ISSN e:2007-4034 / ISSN print: 2007-4034

English | Español

     

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Vol. 23, issue 1 January - April 2017

ISSN: ppub: 1027-152X epub: 2007-4034

Scientific article

Influence of rootstock on postharvest watermelon quality

http://dx.doi.org/10.5154/r.rchsh.2016.06.019

Suárez-Hernández, Ángel Manuel 1 ; Grimaldo-Juárez, Onécimo 1 * ; García-López, Alejandro Manelik 1 ; González-Mendoza, Daniel 1 ; Huitrón-Ramírez, María Victoria 2

  • 1Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. Instituto de Ciencias Agrícolas. Carretera a Delta s/n, Ejido Nuevo León, Baja California, C. P. 21705, MÉXICO.
  • 2Instituto Tecnológico de Colima. Av. Tecnológico 1, Villa de Álvarez, Colima, C. P. 28976, MÉXICO.

onecimo.grimaldo@uabc.edu.mx, tel.: (686) 523 00 79 (*Corresponding author)

Received: June 09, 2016; Accepted: November 23, 2016

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License view the permissions of this license

Abstract

The cultivation of grafted watermelon has spread to different parts of the world in order to improve production under adverse conditions; however, this technique may alter the quality of the fruit. Therefore, the aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of eight rootstocks, six native Lagenaria siceraria varieties (L43, L46, L48, L50, L54 and L56) and two commercial squash varieties (Super shintosa and TZ 148), in addition to the control plant (without grafting), on the postharvest quality of watermelon variety Tri-X 313. The experimental design was completely randomized with a factorial arrangement and three replicates per treatment. The evaluated variables were fruit weight, firmness, total soluble solids and pulp color. The post-harvest quality of the fruits was not modified by grafting; however, it increased fruit weight by 44 %, except for L50. Pulp firmness was favored 29 % with Super shintosa. The °Brix increased 7 % with L54 and L56. Pulp color was slightly affected with Lagenaria by presenting a lower-intensity red color. The quality of the fruits, during the 14 days of storage, changed in firmness, °Brix and pulp color. The L43, L46 and L48 rootstocks were identified as the most promising to reduce weight loss, retain firmness and maintain pulp color. On the other hand, L54 and L56 promoted °Brix content, but slightly diminished pulp color.

Keywords:Citrullus lanatus; Lagenaria siceraria; grafting; storage

Introduction

In recent years, grafted watermelon production has become widespread in several regions of the world. The progressive increase of this technology is due to the desirable characteristics of rootstocks, such as tolerance to soil diseases, low and high temperatures, and salinity (Boughalleb, Tarchoun, El Mbarki, & El Mahjoub, 2007; Schwarz, Rouphael, Colla, & Venema, 2010; Yetisir & Uygur, 2010), and the efficient use of water and nutrients (Rouphael, Cardarelli, Colla, & Rea, 2008; Colla, Rouphael, Marabelli, & Cardarelli, 2011). The rootstocks commonly used are interspecific hybrids (Cucurbita maxima × Cucurbita moschata) and Lagenaria siceraria (Myung-Lee et al., 2010), which favor fruit growth and yield (Yetisir, Kurt, Sari, & Tok, 2007; Yetisir & Uygur, 2009; Islam, Bashar, Howlader, Sarker, & Al-Mamun, 2013).

Internal fruit quality is a determining factor for the commercialization of watermelon. Physico-chemical characteristics such as soluble solids, firmness and color components vary depending on the variety (Pardo, Gómez, Tardáguila, Amo, & Varón, 1997). In grafted plants, quality has been found to be related to rootstock and variety (Petropoulos, Khah, & Passam, 2012; Petropoulos et al., 2014). Other researchers argue that there are no significant effects on the expression of internal quality attributes in watermelon; rather, the differences are given by the variety and sequence in fruit cutting (Camacho & Fernández, 2000). Also, the postharvest quality of watermelon varies according to handling procedures, temperature conditions and relative humidity during storage (Perkins-Veazie & Collins, 2006; Yau, Rosnah, Noraziah, Chin, & Osman, 2010). In general, the storage conditions are: 10 to 15 °C and relative humidity of 85 to 90 % (Risse et al., 1990). Some adverse effects on postharvest watermelon quality are accelerated ripening, reduced firmness, fruit discoloration, and reduced soluble solids content (Davis & Perkins-Veazie, 2005).

