## 4 Discussion
Variations in plant growth and fruit yield parameters between the cultivars could be due to the genetic structure of individual cultivars, as [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2018) presented similar results. [PERSON] et al. (2018, 2019) also reported higher WUE values for certain tomato cultivars. In general, tomato farmers can achieve acceptable WUE with the use of moderately saline water; however, crop performance data may vary depending on the cultivar characteristics and salt stress conditions. In the case of the grafted tomato plants, vegetative growth, fruit yield, and WUE were found to be moderately significantly higher compared with the non-grafted plants. The grafted plants performed well, and the obtained results are consistent with the study by [PERSON] et al. (2016), who reported an increase in the leaf area of greenhouse \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Pr \textgreater{} F**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Yield** & **WUE** & **Plant Height** & **Stem Diameter** & **Leaf Area** \\ \hline Salinity (S) & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ Nutrient (N) & 0.045 & 0.045 & 0.085 & 0.335 & 0.333 \\ Grafting (G) & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ S\({}^{\text{s}}\)N & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & 0.040 & 0.031 & 0.001 \\ S\({}^{\text{s}}\)G & 0.158 & 0.159 & 0.166 & 0.507 & 0.088 \\ N\({}^{\text{s}}\)G & 0.706 & 0.708 & 0.597 & 0.264 & 0.467 \\ S\({}^{\text{s}}\)N\({}^{\text{s}}\)G & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.849 & 0.963 & 0.036 \\ R\({}^{2}\) & 0.964 & 0.961 & 0.899 & 0.871 & 0.892 \\ Coeff. Var. & 8.51 & 8.52 & 7.41 & 10.06 & 9.79 \\ RMSE & 1.914 & 2.248 & 16.129 & 1.228 & 1.392 \\ Mean & 23.38 & 26.44 & 218.44 & 12.28 & 14.23 \\ LSD & 1.190 & 1.332 & 10.48 & 0.76 & 0.84 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Analysis of variation (ANOVA) (mean square) examining agro-morphological traits in tomato plants under different salt stress (S), nutrient (N) recipe, and grafting conditions (season 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Exp.** \\ **Teatments** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Plant**} & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Stem Dia.** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Leaf Area** \\ **(m\({}^{2}\) plant\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Yield** \\ **(m\({}^{2}\) plant\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **WUE** \\ **(m\({}^{2}\) plant\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Plant** \\ **(m\({}^{2}\) plant\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Stem Dia.** \\ **(m\({}^{2}\) plant\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Leaf Area** \\ **(m\({}^{2}\) plant\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} **Yield** \\ **(m\({}^{2}\) plant\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **WUE** \\ **(m\({}^{2}\) plant\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  } \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{S1} & GF & 203.6\({}^{\pm}\) & 14.8\({}^{\pm}\) & 17.3\({}^{\pm}\) & 291.5\({}^{\pm}\) & 33.5\({}^{\pm}\) & 207.5\({}^{\pm}\) & 14.8\({}^{\pm}\) & 17.3\({}^{\pm}\) & 29  
heirloom tomato Cuore di Bue grafted onto Beaufort and Maxifort rootstocks. The results of the tomato plants grafted onto Maxifort rootstock showed 28.6% and 30.2% higher fruit yield than the non-grafted plants for the first and second seasons, respectively. In another study, [PERSON] et al. [47] reported that grafting a tomato cultivar resulted in significantly higher yields and WUE of about 28% greater than non-grafted plants.