Research Article

Received: 5 March 2008

Revised: 27 November 2008

Accepted: 4 December 2008

Published online in Wiley Interscience: 17 March 2009

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.3555

Grafting tomato plant on tobacco plant and its

effect on tomato plant yield and nicotine
content
Aysegul E Yasinok, Feride I Sahin, Fusun Eyidogan, Mustafa Kuru and
Mehmet Haberal
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two different tomato scions, cv. Elazig and cv. Sweet (cherry) (Solanum lycopersicum L.) were self-grafted and
grafted onto tobacco root stock (Nicotiana tobacum L.). Then, grafted tomato plants were evaluated in terms of flower and fruit
yield. Tobacco-grafted tomato plant fruits were also evaluated for nicotine content.
RESULTS: Tobacco grafting had a positive effect on the tomato plant cultivation performance; the onset of flowering was almost
15 days earlier and the tomato flower and fruit yields increased in both tomato cultivars. Tobacco grafting resulted in 5.0%
and 30.1% increase in total fruit weight for cv. Sweet and cv. Elazig, respectively. Because the level of nicotine was within
acceptable ranges, tobacco-grafted tomato fruits were considered to be safe for consumption. Self-grafted tomato cultivars
also had flowering time onsets almost 11 days earlier. However, self-grafting caused 6.0% and 7.6% less total fruit yield per cv.
Sweet and cv. Elazig, respectively.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our results show that tomatotobacco grafting is a novel and promising technique for improvement
of not only tomato plant performance and yield, but also that it can be employed to various tomato varieties.
c 2009 Society of Chemical Industry


Keywords: grafting; nicotine; Solanaceae; stress; tobacco; tomato

INTRODUCTION

1122

Grafted plant production first began in Japan and Korea in the

late 1920s with the grafting of watermelon onto guard rootstock.1
Since then, interest in grafting of fruit-bearing vegetables has
increased. Nowadays, grafting is considered an established
technique for crop production. Grafting of vegetables onto
resistant rootstocks facilitates resistance of scion against soilborne disease,1,2 high3 and low temperatures,4 and high salt
concentration.5 Moreover, one of the main objectives of grafting
is to increase yield. Influences of rootstock on scion resistance
against harsh conditions and diseases as well as on productivity
and quality are crucial in determining the potential use of grafting
applications.2
Grafting technique was utilised for various members of the
Solaneacea family to enhance salinity tolerance in tobacco,6 to
improve nitrogen use efficiency in tobacco,7 to produce potato
tubers on tomato rootstock (US Patent No: 5,771,633), and to
increase the number of flowers and seed production.8 Reciprocal
grafting of tomato on tobacco was also performed to assess
nicotine synthesis, distribution and accumulation in tobacco
plant9,10 and to analyse the impact of grafting on growth.11
Ruiz and co-workers5 produced nicotine-free and salt-tolerant
tobacco plants by grafting tobacco onto salinity-resistant tomato
cultivars. By means of a range of grafting methods, tomato plants
were grafted on various tomato rootstock cultivars to increase
yield.12,13 However, no studies have been reported on the process

J Sci Food Agric 2009; 89: 11221128

of grafting scion of tomato cultivars onto tobacco rootstock, and

its effects on tomato yield.
Tobacco is a member of the Solanaceae family and it is rich in
nicotine. Nicotine is synthesised in the root and then transported
to the leaves and the lateral parts of the plant,14 16 and its quantity
depends on the type of tobacco, nitrogen availability, temperature,
light, moisture and injury.17 Tomato fruits also naturally contain
a low level of nicotine (2.46.0 g kg1 )18 21 and are safe for
consumption. While only 3040% of the nicotine is transferred to
the systemic circulation after oral consumption, almost 100% of
the nicotine is transferred by inhalation.22
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), a Solanacea plant, is a crop
of high importance in Turkey, just as it is in many countries and
areas (e.g. USA, EU, China, India, Egypt). According to FAO (2003),
almost 10 million MT (metric tons) of tomatoes are produced in
Turkey.
Given the significance of tomato cultivation in Turkey and the
lack of in-depth studies on tomatotobacco grafting, in this study
we tried to investigate new methods to improve crop performance.

