Then don’t hold back … keep going with plant physiology.
All this fighting over a mulberry thread? Insert Rodney King quote here…
exactly what i want you to do— would still love to hear from you(or your sources) about evidence proving otherwise.
Bryce, the answer is “no” it doesn’t make a difference whether grafted or not.
The basics are:
rootstock and scion same species = always best match.
rootstock for your area that’s better than or “allows” you to grow another species that on it’s own roots will perish/not grow well/pests etc.
It’s the same for conifers, for deciduous, for broadleaf evergreen; anything woody.
You might also graft because something cannot be rooted.
I hope I’ve been of help.
You also graft for matched vigor. That’s extremely important.
I could probably come up with more but that’s just at the top of my head.
Most of that is out of my control since ordering they give you what you get. Ill probably just pass on ordering any this year, and just root up some local finds. Nobody even has a photo of an old grafted non nigra.
You’re not going to find certain ones on their own roots but that’s mostly nigras and you already know that they might not work in your climate. Which ones are you interested in that you would want in its own roots?
Planting any grafted mulberry with the graft union below the ground level should result in having that tree on its own roots.
I wondered about that.
My Wellington mulberry was grafted on a Alba and 2 seasons ago much of its growth came from under the graft, so last season it was planted with the graft under the soil line, the growth on the Wellington variety was exponential. As far as I know it’s the only grafted variety I have, all others including nigras are on their own roots
And I am jealous. Oh boy you have a nice list.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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”.