The use of Lagenaria and squash as rootstocks in watermelon production has been widely documented in several studies (Myung-Lee et al., 2010; Yetisir & Uygur, 2010); however, in terms of post-harvest quality, it is necessary to generate more information, especially on germplasm in Mexico since it has been little studied. The present work was carried out with the objective of evaluating the effect of eight rootstocks, six native Lagenaria siceraria varieties (L43, L46, L48, L50, L54 and L56) and two commercial squash varieties (Super shintosa and TZ 148), in addition to the plant (without grafting), on the post-harvest quality of watermelon variety Tri-X 313.

Materials and methods

This research was carried out in the Institute of Agricultural Sciences’ Experimental Field at the Autonomous University of Baja California (ICA-UABC), Mexico, during the 2014 spring-summer growing season. Planting was made in an open field in clay soil with a pH of 7. Water and fertilization were supplied via drip irrigation. Fertilizer doses were applied according to the recommendations of Fernández-Cara (1998), 95-73-106 NPK, supplemented with 33 kg of CaO and 11 kg of MgO.

Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus [Thunb.] Matsum. & Nakai) seedlings of the hybrid Tri-X 313 were grafted onto native Lagenaria siceraria materials (L43, L46, L48, L50, L54 and L56), collected in different regions of Mexico (Table 1), and two commercial squash rootstocks (TZ 148 and Super shintosa). The cleft grafting technique was used (Maroto, Borrego, Miguel-Gómez, & Pomares- García, 2002). Ungrafted watermelon plants were used as the control. Watermelon variety 2800 was used as the pollinator of Tri-X 313, at a 3:1 ratio. Two bee (Apis mellifera) hives were established from the beginning of flowering to promote flower pollination. The harvest was based on maturity indicators: dried stipule and tendril near the fruit peduncle (Miguel et al., 2004). Twelve fruits were randomly taken per experimental unit for each treatment.

Table 1. Provenance and geographical location of L. siceraria collections.

Rootstock Provenance Coordinates West longitude
North latitude West longitude
L43 Poblado Díaz Ordaz, Ensenada, Baja California 30° 30’ 22.20” 115° 56’ 09.11” 13
L46 Silacayoapan, Oaxaca 17° 30’ 08.47” 98° 08’ 18.40” 1661
L48 Camalu, Baja California 30° 50’ 22.76” 116° 03’ 53.39” 27
L50 Camalu, Baja California 30° 03’ 20.48” 116° 03’ 53.57” 26
L54 Río Verde, San Luis Potosí 21° 53’ 40.34” 100° 02’ 48.86” 1011
L56 Cuautla, Morelos 18° 48’ 46.07” 98° 57’ 55.40” 1289

In the post-harvest fruit quality analysis, a completely randomized design with a factorial arrangement was used, considering the factors rootstocks and storage time. Eighteen treatments (Table 2) resulting from 8 rootstocks, one control and two storage periods (0 and 14 days) were evaluated. Each treatment was established in triplicate, considering three fruits per replicate. Storage conditions were 15 to 17 °C and relative humidity of 80 %. The evaluated variables were fruit weight and color, pulp firmness and color, and total soluble solids.

Table 2. Relationship of treatments obtained from the rootstock combination and storage days of watermelon fruits.

Rootstock Storage days
0 days / 0 días 14 days / 14 días
Control T1* T10
Tz-148 T2 T11
Super shintosa T3 T12
L 43 T4 T13
L 46 T5 T14
L 48 T6 T15
L 50 T7 T16
L 54 T8 T17
L56 T9 T18
*Rootstock combination and storage day.

Firmness (Newton) was quantified with a Chatillon DFE-100 digital force gauge (AMETEK Inc., USA). The content of total soluble solids (°Brix) was determined with a Digital Reichert AR200 refractometer (Reichert Inc., New York, USA). Color was obtained using an X-Rite SP62 sphere spectrophotometer (X-Rite Inc., USA), which expresses values as L*, C* and °h, where: L* (lightness) defines color clarity, C* (chroma) indicates color saturation and °h (hue) indicates hue angle (X-Rite, 2002). The data were subjected to analysis of variance and comparison of means in the Statistical Analysis System program (2009), using the Tukey test (P ≤ 0.05) for the comparison of means.

