ln18CuuC1lCn

CrafLlng of annual crops has been used ln !apan and korea slnce Lhe laLe 1920s (Lee 1994) lnlLlally
grafLlng of waLermelon Lo gourd rooLsLock was used Lo provlde reslsLance Lo lusarlum laLer Lhe
Lechnlque was applled Lo Lhe producLlon of cucumber and LomaLo roducLlon of annual horLlculLural
crops uslng grafLed seedllngs has become a common pracLlce ln many parLs of Lhe world especlally ln
Asla and parLs of Lurope where Lhe land use ls lnLenslve CrafLlng also domlnaLes hydroponlc producLlon
envlronmenLs (Lee and Cda 2003 kuboLa eL al 2008) ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes and oLher wesLern counLrles
where land use ls noL lnLenslve grafLlng ls less common for sollbased producLlon sysLems (Lee 1994
lernandez eL al 2003 klnd eL al 2008 8lvard and Louws 2008 ParLmann and Schwarz 2009)
lnLeresL ln grafLlng Solanaceous planLs has lncreased ln recenL years due Lo promlslng resulLs relaLlve Lo
dlsease reslsLance sLress Lolerances growLh and yleld (8lvard and Louws 2006) uesplLe of Lhese
advanLages Lhere are some problems assoclaLed wlLh grafLlng CrafLlng can be labor lnLenslve whlch
adds addlLlonal cosL (Lee 1994 Leonardl and 8omano 2004) 1hls cosL can be magnlfled when grafL
lncompaLlblllLy llmlLs Lhe raLe of success (uavls eL al 2008) uesplLe favorable reporLs of grafLlng
reducLlons ln yleld frulL quallLy and flower have also been documenLed (LldesLeln 2004 Marslc and
Csvald 2004)
lor LomaLo Lhere are Lwo common meLhods clefL grafLlng and Lube grafLlng lor Lhe clefL grafL meLhod
Lhe sLem of Lhe sclon ls cuL ln a wedge and Lhls Lapered sclon ls flL lnLo a clefL cuL ln Lhe end of Lhe
rooLsLock 1he grafL ls Lhen held flrm wlLh a plasLlc Luber or cllp (Cda 1999) WlLh Lhls meLhod Lhe
success of grafLlng ls hlgh and planLs wlLh dlfferenL dlameLer can be accommodaLed 1he dlsadvanLage
of Lhe clefL grafL meLhod ls LhaL Lhe grafLlng process requlres mulLlple cuLs and lL ls Lherefore labor
lnLenslve AnoLher meLhod wldely used ln korea and !apan ls Lube grafLlng whlch makes lL posslble Lo
grafL small planLs grown ln plug Lrays Lwo or Lhree Llmes fasLer Lhan wlLh clefL grafLlng (Cda 1999) 1he
smaller Lhe planL Lhe more efflclenL use of space ln heallng chambers or accllmaLlon rooms lor Lhls
meLhod Lhe rooLsLock and sclon are cuL aL an angle 1he cuL ends are Lhen [olned by a Lube or slllcon
cllp spllclng Lhe cuL surface LogeLher (Cda 1999) 1hls meLhod ls poLenLlally fasLer buL lL requlres Lhe
dlameLer of Lhe sclon and rooLsLock Lo be well maLched ln our experlence Lhe fallure raLe ls hlgher wlLh
Lube grafLed planLs
1here are reporLs LhaL grafLlng of eggplanL cucumber Chlnese cabbage and grapevlne can be faclllLaLed
uslng adheslves (Cda 1992 MorlLa 1988 by Leed and Cda 2003) 1he alm of uslng Lhls adheslve (eLhyl
cyanoacrylaLe) ls Lo slmpllfy Lhe procedure and achleve Lhe slmllar of beLLer resulLs 1here are noL
reporLs abouL used cyanoacrylaLe for grafL LomaLoes CLher sLudles abouL uslng cyanocrylaLes are on Lhe
vascular leslons ln dogs for closure Lhe wounds and for LreaLmenL of pulpoLomy performed (Andrade eL
al 2001 SanLana 2006 Lndo eL al 2007) oLher producL LhaL had been used ln aesLheLlc faclal plasLlc
surgery ls called hlsLrocryl whlch beyond Lo cyanoacrylaLe famlly (frank eL al 1989) 1he wlde range use
of Lhls producL because ls cheap and easy Lo use
1he goals of Lhe sLudy were rlse up Lhe success and reduce Lhe Llme of grafLlng planLs
MA1L8lALS Anu ML1PCuS
1he experlmenL was conducLed ln a heallng chamber and ln a heaLed glasshouse aL 1he Chlo SLaLe
unlverslLy CA8uC 1he planL used for sclon was Cherokee urple and for rooLsLock were LA1389 (5
plmploelllfollm) LA2204 (5 bobbobtocboltes) lC02188 (5 lycopetslcom) Pawll7998 SCP07316
SCP07313 SCP320 (lnLerspeclflc l1) MaxlforL and SCP07326 (5 lycopetslcom)
