Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:57:48.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grafting influence on productivity and drought tolerance of tea clones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2019

R. Karunakaran Open the ORCID record for R. Karunakaran [Opens in a new window]  and
R. V. J. Ilango
R. Karunakaran*
Affiliation:
Botany and Plant Improvement Division, UPASI Tea Research Foundation, Nirar Dam PO, Valparai-642 127, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India Institute of Plant Sciences, Gilat Research Center, Agricultural Research Organization, Bet-Dagan, Israel
R. V. J. Ilango
Affiliation:
Botany and Plant Improvement Division, UPASI Tea Research Foundation, Nirar Dam PO, Valparai-642 127, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
*
Author for correspondence: R. Karunakaran, E-mail: kranjith09@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Grafting of fresh cuttings using drought-susceptible and low-yielding clones as scions on drought-tolerant clones as rootstocks offers the possibility of raising composite plants with improved productivity and drought tolerance. Hence, the study was aimed to widen the choice of compatible composites and to delineate the underlying factors responsible for productivity and drought tolerance in grafted plants. One year-old composite plants of TRF-1, TRF-2 and UPASI-28 cleft-grafted on the rootstocks of UPASI-2, UPASI-9, ATK-1 and TRI-2025 were field planted along with their respective controls and evaluated. The results indicated that productivity and drought tolerance of scion clones varied significantly with the rootstocks used. Significant increases in yield and yield components were noted in the following graft combinations compared with their corresponding self-rooted scion clones: TRF-1 grafted on UPASI-9 and ATK-1, TRF-2 grafted on all four rootstocks, and UPASI-28 grafted on UPASI-9, TRI-2025 and UPASI-2. The findings clearly emphasize the scion–rootstock interaction as the critical determinant of productivity in grafted plants compared with vigour, drought tolerance and yield potential of scion and rootstock clones. Further, high-yielding capacity of grafts over the ungrafted scions and rootstocks was largely dependent on the yield potential of the scion clone and the degree of scion–rootstock compatibility. Higher field survival and enhanced yield observed during the drought period in the compatible grafts demonstrated their better drought tolerance compared with their respective self-rooted scions.

Keywords

Cleft-graftinggraft compatibilityrootstocktea clones
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 157 , Issue 3 , April 2019 , pp. 217 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balasubramanian, S, Netto, LA and Parathiraj, S (2010) Unique graft combination of tea, Cr-6017/UPASI-9. Current Science 98, 1508–1517.Google Scholar
Bates, LS, Waldren, RP and Teare, ID (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil 39, 205–207.Google Scholar
Bore, JK (2008) Physiological Responses of Grafted Tea (Camellia sinensis L) to Water Stress (PhD thesis). Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Kenya.Google Scholar
Bore, JK, Njuguna, CK and Owuor, POO (1995) Chip-budding in tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) and its effects on yields and quality. Tea 16, 9–13.Google Scholar
Bore, JK, Ng'etich, WK, Masinde, PW and Kahangi, EM (2014) Responses of composite tea to progressive drought. International Journal of Tea Science 10, 1–13.Google Scholar
De Costa, WAJM, Mohotti, AJ and Wijeratne, MA (2007) Ecophysiology of tea. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 19, 299–332.Google Scholar
Esack, ER, Shanmugam, A, Palanisamy, V, Lakshmipathy, V, Chandrashekera, KN and Rajagopal, R (2015) Screening of tea progenies for tolerance to drought stress using multivariate statistical techniques. Scientia Horticulturae 197, 157–165.Google Scholar
Harborne, JB (1973) Phytochemical Methods: A Guide to Modern Techniques of Plant Analysis. London, UK: Chapman and Hall Limited.Google Scholar
Haridas, P (1979) Nursery grafting techniques in tea. Planters’ Chronicle 74, 128–131.Google Scholar
Kayange, CW, Scarborough, IP and Nyirenda, HE (1981) Rootstock influence on yield and quality of tea (Camellia sinensis L.). Journal of Horticultural Science 56, 117–120.Google Scholar
Maritim, TK, Kamunya, SM, Mireji, P, Mwendia, C, Muoki, RC, Cheruiyot, EK and Wachira, FN (2015) Physiological and biochemical response of tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] to water-deficit stress. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology 90, 395–400.Google Scholar
Mohanan, M and Sharma, VS (1981) Morphology and systematics of some tea cultivars. In Vishveshwara, S (ed.), Proceedings of Fourth Annual Symposium on Plantation Crops. Bangalore, India: Printers India, pp. 391–400.Google Scholar
Nyirenda, HE (1990) Root growth characteristics and rootstock vigour in tea (Camellia sinensis). Journal of Horticultural Science 65, 461–464.Google Scholar
Nyirenda, HE and Kayange, CW (1984) Effect of rootstocks on components of yield in tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) 2. Stem circumference and number of branches. Journal of Horticultural Science 59, 589–594.Google Scholar
Ranatunga, MAB and Gunesekera, MTK (2008) Assembling a preliminary core collection of Tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) genetic resources in Sri Lanka. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 155, 41–45.Google Scholar
Ranjith, K and Ilango, RVJ (2016) Evaluation of compatibility and nursery performance of new graft combinations in tea (Camellia spp.). Journal of Plantation Crops 44, 109–113.Google Scholar
Satyanarayana, N and Rao, BVN (1981) determination of leaf area in tea (Camellia spp.). Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on Plantation Crops (Placrosym IV) 19, 211–215.Google Scholar
Satyanarayana, N, Cox, S and Sharma, VS (1992) Field performance of grafts made on fresh tea clonal cuttings. Journal of Plantation Crops 20(suppl.), 151–156.Google Scholar
Sharma, VS (2011 a) Plant materials. In Sharma, VS (ed.), A Manual of Tea Cultivation. New Delhi, India: International Society of Tea Science, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
Sharma, VS (2011 b) Nursery. In Sharma, VS (ed.), A Manual of Tea Cultivation. New Delhi, India: International Society of Tea Science, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
Sharma, VS (2011 c) Harvesting. In Sharma, VS (ed.), A Manual of Tea Cultivation. New Delhi, India: International Society of Tea Science, pp. 51–62.Google Scholar
Sharma, VS and Satyanarayana, N (1981) Stock–scion interaction and nursery grafting in tea (Camellia spp.). Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on Plantation Crops (Placrosym IV) 19, 120–126.Google Scholar
Sharma, VS and Satyanarayana, N (1987) Tea plant material and its improvement in South India. Planters’ Chronicle 81, 28–33.Google Scholar
Sharma, VS, Satyanarayana, N and Cox, S (1990) Training of young tea by two-stage tipping. Journal of Plantation Crops 20(suppl.), 45–49.Google Scholar
Stephens, W and Carr, MKV (1991) Responses of tea (Camellia sinensis) to irrigation and fertilizer. II. Water use. Experimental Agriculture 27, 193–210.Google Scholar
Tuwei, G, Kaptich, FKK, Langat, MC, Chomboi, KC and Corley, RHV (2008) Effects of grafting on tea 1. Growth, yield and quality. Experimental Agriculture 44, 521–535.Google Scholar
Verma, DP and Palani, N (1997) Manuring of tea in South India. In Verma, DP (ed), Handbook of Tea Culture. Valparai, India: UPASI Tea Research Institute, pp. 33.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Karunakaran and Ilango supplementary material

Karunakaran and Ilango supplementary material
Download Karunakaran and Ilango supplementary material(File)
File 51.9 KB