Results and discussion

The postharvest quality of watermelons evaluated at the beginning and end of the period (14 days) was not altered by the storage time and grafted plant condition interaction (P ≤ 0.05). However, when independently considering the species of rootstocks employed and the storage time in relation to the control plant, different behaviors were observed (Table 3).

Table 3. Analysis of variance of pulp quality parameters in watermelon variety Tri-X 313 under normal and grafted condition.

Source of variation Fruit weight Firmness Soluble solids Color Attributes
Lightness Chroma Hue
Rootstock (P) *** *** * ** ns *
Storage (A) ns *** ns ** *** ***
P x A ns ns ns ns ns ns
ns = not significant, * = P ≤ 0.05, ** = P ≤ 0.01, *** = P ≤ 0.001

Fruit weight increased by 44 % (Table 4); this variation is associated with grafting (P ≤ 0.001). The superiority of the grafted plant was mostly expressed with Cucurbita rootstocks, where the increase was 55 % (P ≤ 0.001), while when using Lagenaria the increases were 40 % (P ≤ 0.001). However, the fruit weight response in both rootstock species was not significant (P = 0.053). Regarding the specific behavior of the rootstocks, the ones with the greatest increase in fruit weight were Super shintosa, L54 and L56 (Table 5). Fruit weight was a parameter that did not vary significantly (P ≤ 0.05) due to the storage effect, although the tendency was to fall by up to 1.2 % (Table 5).

Table 4. Average and orthogonal contrast of pulp quality parameters in watermelon variety Tri-X 313 under normal and grafted condition.

Variables Treatments Contrast (P value)
Control GP * GP Cucurbita GP Lagenaria C1 C2 C3 C4
Fruit weight (kg) 4.50 6.48 6.96 6.32 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.053
Firmness (N) 13.86 13.90 16.54 13.03 0.954 0.010 0.345 <0.001
Soluble solids (°Brix) 11.63 12.10 11.77 12.21 0.093 0.671 0.043 0.040
Lightness (L*) 49.08 49.15 47.28 49.77 0.944 0.100 0.469 0.001
Chroma (C*) 27.68 27.34 27.43 27.31 0.701 0.810 0.680 0.854
Hue (°h) 46.39 49.05 46.95 49.74 0.043 0.702 0.014 0.007
*GP = grafted plant, C1 = normal plant vs. grafted plant, C2 = normal plant vs. grafted Cucurbita plant, C3 = normal plant vs. grafted Lagenaria plant, C4 = grafted Cucurbita plant vs. grafted Lagenaria plant.

Table 5. Quality parameters of grafted and ungrafted watermelon fruits stored at 0 and 14 days (15 to 17 °C).

Rootstock Fruit weight (kg) Firmness (N) Total soluble solids (°Brix)
0 14 Mean 0 14 Mean 0 14 Mean
Control 4.53 4.47 4.50 cz 14.34 13.37 13.86 bc 11.73 11.53 11.63 bc
Tz-148 6.40 6.32 6.36 b 17.52 12.89 15.20 b 12.15 12.44 12.30 ab
Super shintosa 7.59 7.51 7.55 a 19.54 16.20 17.87 a 11.29 11.18 11.24 c
L 43 6.32 6.26 6.29 b 14.08 11.87 12.98 bc 11.78 12.62 12.20 ab
L 46 6.10 6.03 6.06 b 15.23 13.85 14.54 b 11.79 11.89 11.84 abc
L 48 6.46 6.36 6.41 b 14.38 12.70 13.54 bc 11.86 11.92 11.89 abc
L 50 4.73 4.68 4.70 c 12.66 11.33 12.00 c 12.18 12.54 12.36 ab
L 54 7.83 7.75 7.79 a 13.72 12.70 13.21 bc 12.50 12.60 12.55 a
L56 6.72 6.64 6.68 ab 13.09 10.71 11.90 c 12.46 12.41 12.44 a
Mean 6.30 6.22 14.95 A§ 12.85 B 12.13 11.97
zMeans with the same letters in the same column do not differ statistically (P ≤ 0.05). §Means with the same letters in the same row do not differ statistically (P ≤ 0.05).

