Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Early Access

Harnessing traditional mango cultivars to validate the influence of rootstock and its age on softwood grafting in Kuttiattoor mango: A GI-registered cultivar of North Kerala

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.15457
Submitted
7 May 2026
Published
05-11-2026

Abstract

Kuttiattoor mango, a geographical indication (GI)-registered traditional cultivar of North Kerala, is renowned for its unique taste and yellow-orange colour. However, being polyembryonic, it is mainly propagated through seeds, resulting in tall trees, a prolonged juvenile phase and difficulty in harvesting. In this context, the present study was undertaken to explore the potential of traditional mango cultivars as rootstocks for softwood grafting in Kuttiattoor mango. Four rootstocks viz. Vellaikolumban, Kurukkan, Kalapady and Kuttiattoor were assessed across three age groups (1, 2 and 3 months old) for softwood grafting. Grafts prepared with 3-month-old Kuttiattoor rootstocks recorded the highest sprouting percentage (73 %), survival percentage (41.92 %) and the fewest days to sprout (12.5). The same combination also produced superior vegetative growth, which was on par with 3-month-old Kalapady rootstocks at 140 days after grafting (DAG). The lower graft growth observed in Kuttiattoor grafts on Vellaikolumban and Kurukkan rootstocks suggests a dwarfing effect, highlighting their potential utility for developing compact, high-density mango orchards. Histological studies revealed better callus growth and vascular differentiation in grafts prepared with 3-month-old Kuttiattoor rootstocks followed by those with 3-month-old Kalapady rootstocks. Grafts with 3-month-old Kuttiattoor and Kalapady rootstocks were found to be the most suitable for nursery propagation of Kuttiattoor mango. The reduced vegetative growth observed on Vellaikolumban and Kurukkan rootstocks indicates their potential for future evaluation as dwarfing rootstocks in high-density mango production systems.

