And I am jealous. Oh boy you have a nice list.
2 Likes
I’ll be the one to step onto a ledge.
If it doesn’t root then you have a buried root-system far too deep in the ground & that will for a long time stunt growth dramatically and finally it fails. It might be a few years away & it might be 20 years away and at twenty years it becomes dangerous because you’re likely going to rot at contact level between ground and trunk.
Not everything roots that you bury deeply. I know I know I know… I’m now an avid member of a fruit tree forum and this is as common talk to say “I’ll just bury it deeper” as getting up and going right to a coffee maker.
Let me tell you guys and I’m as chill as bunny nibbling on clover… in the other 99% of the tree world it’s the last thing you want to do when planting any tree. You’re guaranteeing its’ death.
Dax
4 Likes
Seems to me if the union is below soil and it does root, that union point would rot and be eaten out by carpenter ants and infect the heart of the tree.
1 Like
I’ve been told this by more than one source but it would also depend on your soil. If I buried some of the trees I’ve gotten above the graft line then they roots would be in pure red clay. And some of those grafts are 6-8 inches up. I can’t dig a hole that deep in my soil. I know…I’m supposed to amend it but it would just make me quit trying.
1 Like
I’d agree that as a general rule trees shouldn’t be planted deeper than the original soil level, but I think mulberries are a special case (along with their cousins the figs. And transplanted tomatoes). If the graft union were more than a few inches above the original soil level, that might give me pause to plant them that deep. But I was advised by Hidden Springs Nursery to plant mulberries and figs this way, and the three I planted last year grew from tiny 1ft trees to 8ft trees in one season. So far so good!
3 Likes
The age and lifespan of a clone was recently discussed here
If I got it right the conclusion is: Cloning is not setting back the biological clock of a clone and they all are going to die at once (or earlier) when their lifespan is spent. It doesn’t matter for the specific tree you are planting cause the lifespan of a variety is very long compared to a human lifespan.
Because of the long lifespan of a variety you could see clonal propagation as rejuvenating. But in fact that is not true for the variety itself, you only create a new tree that can then live for a period I would call “lifespan of a tree”. But there will come a time when the variety dies and propagation by cloning is no longer possible.
Thats what Andrew said in the link above. I hope I got it right.
2 Likes
In the 18th and 19th centuries, a similar theory was popular that a variety will age and deteriorate with time and loss its vigor and productivity, and that therefore new varieties need to be produced all the time via crosses & seedlings. Of course, it’s a complete BS, since we know now many varieties (apples, pears, many stone fruits, etc.) that exist and have been asexually propagated for at least two and three centuries (and some more), and nothing happened to their vigor. For some varieties, a mother tree was known that existed 300 or 200 years ago, and all the trees of that variety in existence today have been asexually propagated from that mother tree via many generations of grafts or buds, and we still have young and vigorous trees that come from the same line and will thrive for many decades.
You don’t have to be Connor MacLeod and live for centuries to know about this, this is why people have books, so they can learn of what happened before they were born, and before their parents were born, and their grandparents, and so on. You can read, for example, “The Fruit Manual” by Robert Hogg, published in 1884, before my great-grandparents were born, and learn from it about a mother tree that was grown from a seed in the early 18th century, and still was known as an old tree in the early or mid 19th century, and we now in the 21st century are grafting the same variety in our orchards and observe vigorous growth of our young trees. And it’s not just one peculiar variety, there are so many varieties that exist for centuries through grafting or budding, and you can learn about them by reading books.
If you can’t learn from this widely available empirical evidence and believe in old wives’ tales instead, then all the development of the modern scientific method, starting from Francis Bacon who came with it more than four centuries ago, has been lost on you.
2 Likes
I think it is dangerous to call a theory bullshit, when the argument to do so is: I have never seen it. I am not arguing you, cause I simply have no knowledge about this question. But if the lifespan of a variety is some thousand years, 200-300 years of clonal propagation wouldn`t matter. So you cannot come to the conclusion the mentioned theory is bullshit by that short time of observation.
1 Like
A theory can only be scientific if it’s falsifiable, i.e., if there exists a method to test whether it’s true or not. The theory that “the lifespan of a variety is some thousand years” is not falsifiable today (the oldest descriptions of varieties in the horticultural literature go back about 400-500 years) and thus has zero scientific merit.
Thats only true by observation. Of course you can determine changes by mutation and therefore estimate a timespan when this aging process might lead to death. Clonal propagation is not able to reset those mutations. Thats scientific consensus as Andrew said. So in fact it is the theory of a variety being immortal that is not falsifiable by observation.
It’s not very nice to replace your opponent’s opinion by a straw man and then defeat it. I never said anything about “immortality” (we know that our star, the Sun, will die in a few billion years, and with it all life on Earth, so nothing is immortal). You claimed that a human life is too short to learn how varieties age and therefore we do not notice this. My response was that we have documented evidence of no loss in vigor or productivity of multiple varieties over several centuries, which completely disproves your theory. While you have zero empirical evidence to counter mine, you instead start speaking about “immortality”.
Then I did word it wrong. I was strictly referring to the aging process, excluding outside circumstances. In the mentioned discussion it seemed to be scientific conformity that no clonal propagation of plants can reset mutations.
I am only discussing your argumentation. As you said a theory must be falsifiable. To say something isn`t aging (to death) cause it has not been observed to do so, is a purely historic argument. It has to be acknowledged. But observation is not sufficient cause you could simply have to wait longer. So observation is not able to falsificate the claim something will not happen. The historic argument is supporting your point but that doesn’t mean other theories are bullshit. Thats not possible to say from a pure historic view.
The argument about mutations ultimately leading to death of a variety seems logical to me. But you are right I myself are a poor defender of this argument. I simply lack scientific knowledge. And I will not call out for help by other. But did you follow the linked discussion?
