1.32	7.31

Values are mean ± S.E. (n = 9) and differences between means were compared by Fisher’s least-significance test (LSD; P = 0.05).

^aAsterisk (*) indicates significant difference with controls groups (well-watered).

^bThe levels of significance were represented by p > 0.05: ns (not significant), p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***).N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; S, sulfur; Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium; K, potassium.

Table 4 Influence of moderate water stress on uptake fluxes of micronutrients (mg plant⁻¹ day⁻¹) in ungrafted, grafted and self-grafted tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants.

Cultivar/water treatment	Fe	Cu	Mn	Zn	B	Cl (mg g^−1 DW)
Zar ungrafted
Well-watered	4.7 ± 0.5	2.2 ± 0.2	1.4 ± 0.2	0.15 ± 0.01	4.5 ± 0.6	47.2 ± 4.1
Water stress	8.1 ± 1.6*^a	2.7 ± 0.1	1.0 ± 0.0	0.08 ± 0.01*	3.8 ± 0.4	81.0 ± 8.1*
LSD0.05	2.7	0.8	0.5	0.05	2.0	25.4
ZarxZar
Well-watered	6.2 ± 0.8	3.8 ± 0.3	3.2 ± 0.1	0.40 ± 0.03	9.1 ± 0.9	121.1 ± 12.1
Water stress	9.4 ± 1.7*	3.3 ± 0.4	1.4 ± 0.2*	0.13 ± 0.02*	7.5 ± 0.8	52.3 ± 9.6*
LSD0.05	2.4	1.5	0.8	0.13	3.6	42.9
Jos ungrafted
Well-watered	7.9 ± 0.9	3.0 ± 0.3	1.7 ± 0.1	0.19 ± 0.02	8.2 ± 0.4	82.4 ± 3.9
Water stress	3.9 ± 0.3*	1.8 ± 0.2*	0.7 ± 0.1*	0.09 ± 0.01*	3.5 ± 0.3*	34.6 ± 2.2*
LSD0.05	1.8	1.0	0.4	0.06	1.3	12.6
JosxJos
Well-watered	6.3 ± 0.7	2.7 ± 0.1	1.9 ± 0.2	0.18 ± 0.02	6.4 ± 0.7	72.0 ± 9.2
Water stress	3.9 ± 0.3*	1.9 ± 0.2*	0.8 ± 0.1*	0.08 ± 0.01*	3.7 ± 0.1*	36.1 ± 0.5*
LSD0.05	2.3	0.7	0.7	0.06	2.1	15.7
JosxZar
Well-watered	4.5 ± 0.5	1.5 ± 0.4	1.5 ± 0.5	0.15 ± 0.04	5.0 ± 1.5	51.4 ± 15.4
Water stress	9.1 ± 2.3*	1.6 ± 0.3	0.8 ± 0.1	0.10 ± 0.02	3.4 ± 0.8	37.3 ± 8.8*
LSD0.05	2.6	1.5	1.6	0.14	2.8	9.3
ZarxJos
Well-watered	4.4 ± 2.6	2.5 ± 0.7	1.4 ± 0.2	0.13 ± 0.03	7.3 ± 1.9	52.3 ± 3.4
Water stress	7.3 ± 1.0*	2.9 ± 0.2	0.8 ± 0.1*	0.09 ± 0.01	3.2 ± 0.3	68.8 ± 17.2
LSD0.05	2.7	1.1	0.3	0.11	5.4	18.8
Analysis of variance
Cultivars (C)	*^b	***	***	***	***	***
Treatments (T)	***	***	***	***	***	***
C × T	ns	***	***	***	***	***
LSD	1.34	0.35	0.22	0.02	0.90	9.30

Values are mean ± S.E. (n = 9) and differences between means were compared by Fisher’s least-significance test (LSD; P = 0.05). Asterisk (*) indicates significant difference with controls groups (well-watered).

^aAsterisk (*) indicates significant difference with controls groups (well-watered).

^bThe levels of significance were represented by p > 0.05: ns (not significant), p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***).Fe, iron; Cu, copper; Mn, manganese; Zn, zinc; B, boron; Cl, chloride.