References

  1. 1. Tharanathan R, Yashoda H, Prabha T. Mango (Mangifera indica L.), “The king of fruits”: An overview. Food Rev Int. 2006;22(2):95–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/87559120600574493
  2. 2. Reshma R. Characterization of Kuttiattoor mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivar of Kannur district, Kerala [thesis]. Kerala: Kerala Agricultural University; 2017.
  3. 3. Hartmann HT, Kester DE, Davies FT, Geneve RL. Hartmann and Kester's plant propagation: principles and practices. 8th ed. Pearson New International Edition; 2013.
  4. 4. Adhikari PB, Xu Q, Notaguchi M. Compatible graft establishment in fruit trees and its potential markers. Agronomy. 2022;12(8):1981. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081981
  5. 5. Deepak GN, Singh C, Jeevan U, Priyanka HL, Krishna KR. Early identification of graft compatibility through histological studies in mango. Indian J Hortic. 2019;76(2):176–9. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0112.2019.00025.2
  6. 6. Rao NM, Soneji JR, Chen C, Huang S, Gmitter FG Jr. Characterization of zygotic and nucellar seedlings from sour orange-like citrus rootstock candidates using RAPD and EST-SSR markers. Tree Genet Genomes. 2008;4(1):113–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-007-0092-2
  7. 7. Sen PK. Annual report of Fruit Research Station, Sabour, Bihar. Sabour (IN): Fruit Research Station; 1939. p. 41–2.
  8. 8. Singh UR, Singh AP. Rootstock studies in mango (Mangifera indica L.). Prog Hortic. 1976;8(1):13–9.
  9. 9. Singh NP, Srivastava RP, Chadha KL. Studies on selection criteria in relation to vigour of different mango rootstocks. In: National Symposium on Tropical and Subtropical Fruits; 1981. p. 171–5.
  10. 10. Kankaya A, Ozyigit S, Tekintas FE, Seferoglu G. Compatibility of some plum and apricot cultivars on Pixy rootstock. In: Third National Horticulture Congress. Vol. 1; 1999. p. 295–9.
  11. 11. Cutler DF, Botha T, Stevenson DW. Plant anatomy: an applied approach. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
  12. 12. Beshir W, Alemayehu M, Dessalegn Y. Effect of grafting time and technique on the success rate of grafted mango (Mangifera indica L.) in Kalu District of Amhara Region, North Eastern Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 2019;5(1):1577023. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1577023
  13. 13. Patil SD, Swamy GSK, Kumar HY, Thammaiah N, Prasad PK. Effect of different mango rootstocks on success of softwood grafting. Asian J Hortic. 2008;3(2):389–90.
  14. 14. Mandal J, Mandal BK, Singh RR, Jaiswal US. Effect of age of rootstock, grafting time and varieties on the success of soft wood grafting in mango. Asian J Hortic. 2011;6(2):412–7.
  15. 15. Karabulut B, Çelik H. Determination of grafting success and carbohydrate distributions of foxy grape (Vitis labrusca L.) varieties grafted on different American grape rootstocks. Horticulturae. 2022;8(10):949. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8100949
  16. 16. Shivran M, Sharma N, Dubey AK, Singh SK, Sharma N, Sharma RM, et al. Scion-rootstock relationship: molecular mechanism and quality fruit production. Agriculture. 2022;12(12):2036. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122036
  17. 17. Machado BD, Magro M, Rufato L, Bogo A, Kretzschmar AA. Graft compatibility between European pear cultivars and East Malling ‘C’ rootstock. Rev Bras Frutic. 2017;39(3):e-063. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452017063
  18. 18. Habibi F, Liu T, Folta KM, Sarkhosh A. Physiological, biochemical, and molecular aspects of grafting in fruit trees. Hortic Res. 2022;9:uhac032. https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhac032
  19. 19. Feng M, Augstein F, Kareem A, Melnyk CW. Plant grafting: molecular mechanisms and applications. Mol Plant. 2024;17(1):75–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2023.12.006
  20. 20. Darikova JA, Savva YV, Vaganov EA, Grachev AM, Kuznetsova GV. Grafts of woody plants and the problem of incompatibility between scion and rootstock (a review). J Sib Fed Univ Biol. 2011;4(1):54–63. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1389-0185
  21. 21. Porika HK, Nimbolkar PK, Rajashekar B, Hussain SF. Graft compatibility-incompatibility in fruit crops: mechanism and determination techniques. Asian J Hortic. 2016;11(1):252–60. https://doi.org/10.15740/HAS/TAJH/11.1/252-260
  22. 22. Pina A, Errea P. A review of new advances in mechanism of graft compatibility-incompatibility. Sci Hortic. 2005;106(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2005.04.003
  23. 23. Kawaguchi M, Taji A, Backhouse D, Oda M. Anatomy and physiology of graft incompatibility in solanaceous plants. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol. 2008;83(5):581–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2008.11512427
  24. 24. Ji P, Liang C, Yang Y, Wang R, Wang Y, Yuan M, et al. Comparisons of anatomical characteristics and transcriptomic differences between heterografts and homografts in Pyrus L. Plants. 2022;11(5):580. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11050580
  25. 25. Chen Z, Yan T, Yang M, Wang X, Lai B, He G, et al. Auxin dynamics and transcriptome-metabolome integration determine graft compatibility in litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.). Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(9):4231. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26094231