These results show that grafting is an alternative to increase fruit weight, but it depends on the rootstock used. Similar results were reported by Alan, Ozdemir, and Gunen (2007), who recorded higher fruit weight in plants grafted onto Lagenaria and Cucurbita hybrids under microtunnel conditions. Perkins-Veazie and Collins (2006) and Yau et al. (2010) documented 1-2 % weight loss in watermelon fruit due to the effect of the storage period. The weight reduction is attributed to moisture loss by evaporation through the fruit epidermis (Yau et al., 2010), which is related to the presence of a wax layer (n-paraffin) in the fruit epicarp that acts as a moisture barrier (Panchev, Pashova, Radev, Petrov, & Kovacheva, 2014).

Pulp firmness showed significant statistical differences (P ≤ 0.001) due to grafting and storage time (Table 3). The combination of watermelon plus Cucurbita rootstock generated greater firmness compared to the control (P = 0.001), while the Lagenaria rootstocks did not show significant variations (P = 0.345) (Table 4). This behavior was also evident when comparing both species, where Cucurbita was 30 % firmer than Lagenaria (P ≤ 0.001). The rootstock with the greatest increase in firmness was Super shintosa (Table 5), which surpassed the control plant by 29 %.

As for the storage effect, in general, firmness losses of 14 % (P ≤ 0.05) were obtained, with TZ 148 fruits having the greatest deterioration. Similar results were highlighted by Huitrón-Ramírez, Ricárdez-Salinas, and Camacho-Ferre (2009), who recorded increases of up to 23 % in pulp firmness when using the Shintosa Camelforce (Cucurbita hybrid) rootstock with the Tri-X 313 variety. Álvarez-Hernández, Castellanos-Ramos, Aguirre-Mancilla, Huitrón-Ramírez, and Camacho-Ferre (2015) found increases of 4.3 to 18.8 % in pulp firmness in triploid watermelon variety Crunchy Red grafted onto Super shintosa. Likewise, it has been determined that Lagenaria rootstocks do not alter the consistency of watermelon pulp (Yetisir, Sari, & Yucel, 2003). Bruton, Fish, Roberts, and Popham (2009) agree in pointing out that fruit firmness in triploid watermelon grafted onto Lagenaria "RS1332" is not significantly modified.

The content of total soluble solids was modified with the rootstocks (P ≤ 0.05), while the storage period had no significant effect (P ≥ 0.05) (Table 3). The grafted condition with Lagenaria rootstocks (Table 4) was 4 and 5 % higher in °Brix compared to Cucurbita (P = 0.040) and ungrafted plants (P = 0.043). The L54 and L56 rootstocks had a greater content of total soluble solids (12.55 and 12.44 °Brix, respectively), while Super shintosa and the control showed values of 11.24 and 11.63 °Brix, respectively (Table 5).

Consistent with these results, Karaca et al. (2012) and Candir, Yetisir, Karaka, and Ustun (2013) showed that there are Lagenaria genotypes that can favor °Brix content in watermelon. Yetisir and Sari (2003) and Yetisir et al. (2003) recorded statistically similar values in commercial hybrid rootstocks of Lagenaria and the normal condition. Other studies agree that the soluble solids content is not affected in triploid watermelons on hybrid rootstocks of Cucurbita in the combinations “Reina de Corazones/Shintosa”, “Tri-X 313/Shintosa Camelforce” and “Crunchy Red/Super Shintosa” (Miguel et al., 2004; Huitrón-Ramírez et al., 2009; Álvarez- Hernández et al., 2015).

Watermelon pulp color varied with the rootstock and storage period (Table 3). Among the components that make up this parameter, pulp hue angle varied between grafted and ungrafted plants (P = 0.043), with the fruits of plants grafted with Lagenaria exhibiting a less-intense red color (P = 0.014), while with Cucurbita (Super shintosa and TZ 148) there were no significant statistical differences (P = 0.701) in pulp hue. The species Lagenaria siceraria was identified as having the lowest hue (P = 0.007) and greatest lightness (P = 0.001) in pulp compared to Cucurbita (Table 4). However, when comparing the different rootstocks, Lagenaria L43 was identified with similar characteristics in pulp color to the ungrafted plant (Table 6).

Table 6. Pulp color parameters in grafted and ungrafted watermelon fruits stored at 0 and 14 days (15 to 17 °C).