Correspondence to: Aysegul E Yasinok, Medical Sciences and Genetics Department, Baskent University, Baglica Campus, 06810, Ankara/Turkey.
E-mail: aeyasinok@baskent.edu.tr, aersayin@gmail.com
Institute of Transplantation and Gene Sciences, Baskent University, 06810
Ankara, Turkey

www.soci.org

c 2009 Society of Chemical Industry

Effects of grafting tomato plant on tobacco plant

www.soci.org

For this purpose, we established a grafting method to create a

self-grafted and a tobacco-grafted tomato graft unions using
two different tomato cultivars and Turkish commercial tobacco.
We evaluated self-rooted and the grafted tomato plants for
performance yield and stress attributes. Moreover, we investigated
the level of nicotine in the fruits of the tobacco-grafted tomato
plant to determine the prospect of tomato fruit consumption as a
diary product.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Grafting experiments were conducted in the greenhouse at
Baskent University Transplantation and Gene Sciences Institute
(Kazan/Ankara/Turkey) between July and April 2007. Two tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) cultivars; Elazig E and hybrid cherry
tomato Sweet (100 f1) were used as non-grafted controls (selfrooted plant; control) and a scion in self-grafting and tobacco
grafting experiments. Due to its low level of nicotine content
(0.3%, w/w), Samsun tobacco (Nicotiana tobaccum L.) cultivar was
chosen as rootstock in grafting experiments.
The seeds of tobacco and scion cultivars were obtained from
the local market (Turkey).
Grafting combinations were as follows: EE (scion and rootstock
cv. Elazig, self-grafted control), ET (scion cv. Elazig and rootstock
tobacco), CC (scion and rootstock cv. Sweet, control), CT (scion
cv. Sweet and rootstock tobacco), E (non-grafted; self-rooted cv.
Elazig control) and C (non-grafted; self-rooted cv. Sweet, control).
Plant growing conditions
Seed germination and seedling development
Sowing, seedling development, grafting, graft development
and harvesting were performed in the greenhouse at a day
temperature of 2025 C and a night temperature of 1520 C
and 16 h (light)/8h (dark) photoperiods (long-day condition) with
a relative humidity of 4555%.
After sowing in cell flats (8 cm 8 cm 10 cm) containing a
soil fertiliser (animal based) mix (2 : 1), the seeds of the tobacco
and tomato plants were grown for 60 and 30 days, respectively.
The seeds of the tobacco plants were sown 30 days earlier
than the seeds of the tomatoes to ensure stem diameters at
grafting. Then, seedlings were grafted by hand, grown for a
week in cell flats and then transplanted on to a bench container
(120 cm 160 cm 60 cm) containing a soil fertiliser (animal
based) mix (2 : 1). The plants and rows were spaced 0.4 m apart.

J Sci Food Agric 2009; 89: 11221128

Stress assessment in grafted tomato plants. Leaves of self-grafted,

tobacco-grafted and non-grafted tomato plants, 53.12 12.46 cm
above the ground, were sampled 30 and 50 DAG for cv. Sweet and
cv. Elazig (flowering period), respectively.
Determination of chlorophyll content. Chlorophylls a, b and total
chlorophyll (a + b) content of tomato plant leaves were extracted
from flash frozen leaf discs with acetone and were quantified
spectrophotometrically.23
Determination of water in leaves. Water contents in tomato plant
leaf samples were determined (0.5 g) after the process of drying at
80 C for 3 days.
Determination of total protein content. Tomato plant leaves (0.3 g)
were excised and homogenised with 2.0 mL of 0.5 mol L1
phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) using a cold mortar and pestle. The
homogenate was filtered through four layers of cheesecloth and
centrifugated at 15 000 g for 30 min in a refrigerated centrifuge.
Then, the protein concentration of supernatant was determined
by the Bradford method.24
Nicotine analysis in tomato fruits. Ripe tomato fruit samples of
tobacco-grafted and self-rooted cv. Elazig plants were harvested at
75.0 0.4 cm (min: 75.0 cm, max: 76.0 cm) and 53.12 12.46 cm
(min: 36.00 cm, max: 75.00 cm) level, respectively. Locations of
ripe tomato fruit and leaf samples of tobacco-grafted and selfrooted cv. Sweet plants were 74.2 16.5 cm (min: 60.0 cm, max:
100 cm) and 71.3 18.9 cm (min: 55.0 cm, max: 96.0 cm) higher
than ground, respectively.
Samples were washed with tap water, hot water and double
distilled water, and then dried, weighed and homogenised, and
finally subjected to nicotine analysis.
Sample homogenisation
Two to four grams of tomato fruit samples were homogenised
in 3.0 mL of distilled water using a Dispomix homogeniser
(Hombrechtikon, Switzerland). Homogenisation was performed
at a spinning range of 4004000 g for 40 s in both clockwise
and counter-clockwise directions. Homogenisation was extended
for an extra 40 s for samples containing remaining intact tissue.
Homogenised samples were either used immediately or stored at
20 C until use.
Nicotine extraction
Nicotine extraction was performed using 3.06.0 g of fresh tomato
fruit homogenates. The samples were spiked with diphenylamine
(internal standard) and were shaken vigorously to have a homogenous mix. Then 5 mol L1 KOH was added to the samples to make