  26. 26. Bose SK, Ghosh K, Howlader P. Effect of variety and rootstock age on the success and survivability of epicotyl grafting in mango. J Agric Res Adv. 2019;1(1):13–25.
  27. 27. Savithri A. Standardisation of soft wood grafting in mango (Mangifera indica L.) [thesis]. Kerala: Kerala Agricultural University; 1990.
  28. 28. Pérez-Alfocea F, Albacete A, Ghanem ME, Dodd IC. Hormonal regulation of source-sink relations to maintain crop productivity under salinity: a case study of root-to-shoot signalling in tomato. Funct Plant Biol. 2010;37(7):592–603. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP10012
  29. 29. Yadav D, Pal AK, Singh SP. Effect of the age of rootstock on the success of softwood grafting in different cultivars of mango. J Agric Sci Technol. 2019;7(4):323–9.
  30. 30. Helmey MS, Mohd Shaib J, Ahmad Hafiz B, Mohamad Azlan M. Effect of rootstock age on success and growth of softwood grafting for Harumanis mango. Trans Malays Soc Plant Physiol. 2017;24:13–5.
  31. 31. Jamali MF, Memon N, Wahocho NA, Jamali FA, Ahmad W, Talpur, et al. Comparative effects of varieties and rootstock age on success and survival rate of epicotyl grafting in mango (Mangifera indica L.). Pak J Biotechnol. 2024;21(1):219–27. https://doi.org/10.34016/pjbt.2024.21.01.891
  32. 32. Raghavan M, Kumar A, Gawai SD, Singh L, Sharma P, Balan A, et al. Rootstock breeding and grafting innovations in perennial fruit trees: a review. Plant Arch. 2025;25:1298–307.
  33. 33. Aloni B, Cohen R, Karni L, Aktas H, Edelstein M. Hormonal signaling in rootstock-scion interactions. Sci Hortic. 2010;127(2):119–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2010.09.003
  34. 34. Marie CP. Dwarfing potential of indigenous mango varieties [thesis]. Kerala: Kerala Agricultural University; 2001.
  35. 35. Dubey AK, Sharma RM, Kumar A. Long-term performance of mango varieties on five polyembryonic rootstocks under subtropical conditions: effect on vigour, yield, fruit quality and nutrient acquisition. Sci Hortic. 2021;280:109944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.109944
  36. 36. Hussain CM, Khan KM, Nasir MA. Determination of suitable rootstock for some elite mango cultivars. Agric Res Lahore. 1989;27(4):289–98.
  37. 37. Devi CA, Swamy GSK, Pandey BB, Naik N, Sampath PM, Suresha GJ, et al. Studies on success of different age rootstocks of softwood grafting in jamun (Syzygium cuminii Skeels). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(2):3158–65. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.380
  38. 38. Reddy CV, Melanta KR. Effect of age of rootstocks on the success of softwood grafting of mango in containers and in situ. South Indian Hortic. 1988;36:143–5.
  39. 39. Kilany OA, Abd El-Zaher MH, Hamed HH. The relationship between the histological features in the grafting areas and the compatibility degrees of some mango cultivars onto nucellar seedlings. J Hortic Sci Ornam Plants. 2012;4(1):58–65.
  40. 40. Pugalendhi L, Bharathi S, Selvi NT, Devi HU. Grafting of tomato with interspecific solanaceous rootstocks: an approach to anatomical and histological findings. Recent Prog Plant Soil Res. 2022;5:37–46. https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/rppsr/v5/2185C
  41. 41. Loupit G, Brocard L, Ollat N, Cookson SJ. Grafting in plants: recent discoveries and new applications. J Exp Bot. 2023;74(8):2433–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erad061
  42. 42. Rasool A, Mansoor S, Bhat KM, Hassan GI, Baba TR, Alyemeni MN, et al. Mechanisms underlying graft union formation and rootstock-scion interaction in horticultural plants. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:590847. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.590847
  43. 43. Kragler F, Bock R. The biology of grafting and its applications in studying information exchange between plants. Nat Plants. 2025;11(5):955–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-025-01982-2
  44. 44. Miao L, Li Q, Sun TS, Chai S, Wang C, Bai L, et al. Sugars promote graft union development in the heterograft of cucumber onto pumpkin. Hortic Res. 2021;8:146. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41438-021-00580-5
  45. 45. Yildirim AN, Polat M, Dolgun O, Askin MA, Gokbayrak Z, San B. Graft formation in some spur and vigorous apple varieties grafted on Ottawa 3 rootstock: a histological investigation. J Food Agric Environ. 2010;8(2):512–4.
  46. 46. Trinchera A, Pandozy G, Rinaldi S, Crinò P, Temperini O, Rea E. Graft union formation in artichoke grafting onto wild and cultivated cardoon: an anatomical study. J Plant Physiol. 2013;170(18):1569–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2013.06.018
  47. 47. Hartmann HT, Kester DE. Plant propagation: principles and practices. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1983.
  48. 48. Melnyk CW, Gabel A, Hardcastle TJ, Robinson S, Miyashima S, Grosse I, et al. Transcriptome dynamics at Arabidopsis graft junctions reveal an intertissue recognition mechanism that activates vascular regeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115(10):E2447–56. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718263115
  49. 49. Polat M, Dolgun O, Yildirim AN, Askin MA, Gokbayrak Z. Graft union formation of spur apple varieties grafted on different rootstocks. J Food Agric Environ. 2010;8(2):490–3.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.