Rootstock Lightness (L*) Chroma (C*) Hue (°h)
0 14 Mean 0 14 Mean 0 14 Mean
Control 47.14 51.03 49.08 bcdz 30.20 25.15 27.68 43.12 49.65 46.39 c
Tz-148 45.37 48.83 47.10 d 28.70 26.49 27.60 42.22 51.31 46.76 bc
Super shintosa 46.10 48.80 47.45 cd 27.92 26.62 27.27 44.98 49.31 47.14 bc
L 43 50.64 48.87 49.76 abc 26.63 25.86 26.25 45.73 49.90 47.81 bc
L 46 47.07 49.68 48.37 cd 27.00 25.51 26.26 47.23 52.45 49.84 ab
L 48 48.35 54.36 51.36 ab 30.88 24.90 27.89 48.16 50.52 49.34 abc
L 50 48.00 48.76 48.38 cd 28.59 27.05 27.82 48.73 50.76 49.75 abc
L 54 48.85 48.26 48.56 cd 29.91 27.35 28.63 49.82 53.47 51.65 a
L56 51.98 52.45 52.22 a 27.94 26.05 27.00 48.92 51.23 50.08 ab
Mean 48.17 B§ 50.12 A 28.64 A 26.11 B 46.55 A 50.95 B
zMeans with the same letters in the same column do not differ statistically (P ≤ 0.05). §Means with the same letters in the same row do not differ statistically (P ≤ 0.05).

Fruits under storage conditions presented a pulp color transition from bright red to orange-red, opaque and clear. This variation was not related to the normal and grafted condition of the plants. The changes observed in hue (Δ°h = 4.40), lightness (ΔL* = 1.95) and chroma (ΔC* = -2.53) resulted from the storage days (15 to 17 °C, Table 6). These results coincide with those reported by Karaca et al. (2012), who found a change in color from bright red to orange-red, arguing that this change is associated with the progressive level of senescence as a result of the days spent during storage, in addition to the temperature conditions present (Gil, Aguayo, & Kader, 2006; Perkins-Veazie & Collins, 2006).

Conclusion

The postharvest quality of the watermelon fruits was not modified by the grafted condition. Grafting induces greater fruit weight, pulp firmness and °Brix. Pulp color was slightly affected by the Lagenaria rootstocks by presenting pulp with a less-intense red color in relation to the control plant fruits. Fruit quality due to the effect of storage (14 days, 15 to 17 °C) varied in firmness, °Brix and pulp color. The L43, L46 and L48 rootstocks of Lagenaria were identified as the most promising ones to reduce weight loss, retain firmness and maintain pulp color. For their part, L54 and L56 favor °Brix content, but they slightly diminish pulp color. The native L. siceraria variety rootstocks represent a potential genetic resource that can be integrated into breeding programs for the commercial production of grafted watermelon.

Acknowledgments

  • The authors are grateful to the Autonomous University of Baja California for the support granted through the "17th Internal Call for Research Projects."

References

Alan, O., Ozdemir, N., & Gunen, Y. (2007). Effect of grafting on watermelon plant growth, yield and quality. Journal of Agronomy, 6(2), 362-365. doi: 10.3923/ja.2007.362.365

Álvarez-Hernández, J. C., Castellanos-Ramos, J. Z., Aguirre- Mancilla, C. L., Huitrón-Ramírez, M. V., & Camacho- Ferre, F.(2015). Influence of rootstocks on fusarium wilt, nematode infestation, yield and fruit quality in watermelon production. Ciência e Agrotecnologia Journal, 39(4), 323-330. doi: 10.1590/S1413-70542015000400002

Boughalleb, N., Tarchoun, N., El Mbarki, A., & El Mahjoub, M. (2007). Resistance evaluation of nine cucurbit rootstocks and grafted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus L.) varieties against Fusarium wilt and Fusarium crown and root rot. Journal of Plant Sciences, 2(1), 102-107. doi: 10.3923/jps.2007.102.107

Bruton, B. D., Fish, W. W., Roberts, W., & Popham, T. W. (2009). The influence of rootstock selection on fruit quality attributes of watermelon. The Open Food Science Journal, 3, 15-34. doi: 10.2174/1874256400903010015

Camacho, F., & Fernández, E. J. (2000). El cultivo de sandía apirena injertada, bajo invernadero, en el litoral mediterráneo español. España: Mundi-prensa. Retrieved from http://www.publicacionescajamar.es/pdf/series-tematicas/agricultura/el-cultivo-de-sandia-apirena-injertada.pdf