c 2009 Society of Chemical Industry

www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa

1123

Grafting
Six to seven foliated leaves of tobacco seedlings and four to five
foliated leaves of tomato seedlings were used as rootstocks, and a
slit with an angle of 35 was made on the shoot using a sharp razor
blade above the first or second leaf in the seedling (1015 cm
in height). Simultaneously, shoots of tomato seedlings (in both
cultivars) with three to four leaves were cut off below the upper
second or third leaf with an angle of 35 and the upper portion was
grafted on the slit of the rootstocks. The grafted part of the plant
was wrapped to prevent drying and stabilised using grafting clips
(0.9 mm). During the culturing process, the auxiliary buds formed
on the rootstock were removed occasionally without harming the
plant. As of this point, the grafting technique described here will
be referred to as the standard grafting technique.
Normal cultural practices were followed for irrigation, fertiliser
and pesticide application.

Plant analysis
Growth monitoring measurements. After grafting, the success of
the grafting method, the onset of flowering (flowering time), flower
yield (90 days after grafting; 90 DAG) and the fruit yield of tomato
plants during four harvesting periods (0120 DAG, 120160 DAG,
160200 DAG and 200240 DAG) were determined.
Ripe tomato fruits were taken into account in weight measurements. Sixty grafted seedlings were examined for the evaluation
of grafting success.

www.soci.org
the sample pH alkaline (around pH 12). After adding a spatula
tip of sodium sulfate powder, nicotine was extracted using butyl
methyl ether. Then, samples were dried at 25 C in an evaporator,
resuspended in methanol and subjected to nicotine analysis.
Evaluation of nicotine levels
The level of nicotine in samples was measured by HewlettPackard
gas chromatography equipped with a mass spectrophotometer
and nitrogen phosphor detector (Waldbronn, Germany). The
column employed was Ultra 2 (5% phenyl methyl silicon;
12.5 0.2 mm, 0.33 m) and the column oven temperature was
180 C. Helium (0.7 mL min1 ) was used as the carrier gas. Split
ratio of 1 : 10 was used at constant pressure with an injection
volume of 3.0 L, and the injector temperature was kept at
280 C. The temperature program was 90 C for 1 min; then with
a ramp of 20 C, the temperature was increased to the final
temperature of 300 C, which was held constant for 7 min. The
detector temperature was 280 C. For mass spectrophotometry,
the electron impact ionisation mode (70 eV) was used and ion
characteristics of m/z 40400 were employed.
Statistical analysis
A randomised complete block design was adopted with three
replications, each consisting of eight plants. Twenty-one plants
were analysed to determine flowering onset time. Five plants
(almost one to two plants from each replicate) were analysed in
terms of stress, flower and fruit yield. Three plants were evaluated
for nicotine levels.
Parametric test assumptions were available for some variables.
The differences between the two groups were analysed using
Students t test. The differences between more than two groups

A.E. Yasinok et al.

were analysed by ANOVA and then multiple comparisons between

pairs of groups were carried out using Duncans test. When
parametric test assumptions were not satisfied, the KruskalWallis
test was used. Results were expressed as number of observations
(n), mean standard error, median and minmax values. A P value
of less than 0.05 was considered significant. All statistical analyses
were performed with the SPSS software (Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences, version 13.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of grafting on tomato plant performance
Using the standard grafting method at 4555% relative humidity,
rate of grafting success was found to be 90% and 92% for
tobacco grafted cv. Elazig (ET) and cv. Sweet (CT), respectively
(Table 1). However, it decreased to 6075% in self-grafted cv.
Elazig (EE) and cv. Sweet (CC), respectively. There have been
many tomatotomato grafting experiments reported in literature
with 92100% survival rate.12,13 In these experiments graft unions
were incubated at 9095% relative humidity for 37 days and
humidity decreased gradually12 before transplantations to the
soil. We also attained similar survival rate (9598%) with EE and CC
at 9095% relative humidity. However, setting relative humidity
to 9095% and incubating graft unions at defined humidity value
was labour intensive. Moreover, we were able to have satisfactory
results with tobacco grafting at relative humidity of 4555%. As a
result, tobacco grafting seemed comparably easier and more cost
effective than tomato grafting which can possibly be explained by
high water content of tobacco stem.
Successful graft unions were used in plant analysis studies.
As presented in Table 1, there was a significant reduction of
time required for flowering after grafting. The flowering began

