grafted rootstock
 

I am questioning an assumption. I assume that all shoots emanating from
a grafted tree of its original rootstock is to be pruned off and
suppressed so that the graft becomes the sole plant above ground. Is
that assumption in error? Or can a tree be allowed to express itself
without the graft being exclusive expression above ground?

I wonder if there is an advantage to not cutting off all rootstock
shoots.

grafted rootstock
 

Archimedes Plutonium schreef
I am questioning an assumption.

I assume that all shoots emanating from
a grafted tree of its original rootstock is to be pruned off and
suppressed so that the graft becomes the sole plant above ground.

+ + +
Yes. That is pretty much the point of the graft
+ + +

Is that assumption in error? Or can a tree be allowed to express itself
without the graft being exclusive expression above ground?

+ + +
As a rule the rootstock will overgrow the graft, as the rootstock will be of
tougher stock than the graft, that being the reason for using it in the
first place.
+ + +

I wonder if there is an advantage to not cutting off all rootstock shoots.

+ + +
Depends on what you want and how much time you are willing to spend.
PvR

grafted rootstock
 

You never stop and think things through, which leads to your asking silly
questions. Get a book out of the library on grafting & you will soon find out.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

grafted rootstock
 

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
I am questioning an assumption. I assume that all shoots emanating from
a grafted tree of its original rootstock is to be pruned off and
suppressed so that the graft becomes the sole plant above ground. Is
that assumption in error? Or can a tree be allowed to express itself
without the graft being exclusive expression above ground?

I wonder if there is an advantage to not cutting off all rootstock
shoots.

The problem with leaving the shoots from the rootstock (called suckers
or watersprouts) in place is that the plant will devote some of its
available energy to these rather than to the valuable top growth.

The rootstock in grafted plants is chosen to resist disease and to
support the top growth (also, particularly in the case of dwarfing
rootstock, to regulate it), not because it has any other value.

Plants on which suckers or watersprouts are allowed to persist will
produce less vegetative growth, flowers, or fruit on the top growth;
if persistently neglected, the top growth may languish, die back, or
even be lost to disease. This is particularly so with the dwarfing
rootstocks commonly used for fruit trees.

--
Chris Green

grafted rootstock
 

11 Jun 2004 17:14:16 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
I am questioning an assumption. I assume that all shoots emanating from
a grafted tree of its original rootstock is to be pruned off and
suppressed so that the graft becomes the sole plant above ground. Is
that assumption in error? Or can a tree be allowed to express itself
without the graft being exclusive expression above ground?

I wonder if there is an advantage to not cutting off all rootstock
shoots.

The problem with leaving the shoots from the rootstock (called suckers
or watersprouts) in place is that the plant will devote some of its
available energy to these rather than to the valuable top growth.

The rootstock in grafted plants is chosen to resist disease and to
support the top growth (also, particularly in the case of dwarfing
rootstock, to regulate it), not because it has any other value.

Plants on which suckers or watersprouts are allowed to persist will
produce less vegetative growth, flowers, or fruit on the top growth;
if persistently neglected, the top growth may languish, die back, or
even be lost to disease. This is particularly so with the dwarfing
rootstocks commonly used for fruit trees.

--
Chris Green

I wonder if anyone has quantified the success at which a grafted tree lives versus the success
of a cutting. In a cutting you have no root system. In a graft you have a root system yet a top
removed and replaced by a new top.

For example with Sunburst Honeylocust cuttings, few if any will live but with grafts almost
100% will live.

Grafts versus cuttings should be quantifiable and linked to stem cell quantity.

Yew trees are easy via cuttings but honeylocust are difficult so is there a large difference in
numbers of stem cells in yew versus honeylocust?

grafted rootstock
 

You need to go to the library, find a book about grafts and cuttings, and
read it. That is, if you are really interested.

Chuck


"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
11 Jun 2004 17:14:16 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
...
I am questioning an assumption. I assume that all shoots emanating
from
a grafted tree of its original rootstock is to be pruned off and
suppressed so that the graft becomes the sole plant above ground. Is
that assumption in error? Or can a tree be allowed to express itself
without the graft being exclusive expression above ground?

I wonder if there is an advantage to not cutting off all rootstock
shoots.

The problem with leaving the shoots from the rootstock (called suckers
or watersprouts) in place is that the plant will devote some of its
available energy to these rather than to the valuable top growth.

The rootstock in grafted plants is chosen to resist disease and to
support the top growth (also, particularly in the case of dwarfing
rootstock, to regulate it), not because it has any other value.

Plants on which suckers or watersprouts are allowed to persist will
produce less vegetative growth, flowers, or fruit on the top growth;
if persistently neglected, the top growth may languish, die back, or
even be lost to disease. This is particularly so with the dwarfing
rootstocks commonly used for fruit trees.