My observation is that there exists zero empirical evidence of aging (manifested by loss of vigor or productivity, decreased health, or some other observable decline) of fruit tree varieties over practically relevant periods of time (read: hundreds of years). Can mutations potentially kill a variety over thousands or millions of years? Probably, they can, but this is a hypothetical question of zero practical relevance.
I do agree with the point the above discussion is of no practical relevance in growing fruit trees.
2 Likes
You did exactly right. i would add though with trees we are talking thousands of years here. So not really a factor for us to worry about.
It’s extremely likely that the ability for us to directly reset those mutations is within the practical lifespan of most of the various varieties we’re interested in. Which also is theoretical but just as relevant. It mostly means if there’s a variety you like, grow a bunch of it so you increase your odds of clean genetics is improved.
It’s also worth noting that genetic accumulation of flaws isn’t why the vast majority of trees die. They don’t ‘die’, they are killed. Putting the genetics into a fresh root system is indistinguishable, aside from genetic testing, from rejuvenating the tree back to youth. Much of the aging process of the tree comes from physics, not genetics. Trees are hydraulic thermal pumps. Hormones are pulled by the forces of gravity, heat, and concentrations. ‘Maturity’ also involves the physical properties of the tree. So yes, if you reset all the ratios of trunk to root and remove the root mass, for practical definitions you have reset the tree physically. If you could then treat the genetics you had to correct the DNA for known virii, you could reset it entirely.
Or put shorter: It’s not that trees have lifespans it’s that our world collaborates to prevent trees from living longer. Errors just add up. Most of the damage is physical, not genetic.
3 Likes
Anybody who knows genetics will not dispute that clones age and all cultivars eventually will die out. Nobody in the science community argues that this is not true. It is established science, not a theory. As far as a way to prolong it, you can to some degree, maybe?? Nobody can ever stop time, so even stored tissue cultures are going to be subject to the wrath of aging.
1 Like
As to the initial question:
In 1998, I saw what was probably a 40+ yr old grafted Illinois Everbearing tree at Les Wilmoth’s (NRNTN’s John Brittain’s mentor) place at Glendale KY. Huge… probably 35-40 ft tall, if not more… two men couldn’t have touched one another’s hands in trying to reach around the trunk.
Looked totally healthy to me…I was in awe of it. Certainly would have been a great ‘shade tree’ for any yard.
Les indicated that there’d been two, but they removed one because popcorn disease was so bad on it.
1 Like
glad to see the exchange of ideas resumed, although probably best to move it to another thread if @Botanical_Bryce feels it is way off original topic. .
anyway, while my views run counter to @Barkslip and @Richard, i don’t claim that my views are conclusive, since nobody knows everything(hey, even einstein and newton have been proven wrong about certain stuff they were cocksure about or were wagering on). There’s always that risk, that some time in the future some of us will be proven wrong. Much like how we think the folks hundreds of years ago were backward and clueless
now, the conclusion definitively brought up by @Barkslip and @Richard is that once a rooted airlayer from a tree is removed and replanted, then it reverts to the chronological equivalent of a young seedling, other than being able to bear fruit so much faster.
it is so hard for me to accept that juvenility is conferred by a simple removal from the mother plant. Also, you can’t be labeled juvenile AND considered mature at the same time, can you?
if you plant certain citrus from seed, you will realize that you have to wait many years before tree ‘gets old’ enough to start flowering and bearing fruit. Certain citrus from seed grow wicked 3" spines as juveniles, but will lose this trait as they age. An airlayer from a fruiting citrus will not produce spines, because, well, apparently it is only for youngsters.
a better elaboration would be to bring up extremes in the fruit-growing world. If anyone here had experience growing tropical stuff, you’d have realized that certain long-lived species have long gestation periods when planted from seed. Some longer than a decade, and some even longer. A legendary lychee tree reportedly took half a century to start blooming. The only way you could skip juvenile stage is if you airlayer that 50 yr old tree.
quoted below seems to bolster my argument, plus adding a tangible novelty with regards to age of roots and the value of grafting to younger rootstock. Ageing/senescence of a perennial tree is reportedly tangible, at least with avocados, but the good news is that it can be ameliorated or diluted by grafting to young rootstock. As implied by the report, taking an airlayer from that avocado tree equates to a clone as old as the mother tree-- not a rejuvenated one. I lifted it from this official FAO webpage.
“Grafting is widely used because it is clonal. But graft takes about 10 years to fruit, sometimes more. It is apparent that the seedling rootstock imparts juvenility on th escion. Some tissue culturist know that shoots from an old tree as avocado, that has lost their capacity to regenerate, when grafted to a seedling, can revert to juvenile phase that responds to in vitro culture. This study is the first report of the influence of a seedling rootstock on imparting juvenility on the scion that in return results in delayed first fruiting. The prospects of reducing the juvenility period of a fruit tree into half, say 5-6 years in lanzones, means a tremendous commercial advantage in early and higher revenue. Ten lanzones seedlings planted in 1984 fruited after 21 years. Three plants from rooted cuttings planted in the same area fruited after 8 years while it seems that juvenility was overly extended in both sets, the relative difference is apparent. These trees were never fertilized, watered or pruned. Dr. Romulo Davide had 2 lanzones trees planted in 1959 that did not fruit for 30 years. |Rooting of cuttings is apparently the ideal propagation method for lanzones partly because it combines the efficiency and convenience of seedlings and grafting, and more importantly because it advances first fruiting and shortens the gestation period.”
will post more stuff, just couldn’t find it at the moment.
2 Likes
Hopefully Carbon-14 dating and dendrochronology services get more affordable. I so wish to have funds to finance central core(heartwood) testing of reportedly millennial trees still alive today, or those which recently died.