Table 1. Effect of grafting on chlorophyll, protein and percent water contents of tomato plant leaves, and flowering days of tomato plants
cv. Elazig

Chlorophyll a
n=5
Chlorophyll b
n=5
Chlorophyll a + b
n=5
Protein (mg g1 fw)
n=5
% Water content
n=5
Flowering day
n = 21

cv. Sweet

E
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

SE
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

EE
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

C
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

SC
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

CC
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

1.51 0.02b
1.51
(1.461.59)
0.89 0.01b
0.89
(0.870.92)
2.41 0.88b
2.40
(2.202.73)
16.50 0.16b
16.50
(16.1017.00)
91.20 1.16b
92.00
(88.0094.00)
94.10 0.60a
94.00
(89.0098.00)

1.39 0.03a
1.39
(1.291.46)
0.81 0.02a
0.83
(0.750.85)
2.20 0.03a
2.18
(2.132.31)
15.80 0.23a
15.80
(15.2016.40)
85.00 0.71a
85.00
(83.0087.00)
80.20 0.40b
80.00
(76.0083.00)

1.37 0.02a
1.38
(1.291.42)
0.81 0.03a
0.82
(0.710.87)
2.18 0.03a
2.16
(2.112.29)
15.68 0.20a
15.70
(15.2016.30)
83.20 0.58a
83.00
(82.0085.00)
84.10 0.70c
84.00
(79.0088.00)

2.17 0.09b
2.21
(1.922.40)
1.24 0.03b
1.21
(1.191.35)
3.41 0.11b
3.41
(3.113.75)
17.96 0.17b
17.90
(17.6018.50)
92.40 1.00b
93.00
(89.0095.00)
75.40 0.70a
75.00
(73.0081.00)

1.86 0.07a
1.81
(1.722.10)
1.03 0.06a
0.99
(0.871.22)
2.90 0.88a
2.80
(2.753.22)
17.22 0.16a
17.30
(16.8017.70)
83.40 1.21a
83.00
(80.0087.00)
60.30 0.30b
60.00
(58.0063.00)

1.84 0.08a
1.89
(1.622.01)
1.01 0.06a
0.99
(0.821.20)
2.85 0.11a
2.71
(2.673.21)
16.82 0.20a
16.90
(16.1017.30)
82.00 1.38a
82.00
(79.0087.00)
63.20 0.50c
63.00
(60.0067.00)

1124

Means followed by the same letter are statistically not significant according to Duncans multiple range test (P < 0.05).
SE: standard error, fw: fresh weight.

www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa

c 2009 Society of Chemical Industry

J Sci Food Agric 2009; 89: 11221128

Effects of grafting tomato plant on tobacco plant

www.soci.org

almost 10 and 15 days earlier in self-grafted (EE and CC) and

tobacco-grafted tomato plants (ET and CT), respectively (Table 1).
Transition to earlier flowering in grafted plants can possibly be
explained by wounding required to establish the graft union.
Further reduction in tobacco-grafted plants can be explained by
rootstock effect in which tobacco root system or age of tobacco
plant might play a role. In fact, cv. Samsun tobacco rootstock
used in grafting progress was 30 days older than the tomato plant
cultivars. Habermann and Wallace25 also reported the remarkable
reduction in flowering time in sunflowers grafted onto older host
plants.
Stress assessment in grafted tomato plants
In order to investigate stress status following the process of
grafting, leaves of self-grafted, tobacco-grafted and self-rooted cv.
Sweet and cv. Elazig were evaluated for the level of chlorophyll,
total soluble protein and water content 30 and 50 DAG (the
flowering period) (Table 1), respectively.
As shown in Table 1, chlorophyll a, b and a + b contents
significantly decreased in both cv. Elazig (ET and EE) and cv. Sweet
(CT and CC) cultivars after grafting. Similarly, there was a significant
reduction in total soluble protein and leaf water contents in leaves
of both self-grafted (EE, CC) and tobacco-grafted (ET, CT) tomato
cultivars. Decrease in chlorophyll content, explained by decrease
in the rate of photosynthesis,26 has often been reported to be
related to tissue water content.27 The change in the total soluble
protein level also represented the plant stress response status.
Consequently, our results show that grafting stress occurred in
both types of tomato cultivars with all grafting types (self- and
tobacco grafting) during flowering period. The early negative
effect of grafting was also reported by Ginoux28 and Khah et al.13
In our experiment stress possibly affected the flowering time.
Effect of grafting on tomato plant yield
The effects of grafting on tomato plant performance are
presented in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 shows that 90 DAG,
no significant alteration was observed in flower and cluster
production performance for self-grafted tomato plants (CC and
EE). However, tobacco-grafted tomato plants, CT and ET, had