Candir, E., Yetisir, H., Karaka, F., & Ustun, D. (2013). Phytochemical characteristics of grafted watermelon on different bottle gourds (Lagenaria siceraria) collected from the Mediterranean region of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 37, 443-456. doi: 10.3906/tar-1207-21

Colla, G., Rouphael, Y., Marabelli, C., & Cardarelli, M. (2011). Nitrogen-use efficiency traits of mini-watermelon in response to grafting and nitrogen-fertilization doses. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 174, 933-941. doi: 10.1002/jpln.201000325

Davis, A. R., & Perkins-Veazie, P.(2005). Rootstock effects on plant vigor and watermelon fruit quality. Cucurbit Genetics Cooperative Report, 28, 39-42. Retrieved from http://cuke.hort.ncsu.edu/cgc/cgc2829/cgc2829-11.pdf

Fernández-Cara, C. (1998). Técnicas de producción de frutas y hortalizas en los cultivos protegidos del Sureste Español. Almería: Caja Rural de Almería.

Gil, M. I., Aguayo, E., & Kader, A. A. (2006). Quality changes and nutrient retention in fresh-cut versus whole fruits during storage. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54(12), 4284-4296. doi: 10.1021/jf060303y

Huitrón-Ramírez, M. V., Ricárdez-Salinas, M., & Camacho- Ferre, F. (2009). Influence of grafted watermelon plant density on yield and quality in soil infested with melon necrotic spot virus. Hortscience, 44(7), 1838-1841. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.917.36

Islam, M. S., Bashar, H. M. K., Howlader, M. I. A., Sarker, J. U., & Al-Mamun, M. H. (2013). Effect of grafting on watermelon growth and yield. Khon Kaen Agriculture Journal, 41(1), 284-289. Retrieved from http://anchan.lib.ku.ac.th/agnet/bitstream/001/5793/1/KAJ-41-Sup1-2556-p284-289.pdf

Karaca, F., Yetisir, H., Solmaz, I., Candir, E., Kurt, S., & Sari, N. (2012). Rootstock potential of Turkish Lagenaria siceraria germplasm for watermelon: plant growth, yield and quality. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 36(2), 167-177. doi: 10.3906/tar-1101-1716

Maroto, J. V., Borrego, I., Miguel-Gómez, A., & Pomares-García, F. (2002). El cultivo de la sandía. México: Mundi-Prensa.

Miguel, A., Maroto, J. V., San Bautista, A., Baixauli, C., Cebolla, V., Pascual, B., López, S., & Guardiola, J. L. (2004). The grafting of triploid watermelon is an advantageous alternative to soil fumigation by methyl bromide for control of Fusarium wilt. Scientia Horticulturae, 103(1), 9-17. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2004.04.007

Myung-Lee, J., Kubota, C., Tsao, S. J., Bie, Z., Hoyos-Echevarria, P., Morra, L., & Oda, M. (2010). Current status of vegetable grafting: Diffusion, grafting techniques, automation. Scientia Horticulturae, 127(2), 93-105. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.08.003

Panchev, I. N., Pashova, S. D., Radev, R. S., Petrov, D. N., & Kovacheva, D. G. (2014). Physical studies of plant wax from watermelon. Bulgarian Chemical Communications, 46(B), 20-24. Retrieved from http://bcc.bas.bg/BCC_Volumes/Volume_46_Special_B_2014/BCC- 46-B-20-24-2.pdf

Pardo, J. E., Gómez, R., Tardáguila, J., Amo, M., & Varón, R. (1997). Quality evaluation of watermelon varieties (Citrullus vulgaris S.). Journal of Food Quality, 20(6), 547-557. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4557.1997.tb00495.x

Perkins-Veazie, P., & Collins, J. K. (2006). Carotenoid changes of intact watermelons after storage. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54(16), 5868-5874. doi: 10.1021/jf0532664

Petropoulos, S. A., Khah, E. M., & Passam, H. C. (2012). Evaluation of rootstocks for watermelon grafting with reference to plant development, yield and fruit quality. International Journal of Plant Production, 6(4), 481- 492. Retrieved from http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/124220120406.pdf

Petropoulos, S. A., Olympios, C., Ropokis, A., Vlachou, G., Ntatsi, G., Paraskevopoulos, A., & Passam, H. C. (2014). Fruit volatiles, quality, and yield of watermelon as affected by grafting. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 16(4), 873-885. Retrieved from http://journals.modares.ac.ir/article_10893_5044.html