--
Chris Green

I wonder if anyone has quantified the success at which a grafted tree
lives versus the success
of a cutting. In a cutting you have no root system. In a graft you have a
root system yet a top
removed and replaced by a new top.

For example with Sunburst Honeylocust cuttings, few if any will live but
with grafts almost
100% will live.

Grafts versus cuttings should be quantifiable and linked to stem cell
quantity.

Yew trees are easy via cuttings but honeylocust are difficult so is there
a large difference in
numbers of stem cells in yew versus honeylocust?

grafted rootstock
 

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 03:37:14 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

11 Jun 2004 17:14:16 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
I am questioning an assumption. I assume that all shoots emanating from
a grafted tree of its original rootstock is to be pruned off and
suppressed so that the graft becomes the sole plant above ground. Is
that assumption in error? Or can a tree be allowed to express itself
without the graft being exclusive expression above ground?

I wonder if there is an advantage to not cutting off all rootstock
shoots.

The problem with leaving the shoots from the rootstock (called suckers
or watersprouts) in place is that the plant will devote some of its
available energy to these rather than to the valuable top growth.

The rootstock in grafted plants is chosen to resist disease and to
support the top growth (also, particularly in the case of dwarfing
rootstock, to regulate it), not because it has any other value.

Plants on which suckers or watersprouts are allowed to persist will
produce less vegetative growth, flowers, or fruit on the top growth;
if persistently neglected, the top growth may languish, die back, or
even be lost to disease. This is particularly so with the dwarfing
rootstocks commonly used for fruit trees.

--
Chris Green

I wonder if anyone has quantified the success at which a grafted tree lives versus the success
of a cutting. In a cutting you have no root system. In a graft you have a root system yet a top
removed and replaced by a new top.

For example with Sunburst Honeylocust cuttings, few if any will live but with grafts almost
100% will live.

Grafts versus cuttings should be quantifiable and linked to stem cell quantity.

Yew trees are easy via cuttings but honeylocust are difficult so is there a large difference in
numbers of stem cells in yew versus honeylocust?


The answer is a merely practical one: grafting is done when either:

* This is a good means of propagating a desirable plant; for example,
if the plant does not tend to root from cuttings or layerings.

* The rootstock has desirable qualities that the plant, rooted on its
own, would not have. These may include resistance to disease or pests
(as in grapes) or growth regulation (as in dwarf fruit trees).

--
Chris Green

grafted rootstock
 

Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:16:29 GMT Christopher Green wrote:



The answer is a merely practical one: grafting is done when either:

* This is a good means of propagating a desirable plant; for example,
if the plant does not tend to root from cuttings or layerings.

* The rootstock has desirable qualities that the plant, rooted on its
own, would not have. These may include resistance to disease or pests
(as in grapes) or growth regulation (as in dwarf fruit trees).

--
Chris Green

I do not know what layering is. I know cuttings. Can you describe layering..

Off topic. I now like my bush cherries prunus tomentosa. But for the past 2 years have been unable
to get a single seedling. I wonder if they require going through the gut of a bird?

I wonder why any plant would evolve to the point where they depended on the gut of a bird rather
than viability without the gut. This gut dependency strikes me as a flaw in the theory of Darwin
Evolution. A plant seed has the greatest survivability if it had no bird gut dependency so that if
the bird ate the seed or did not eat the seed would be viable in either case.

grafted rootstock
 

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:16:29 GMT Christopher Green wrote:



The answer is a merely practical one: grafting is done when either:

* This is a good means of propagating a desirable plant; for example,
if the plant does not tend to root from cuttings or layerings.

* The rootstock has desirable qualities that the plant, rooted on its
own, would not have. These may include resistance to disease or pests
(as in grapes) or growth regulation (as in dwarf fruit trees).

--
Chris Green

I do not know what layering is. I know cuttings. Can you describe layering..

Get a book on plant propagation. It will be well described there.

Layering is an alternative to making cuttings that preserves some of
the connection to the parent plant; the layered tip is less stressed
than a cutting would be. Many plants that are difficult from cuttings
are easier from layerings.


Off topic. I now like my bush cherries prunus tomentosa. But for the past 2 years have been unable
to get a single seedling. I wonder if they require going through the gut of a bird?

I wonder why any plant would evolve to the point where they depended on the gut of a bird rather
than viability without the gut. This gut dependency strikes me as a flaw in the theory of Darwin
Evolution. A plant seed has the greatest survivability if it had no bird gut dependency so that if
the bird ate the seed or did not eat the seed would be viable in either case.

No, it may have a much greater viability with a "bird gut dependency".
Seeds that require a pass through a digestive tract, or a fire, or a
freeze and thaw are generally also well protected and will survive
harsh conditions in dormancy. They will receive better dispersal or
germinate under better conditions, and so will end up with a greater
yield.

--
Chris Green