significantly higher total flower numbers than both self-rooted

(C and E) and self-grafted (CC and EE) plants. Finally, tobacco
grafting resulted in 9.7% and 38.5% more flowers per cv. Sweet
and cv. Elazig, respectively. Positive influence of grafting on flower
number (performance) has also been reported by Lardizabal and
Thompson.8
As reported by many researchers,13,28 stress response is
observed in tomato cultivars following grafting process. However,
grafting stress did not depress the total flower number. The total
flower number per self-grafted (EE and CC) tomato cultivars was
the same as that of the control group (E and C) but it significantly
increased in tobacco-grafted tomato cultivars (ET and CT).
Four harvesting progress have been performed during the
experiment (Table 3). There was no significant fruit yield difference
between self-rooted (E and C) and self-grafted cv. Elazig (EE) and
cv. Sweet (CC) during the four harvesting periods, except for the
third period in which self-grafted cv. Elazig (EE) had significantly
lower yield than self-rooted cv. Elazig (E). Considering total yield,
self-grafting caused significant reduction in total fruit yield, and
6.0% and 7.8% less total fruit weight was obtained per selfgrafted cv. Sweet (CC) and cv. Elazig (EE) plants, respectively.
Tobacco-grafted cv. Elazig (ET) had a significantly greater yield
than both self-rooted (E) and self-grafted (EE) tomato plants
during all harvesting periods. Although, no significant fruit yield
difference was observed between tobacco-grafted (CT) and selfgrafted cv. Sweet (C), fruit yield in tobacco-grafted cv. Sweet (CT)
was significantly higher than that in self-grafted cv. Sweet (CC)
during all harvesting periods. Finally, total fruit yield increase of
5.0% and 30.1% was obtained for CT and ET plants, respectively.
Our results presented that flowering and fruit yield performance
of scion tomato cultivars depends on the nature of rootstock. As a
rootstock, tobacco yielded more flowers and fruit per plant than
tomato cultivars and possibly has more vigorous root system.
Many researchers1,2,12,13,29 also reported the rootstock dependent
variations in yield of scion cultivars. In these studies, negative,
neutral and positive impacts of self-grafted cultivars on scion
cultivar productivity have been shown. Increase in flower number
and fruit enhancement was explained by rootstock effect, vigour
of the root system, greater water and mineral uptake.1,12,30

Table 2. Effects of grafting on cluster and flower numbers per tomato plant
cv. Elazig

cv. Sweet

E
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

SE
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

EE
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

C
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

SC
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

CC
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

Total numbers of clusters per tomato plant

n=5

3.7 0.2a
3.0
(3.05.0)

4.9 0.2b
5.0
(3.07.0)

3.8 0.2a
4.0
(3.05.0)

9.8 0.2a
10.0
(8.011.0)

11.1 0.2b
11.0
(10.012.0)

10.4 0.2c
10.0
(9.012.0)

Number of flowers per tomato plant cluster

n=5

3.7 0.2a
4.0
(12.05.0)

3.9 0.2a
4.0
(3.05.0)

3.7 0.12a
4.0
(3.05.0)

8.5 0.2a
9.0
(7.010.0)

8.2 0.2a
8.0
(7.09.0)

8.1 0.2a
8.0
(7.09.0)

Total number of flowers per tomato plant

n=5

13.5 0.4a
14.0
(11.015.0)

18.7 0.5b
19.0
(16.023.0)

13.9 0.3a
14.0
(12.015.0)

83.2 1.4a
82.0
(75.091.00)

91.2 1.6b
90.0
(82.0100.0)

84.6 1.4a
87.0
(74.091.0)

J Sci Food Agric 2009; 89: 11221128

c 2009 Society of Chemical Industry

www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa

1125

Means followed by the same letter are statistically not significant according to Duncans multiple range test (P < 0.05).
SE: standard error.

www.soci.org

A.E. Yasinok et al.