Risse, L. A., Brecht, J. K., Sargent, S. A., Locascio, S. J., Crall, J. M., Elmstrom, G. W., & Maynard, D. N. (1990). Storage characteristics of small watermelon cultivars. American Society for Horticultural Science, 115(3), 440-443. Retrieved from http://journal.ashspublications.org/content/115/3/440.full.pdf

Rouphael, Y., Cardarelli, M., Colla, G., & Rea, E. (2008). Yield, mineral composition, water relations, and water use efficiency of grafted mini-watermelon plants under deficit irrigation. Hortscience, 43(3), 730-736. Retrieved from http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/3/730.full.pdf

Schwarz, D., Rouphael, Y., Colla, G., & Venema, J. H. (2010). Grafting as a tool to improve tolerance of vegetables to abiotic stresses: Thermal stress, water stress and organic pollutants. Scientia Horticulturae, 127(2), 162-171. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.09.016

Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute). (2009). SAS User’s Guide, version 9.1. Cary, N.C., USA: Author.

X-Rite, Incorporated (2002). Guía para entender la comunicación del color. Michigan, USA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.mcolorcontrol.com/archivos/L10-001_Understand_Color_es.pdf

Yau, E. W., Rosnah, S., Noraziah, M., Chin, N. L., & Osman, H. (2010). Physico-chemical compositions of the red seedless watermelons (Citrullus lanatus). International Food Research Journal, 17, 327-334. Retrieved from http://www.ifrj.upm.edu.my/17%20(02)%202010/IFRJ2010-327-334_Rosnah_UPMENT#91;1ENT#93;.pdf-

Yetisir, H., & Sari, N. (2003). Effect of different rootstock on plant growth, yield and quality of watermelon. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 43(10), 1269-1274. doi: 10.1071/EA02095

Yetisir, H., & Uygur, V. (2009). Plant growth and mineral element content of different gourd species and watermelon under salinity stress. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 33, 65-77. doi: 10.3906/tar-0805-23

Yetisir, H., & Uygur, V. (2010). Responses of grafted watermelon onto different gourd species to salinity stress. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 33(3), 315-327. doi: 10.1080/01904160903470372

Yetisir, H., Kurt, F., Sari, N., & Tok, F. M. (2007). Rootstock potential of Turkish Lagenaria siceraria germplasm for watermelon: plant growth, graft compatibility, and resistance to Fusarium. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 31(6), 381-388. Retrieved from http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/tbtkagriculture/article/viewFile/5000026461/5000026698

Yetisir, H., Sari, N., & Yucel, S. (2003). Rootstock resistance to fusarium wilt and effect on watermelon fruit yield and quality. Phytoparasitica, 31(2), 163-169. doi: 10.1007/BF02980786

Tables:

