Own roots?
Does it make a difference if roses are on their own roots or grafted? Mine are all on they're own root because the one I had that was grafted died within a year. Did the fact that it was grafted play a role in its death?
My understanding ... and I easily could be wrong, since I'm not an authority on grafting ... is that the rootstock is chosen for qualities such as hardiness and resistance to disease. The upper stock may be chosen for appearance, form, flowers, etc. The plant will probably be fine, but it definitely won't produce the flowers you expected to get.
This is a fairly good article about rose rootstocks:
https://scvrs.homestead.com/Rootstock.html
This is a fairly good article about rose rootstocks:
https://scvrs.homestead.com/Rootstock.html
thrr3ee wrote:Does it make a difference if roses are on their own roots or grafted? Mine are all on they're own root because the one I had that was grafted died within a year. Did the fact that it was grafted play a role in its death?
The biggest advantage to grafting is for the rose breeder/grower. Grafting allows for production of larger plants in a much shorter time period. And make no mistake, the BOTTOM LINE for them is PROFIT. If you take rose cuttings from the desired cultivar and root them, it generally takes about three years (or so) to have a bush that's large, market size. Grafted roses can accomplish this in half the time, because it's root system is already well established. I have roses growing on their own roots and the exact same cultivars in their grafted counterparts, and in EVERY case, the "own root" roses not only caught up (in growth size) but actually largely exceeded the size of the grafted ones. My best example of that is my own root grown "Outta The Blue", which is 7'x 8', with excellent bloom quality, and quantity, compared to the grafted one which is half the size.
It is the top part of the rose that contains all the genetic qualities and breeding in a rose. Rootstock doesn't determine that.
Some roses growers such as David Austin don't like to provide certain cultivars growing on their own roots, because they feel it's desirable to have a smaller, more uniform sized bush that a grafted rose will provide.
Some people say that own root roses have better disease resistance, but I have found both to be about the same. and again I would say that's probably due to the fact that all the breeding qualities in a rose are in the named cultivar, not in it's grafted rootstock. But having praised own root roses, it's also fair to say that in some cases, such as for roses grown in Florida, for example, there is a distinct advantage to grafts onto "Fortuniana" rootstock, which is resistant to nematode damage.
Finally, I would say that it's not necessarily probable that your grafted rose died due to the fact that it wasn't growing on it's own roots. There may be some other unknown reason altogether for that...