Table 3. Yield at different harvest periods and the total of self-rooted, tobacco-grafted and self-grafted tomato plants
cv. Elazg

cv. Sweet

Fruit weight (g) plant1

Fruit weight (g) plant1

Harvesting
period (days
after
grafting)

E
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

SE
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

EE
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

C
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

SC
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

CC
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

First (0120)
n=5

360.3 16.1a
372.8
(298.7389.8)

468.4 22.7b
480.6
(390.2520.4)

331.4 8.7a
331.7
(300.7353.8)

84.5 3.4ab
89.2
(75.491.4)

88.2 1.1b
87.4
(85.791.6)

80.6 1.7a
81.6
(76.285.7)

Second (120160)
n=5

1297.1 14.7a
1298.3
(1245.31336.2)

1756.2 36.9b
1753.3
(1678.41872.1)

1224.1 28.3a
1209.2
(1144.71318.3)

423.7 11.1ab
412.6
(398.3459.5)

460.2 17.4b
455.3
(409.4499.3)

402.4 6.6a
410.3
(378.2413.1)

Third (160200)
n=5

1152.2 22.8a
1152.2
(1087.41214.5)

1400.8 12.1b
1402.8
(1356.41424.6)

1024.5 8.6c
1032.2
(999.31047.4)

870.8 12.0ab
860.7
(840.6911.4)

904.6 12.1b
911.4
(860.2930.3)

850.5 13.5a
840.6
(820.5890.8)

Fourth (200240)
n=5

1036.4 24.2a
1012.2
(998.11131.1)

1380.2 35.6b
1360.4
(1292.21498.2)

965.7 21.0a
980.2
(897.51020.1)

660.2 24.1b
667.6
(600.8739.6)

688.3 12.9b
683.5
(661.5736.5)

583.3 16.0a
570.5
(542.5635.6)

3846.0 55.6a
3880.7
(3641.63976.40)

5005.6 42.0b
5043.4
(4891.15110.3)

3545.7 46.8c
3591.1
(3435.33670.2)

2039.2 22.8a
2058.4
(1954.72082.0)

2141.3 21.2b
2136.6
(2085.12198.8)

1916.8 26.4c
1907.3
(1855.61989.9)

Total (0240)
n=5

Means followed by the same letter are statistically not significant according to Duncans multiple range test (P < 0.05).
SE, standard error.

1126

In our study, we also observed that degree of positive effect of

tobacco grafting varied with scion cultivar. The performance of
cv. Elazig in tobacco-grafting experiments was remarkably better
than that of cv. Sweet. Nissini and co-workers2 also presented
scion dependent grafting performance variations with muskmelon
cultivars.
Tomatotomato grafting was considered as a well established
method for tomato production. Kacjan-Marsic and Osvald12
presented the positive impact of grafting with almost 36.9%
total fruit yield increase per plant with cv. Monreo scion and
cv. Beaufort rootstock. However, opposite results were obtained
with cv. Belle scion and cv. PG3 rootstock. Khah and co-workers13
also presented the positive influence of tomatotomato grafting.
They obtained 11.032.5% more fruits after grafting cv. Big Red
onto two hybrid tomatoes, Heman and Primavera. Negative13
and neutral effects29 of self-grafting were also noted. In addition
to tomato cultivar rootstocks, tomato scions were also grafted
onto eggplant to increase tomato tolerance to flooding and
bacterial wilt diseases.31 Under adverse conditions, eggplantgrafted tomato plants produced 10100% higher fruits than
non-grafted plants.
Tobaccotomato grafting is a novel technique and comparable
with tomatotomato grafting. Utilising tobacco grafting, we
obtained total fruit yield increase of 5.0% and 30.1% per cv. Sweet
and cv. Elazig tomato plants grown in bench container (60 cm
depth), respectively. Yield can possibly be increased further by
changing growth conditions such as humidity, fertiliser type and
ground planting.
Therefore, tobaccotomato grafting appears to be a promising
method for tomato production. Since rootstock has an impact on
plant cultivation performance as well as on fruit yield and quality,