Table 1. Provenance and geographical location of L. siceraria collections.
Rootstock Provenance Coordinates West longitude
North latitude West longitude
L43 Poblado Díaz Ordaz, Ensenada, Baja California 30° 30’ 22.20” 115° 56’ 09.11” 13
L46 Silacayoapan, Oaxaca 17° 30’ 08.47” 98° 08’ 18.40” 1661
L48 Camalu, Baja California 30° 50’ 22.76” 116° 03’ 53.39” 27
L50 Camalu, Baja California 30° 03’ 20.48” 116° 03’ 53.57” 26
L54 Río Verde, San Luis Potosí 21° 53’ 40.34” 100° 02’ 48.86” 1011
L56 Cuautla, Morelos 18° 48’ 46.07” 98° 57’ 55.40” 1289
Table 2. Relationship of treatments obtained from the rootstock combination and storage days of watermelon fruits.
Rootstock Storage days
0 days / 0 días 14 days / 14 días
Control T1* T10
Tz-148 T2 T11
Super shintosa T3 T12
L 43 T4 T13
L 46 T5 T14
L 48 T6 T15
L 50 T7 T16
L 54 T8 T17
L56 T9 T18
*Rootstock combination and storage day.
Table 3. Analysis of variance of pulp quality parameters in watermelon variety Tri-X 313 under normal and grafted condition.
Source of variation Fruit weight Firmness Soluble solids Color Attributes
Lightness Chroma Hue
Rootstock (P) *** *** * ** ns *
Storage (A) ns *** ns ** *** ***
P x A ns ns ns ns ns ns
ns = not significant, * = P ≤ 0.05, ** = P ≤ 0.01, *** = P ≤ 0.001
Table 4. Average and orthogonal contrast of pulp quality parameters in watermelon variety Tri-X 313 under normal and grafted condition.
Variables Treatments Contrast (P value)
Control GP * GP Cucurbita GP Lagenaria C1 C2 C3 C4
Fruit weight (kg) 4.50 6.48 6.96 6.32 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.053
Firmness (N) 13.86 13.90 16.54 13.03 0.954 0.010 0.345 <0.001
Soluble solids (°Brix) 11.63 12.10 11.77 12.21 0.093 0.671 0.043 0.040
Lightness (L*) 49.08 49.15 47.28 49.77 0.944 0.100 0.469 0.001
Chroma (C*) 27.68 27.34 27.43 27.31 0.701 0.810 0.680 0.854
Hue (°h) 46.39 49.05 46.95 49.74 0.043 0.702 0.014 0.007
*GP = grafted plant, C1 = normal plant vs. grafted plant, C2 = normal plant vs. grafted Cucurbita plant, C3 = normal plant vs. grafted Lagenaria plant, C4 = grafted Cucurbita plant vs. grafted Lagenaria plant.
Table 5. Quality parameters of grafted and ungrafted watermelon fruits stored at 0 and 14 days (15 to 17 °C).
Rootstock Fruit weight (kg) Firmness (N) Total soluble solids (°Brix)
0 14 Mean 0 14 Mean 0 14 Mean
Control 4.53 4.47 4.50 cz 14.34 13.37 13.86 bc 11.73 11.53 11.63 bc
Tz-148 6.40 6.32 6.36 b 17.52 12.89 15.20 b 12.15 12.44 12.30 ab
Super shintosa 7.59 7.51 7.55 a 19.54 16.20 17.87 a 11.29 11.18 11.24 c
L 43 6.32 6.26 6.29 b 14.08 11.87 12.98 bc 11.78 12.62 12.20 ab
L 46 6.10 6.03 6.06 b 15.23 13.85 14.54 b 11.79 11.89 11.84 abc
L 48 6.46 6.36 6.41 b 14.38 12.70 13.54 bc 11.86 11.92 11.89 abc
L 50 4.73 4.68 4.70 c 12.66 11.33 12.00 c 12.18 12.54 12.36 ab
L 54 7.83 7.75 7.79 a 13.72 12.70 13.21 bc 12.50 12.60 12.55 a
L56 6.72 6.64 6.68 ab 13.09 10.71 11.90 c 12.46 12.41 12.44 a
Mean 6.30 6.22 14.95 A§ 12.85 B 12.13 11.97
zMeans with the same letters in the same column do not differ statistically (P ≤ 0.05). §Means with the same letters in the same row do not differ statistically (P ≤ 0.05).
Table 6. Pulp color parameters in grafted and ungrafted watermelon fruits stored at 0 and 14 days (15 to 17 °C).
Rootstock Lightness (L*) Chroma (C*) Hue (°h)
0 14 Mean 0 14 Mean 0 14 Mean
Control 47.14 51.03 49.08 bcdz 30.20 25.15 27.68 43.12 49.65 46.39 c
Tz-148 45.37 48.83 47.10 d 28.70 26.49 27.60 42.22 51.31 46.76 bc
Super shintosa 46.10 48.80 47.45 cd 27.92 26.62 27.27 44.98 49.31 47.14 bc
L 43 50.64 48.87 49.76 abc 26.63 25.86 26.25 45.73 49.90 47.81 bc
L 46 47.07 49.68 48.37 cd 27.00 25.51 26.26 47.23 52.45 49.84 ab
L 48 48.35 54.36 51.36 ab 30.88 24.90 27.89 48.16 50.52 49.34 abc
L 50 48.00 48.76 48.38 cd 28.59 27.05 27.82 48.73 50.76 49.75 abc
L 54 48.85 48.26 48.56 cd 29.91 27.35 28.63 49.82 53.47 51.65 a
L56 51.98 52.45 52.22 a 27.94 26.05 27.00 48.92 51.23 50.08 ab
Mean 48.17 B§ 50.12 A 28.64 A 26.11 B 46.55 A 50.95 B
zMeans with the same letters in the same column do not differ statistically (P ≤ 0.05). §Means with the same letters in the same row do not differ statistically (P ≤ 0.05).