ln our sLudy we spllL ouL Lhe sclon seedlng 1he flrsL group was sown one week before sowlng Lhe
rooLsLock second group Lhe same Llme as Lhe rooLsLock and Lhe Lhlrd group afLer a week of rooLsLock
We dld Lhls Lo ensure slmllar dlameLer aL Lhe grafLlng Llme 1he enLlre sclon and rooLsLock seeds were
sown ln a mlxLure subsLraLe ln 288 holes Lrays 1he rooLsLock afLer 23 days Lhe seedllng were
LransplanLed lnLo 43 cm by 3 cm conLalners wlLh Lhe same subsLraLe mlxLure as used for seedllng
germlnaLlon (romex)
AfLer 7 days of LransplanLed were grafLed wlLh glue (C) and Lube (1) grafLlng meLhod were followed as
lndlcaLed Cda (2002) lor grafLlng wlLh glue was followed Lhe same proLocol of Lhe Lube meLhod wlLh
dlfference Lhe cllp was replaced by glue 1he planLs were puL LogeLher afLer make Lhe cuL of boLh planLs
sLeam aL a 30 angle a proxlmally Lhe sclon puL on Lop of Lhe rooLsLock and surrounded around Lhe
[uncLlon wlLh Lhe brush of glue 1he brush up need Lo be do carefully avoldlng puL glue beLween of Lwo
planLs and walL Lhree second unLll Lhe planLs are llnked
CrafLlng process was carrled ouL ln a greenhouse followlng all rules of sanlLaLlon
1he grafLed planLs were placed on a heallng chamber where Lhe llghL was low wlLh 2830 C proxlmally
and hlgh relaLlve humldlLy ln 7 days Lhe heallng chamber was open for lncrease Lhe lnLenslLy of llghL
and gradually lowered Lhe humldlLy and nexL 7 days Lhe mesh neL and plasLlc was removed compleLely
and lefL Lhe planL lnslde of Lhe glasshouse for a week
A randomlzed block deslgn was adopLed wlLh 2 repllcaLlons Lach repllcaLlon conslsLed of 23 planLs per
LreaLmenL 1he LreaLmenLs were Lube grafLlng and grafLlng uslng crazy glue we repeaL 3 Llmes Lhe
experlmenL
1he success was calculaLed by counLlng Lhe number of grafLed planLs LhaL survlved for 3 weeks flrsL
week number of planLs per genoLype whlch survlved Lo grafLlng second week number of planL per
genoLype whlch survlved unLll Lake ouL Lhe shadow and low humldlLy and LemperaLure and Lhlrd week
Lhe LoLal number of planLs per genoLype survlved Lhe grafLlng process
uaLa were analyzed uslng analysls of varlance Lo examlne LreaLmenL effecLs and dlfference beLween
genoLypes
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The success rates vary depending on many factors including: environment, genotype and time
when was grafted.
n each treatment according to the table (1) for genotype they are different but not statically. For
Tube the range were; 76-96, 24-48 and 12-63, week 1, week 2 and Week 3 respectively; for
glue were 88-100, 39-75 and 39-76 week1, week 2 and week 3 respectively. But all P value
were higher than 0.05.
How we showed on the table (1) for first week the success is high for both treatments
1he grafL success depends of many facLor ablllLy of grafLer envlronmenL conLrol and meLhod
Generally, the glue treatment had high success than tube, (p = <0.0001) for the 3 weeks.
Table 1. Average of success of three replicates for tube and Glue treatments in three weeks.
Genotypic differences are indicated vertically
Treatment differences are indicated horizontally



Week1 Week2 Week3
Genotype Tube Glue P = Tube Glue P = Tube Glue P =

Maxifort 0.80 0.99 0.40 0.48 0.75 0.30 0.39 0.76 0.11
FG02188 0.85 0.97 0.47 0.33 0.72 0.34 0.31 0.72 0.27
SGH07316 0.76 0.97 0.39 0.31 0.73 0.24 0.16 0.72 0.06
SGH07315 0.88 0.89 0.94 0.63 0.72 0.52 0.63 0.69 0.64
SGH07320 0.76 0.93 0.49 0.33 0.72 0.28 0.23 0.68 0.12
H7998 0.80 1.00 0.23 0.25 0.64 0.26 0.12 0.59 0.10
SGH07326 0.96 0.97 0.77 0.24 0.62 0.29 0.19 0.54 0.22
LA1589 0.83 0.93 0.54 0.47 0.48 0.97 0.36 0.44 0.79
LA2204 0.79 0.88 0.71 0.24 0.39 0.63 0.29 0.39 0.74
Mean 0.83 0.95 <0.0001 0.36 0.64 <0.0001 0.30 0.62 <0.0001
LSD>0.05 0.0494 0.1163 0.113