www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa

various tobacco and tomato cultivars can be employed in grafting

experiments to seek the best combinations.
Effect of grafting on tomato plant nicotine content
Tobacco-grafted and self-rooted tomato plants were evaluated for
nicotine content to investigate whether grafted tomato fruit was
edible and whether it posed any health risks to the consumer.
The nicotine contents of fruits of tobacco-grafted and selfrooted tomato cultivars, and tobacco leaves are given in Table 4.
Table 4 indicates that self-rooted cv. Elazig (E) and cv. Sweet
(C) fruits contained 3.9 1.0 and 9.0 1.7 g kg1 fw of nicotine,
respectively.
Nicotine levels of tomato fruits significantly increased after
grafting. Fruits of tobacco-grafted tomato cultivars had almost
a hundred times higher amounts of nicotine than those of selfrooted plants, and 390.0 36.0 and 1026.5 40.5 g kg1 fw
nicotine was obtained in grafted cv. Elazig (ET) and cv. Sweet (CT)
fruits, respectively. The amount of nicotine in tobacco leaves was
found to be 1.0 0.1 g kg1 fw.
We have shown that the levels of nicotine in self-rooted cv. Elazig
(E) and cv. Sweet (C) fruits were similar to those (2.79.6 g kg1
fw) reported for fruits of other tomato cultivars18 21 and it was
strongly related to tomato cultivar (genetic factor). After grafting,
a very low level of nicotine was detected in tomato fruits. Dawson9
reported a high quantity of alkaloid accumulation in leaves of
tomato plants grown on tobacco rootstocks.
It has been reported that 3040% of orally consumed nicotine
reaches the systemic circulation.22 Accordingly, via consumption
of a single-grafted cv. Sweet tomato fruit (20.8 g), a person
could be exposed to almost 21.3 g of nicotine in his/her diet
and only 6.48.5 g nicotine would enter the systemic circulation.

c 2009 Society of Chemical Industry

J Sci Food Agric 2009; 89: 11221128

Effects of grafting tomato plant on tobacco plant

www.soci.org

Table 4. Nicotine levels in self-rooted and tobacco-grafted tomato fruits, and tobacco leaves
cv. Elazig

cv. Sweet

cv. Samsun

Nicotine
level

E
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

SE
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

C
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

SC
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

Samsun
Mean SE
Median
(MinMax)

Fruits
g kg1 fw
n=3

3.9 1.0a
4.0
(3.74.0)

390 36.0b
370.0
(340.0460.0)

9.0 1.7a
8.9
(6.01.2)

1026.5 40.5b
1020
(960.01100)

NA

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.0 0.1
1.0
(0.91.1)

Leaves
g kg1 fw
n=3

Means followed by the same letter are statistically not significant (Students t test) (P < 0.05).
SE, standard error; fw, fresh weight; ND, not defined; NA, not available.

Therefore, because of its low nicotine content, grafted tomato

fruits were considered to be safe for consumption.

CONCLUSIONS
Tobaccotomato grafting is a novel technique for tomato
production. Tobaccotomato graft unions were constructed at
low relative humidity (4555%) with almost 90% survival rate
which eased the grafting and provided an advantage in terms of
cost and time required for graft union construction.
Moreover, tomato scion on tobacco rootstock had a positive
effect on tomato plant cultivation performance. Due to the
low nicotine content, grafted tomato fruits were considered to
be safe for consumption. Therefore, in countries like Turkey,
where vegetable cultivation is basically carried out by traditional
methods, the grafting technique defined in this study could
increase tomato yield and performance and provide higher profit
to the farmers. Since rootstock has an impact on plant cultivation
performance as well as on fruit yield and quality, various tobacco
cultivars can be utilised in grafting experiments to find out the
best combinations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by Baskent University Research Fund by
project number DA07/43.

REFERENCES

J Sci Food Agric 2009; 89: 11221128

c 2009 Society of Chemical Industry

www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa

1127

1 Lee JM, Cultivation of grafted vegetables I, current status, grafting

methods and benefits. HortScience 29:235239 (1994).
2 Nissini PT, Colla G, Granati E, Temperini O, Crino P and Saccardo F,
Rootstock resistance to fusarium wilt and effect on fruit yield and
quality of two muskmelon cultivars. Sci Hort Amsterdam 93:281288
(2002).
3 Rivero RM, Ruiz JM, Sanchez E and Romeo L, Does grafting provide
tomato plants an advantage against H2 O2 production under
conditions of thermal shock? Physiol Plantarum 117:4450 (2003).
4 Bulder HAM, van Hasselt PR, Kuiper PJC, Speek EJ and Den Nijs D, The
effect of low root temperature in growth and lipid composition
of low temperature tolerant rootstock genotypes for cucumber.
J Plant Physiol 138:661666 (1990).
5 Ruiz JM, Blasco B and Rivero RM, Nicotine-free and salt-tolerant
tobacco plants obtained by grafting to salinity-resistant rootstocks
of tomato. Physiol Plantarum 124:465475 (2005).

6 Ruiz JM, Ros JJ, Rosales MA, Rivero RM and Luis R, Grafting between
tobacco plants to enhance salinity tolerance. J Plant Physiol
163:12291237 (2006).
7 Ruiz JM, Rivero RM, Cervilla LM, Castellano R and Luis R, Grafting to
improve nitrogen-use efficiency traits in tobacco plants. J Sci Food
Agric 86:10141021 (2006).
8 Lardizabal RD and Thompson PG, Growth regulators combined with
grafting increase flower number and seed production in sweet
potato. HortScience 25:7981 (1990).
9 Dawson RF, Accumulation of nicotine in reciprocal grafts of tomato
and tobacco. Am J Bot 29:6671 (1942).
10 Dawson RF and Solt M, Estimated contributions of root and shoot to
the nicotine content of the tobacco plant. Plant Physiol 34:656661
(1959).
11 Whaley GG, Growth of reciprocal tomato/tobacco grafts. Bull Torrey
Bot Club 80:2632 (1953).
12 Kacjan-Marsic M and Osvald J, The influence of grafting on yield of two
tomato cultivar (Lycopersicum esculantum Mill.) grown in a plastic
house. Acta Agric Slov 83:243249 (2004).
13 Khah EM, Kakava E, Mavromatis A, Chachalisand D and Goulas C, Effect
of grafting on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum
Mill.) in greenhouse and open-field. J Appl Hort 8:37 (2006).
14 Baldwin IT, Oesch RC, Patricia M, Merhige PM and Karen HK, Damageinduced root nitrogen metabolism in Nicotiana sylvestris: Testing
C/N predictions for alkaloid production. J Chem Ecol 19:30293043
(1993).
15 Baldwin IT, Karb MJ and Ohnmeiss TE, Allocation of 15N from nitrate
to nicotine: Production and turnover of a damage-induced mobile
defense. Ecology 75:17031713 (1994).
16 Baldwin IT and Ohnmeiss TE, Swords into plowshares? Nicotiana
sylvestris does not use nicotine as a nitrogen source under nitrogenlimited growth. Oecologia 98:385392 (1994).
17 Saunders JA, Investigations of vacuoles isolated from tobacco. Plant
Physiol 64:7478 (1979).
18 Castro A and Monji N, Dietary nicotine and its significance in studies
on tobacco smoking. Biochem Arch 2:9197 (1986).
19 Davis RA, Stiles MF, de Bethizy JD and Reynolds JH, Dietary nicotine: a
source of urinary cotinine. Food Chem Toxicol 29:821827 (1991).
20 Domino EF, Hornbach E and Demena T, Relevance of nicotine content
of common vegetables to the identification of passive tobacco
smokers. Med Sci Res 21:571572 (1993).
21 Siegmund B, Leitner E and Pfannhauser W, Determination of the
nicotine content of various edible nightshades (Solanaceae) and
their products and estimation of the associated dietary nicotine
intake. J Agric Food Chem 47:31133120 (1999).
P and Gry OC, Nikotine alkoloids in
22 Andersson C, Wennstrom
Solanaceous food plants. TemaNord 531:137 (2003).
23 Lichtenthaler HK, Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of
photosynthetic biomembranes. Method Enzymol 148:350382
(1987).
24 Bradford MM, A rapid and sensitive method for quantitation
of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of
proteindye-binding. Anal Biochem 72:248254 (1976).

www.soci.org
25 Habermann HH and Wallace RH, Transfer of stimulus from stock to
scion in grafted Helianthus annuus L. Am J Bot 45:479482 (1958).
26 Leid EO, Silberbush M and Lips SH, Wheat growth as affected by
nitrogen type, pH and salinity. II. Photosynthesis and transpiration.
J Plant Nutr 14:247256 (1991).
27 Defline S, Alvino A, Zacchini M and Loreto F, Consequences of salt
stress on conductance to CO2 diffusion, Rubisco characteristics,
anatomy of spinach leaves. Aust J Plant Physiol 25:395402 (1998).
28 Ginoux G, Bilan de quatre annee de expe rimentation sur le greffage
de solanace es dans le Sud-Est. Pepinieristes Horticultures Maraichers
579:501506 (1974).

A.E. Yasinok et al.

29 Romano D and Paratore A, Effects of grafting on tomato and eggplant.

Acta Hort 559:149153 (2001).
30 Ioannou N, Ioannou M and Hadjiparaskevas K, Elvaluation of
watermelon rootstocks for off-season production in heated
greenhouses. Acta Hort 579:501506 (2002).
31 Palada MC and Wu DL, Increasing off-season tomato production using
grafting technology for peri-urban agriculture in Southeast Asia.
Acta Hort 742:125131 (2007).

1128
www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa

c 2009 Society of Chemical Industry

J Sci Food Agric 2009; 89: 11221128