Standard v.s. Dwarf Rootstocks

8 years ago

I have seen some recent confusion on this forum with how various rootstocks work and how it is that a dwarfing effect is created, so I'm posting this to help clear it all up for those folks that are wondering ... for many of you it is already known.

" The nature of size-controlling, dwarf rootstocks’ roots
is different from that of full-size trees. They tend to be
brittle, constantly breaking off at the feeding tips. They
are narrower in diameter (and thus have less conductive
tissues) and most notably are less efficient at taking up
and transporting water and nutrients to the top part of
the tree. These factors, coupled with the roots’ limited
extent and thus ability to explore and forage for nutrients
and water, contribute to the dwarfing effect."

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (4)

timhensley
8 years ago
I never realized. Thanks for sharing.
gardengal48 (PNW Z8/9)
8 years ago
Since that comment is directed at me, let me just counter by saying your (borrowed) words would carry a lot more weight if you also provided the attribution.

I would also say that I understand very well how a dwarfing rootstock works to dwarf.......it is the broad (and unsubstantiated) generalization that they are a) more brittle then the roots of a standard sized tree and b) somehow mysteriously less able to absorb and transport water and nutrients than the roots of a larger growing selection. I find it rather interesting that all the fruit testing and rootstock evaluations that take place here by WSU (WA state is the largest apple producing state afterall) make absolutely no mention of this supposed phenomenon being unique to any sort of dwarf rootstock. It is not a common situation with any other selection of dwarf trees....why would fruits be any different?

And feeder roots of ANY tree - fruit bearing or otherwise - break off or die and are replaced constantly. That is just an aspect of tree morphology and has nothing to do with any dwarfing ability or not.
Related Professionals
Danbury Landscape Architects & Landscape Designers · Oshkosh Landscape Architects & Landscape Designers · Saint George Landscape Architects & Landscape Designers · Ocala Landscape Contractors · Clarksville Landscape Contractors · Spokane Landscape Contractors · Macon Home Additions · St. Louis Home Additions · West Plains Home Additions · Athens Home Additions · Akron Home Additions · Las Cruces Home Additions · Idaho Falls Home Additions · Vernal Home Additions · Tacoma Home Additions
Joe Blow
Original Author
8 years ago
Gardengal, I already gave you the source once, but here it is again at the bottom. It is obvious to 99.9% of people that the original post on this thread was borrowed as denoted by the indentation and quotation marks. I suggest you read the entire article ... it will be very enlightening for you and hopefully clear up your mind on this topic ... and hopefully that will lead you to stop posting incorrect information.

For anyone interested, and extremely bored, this thread on rootstocks was created when gardengal posted this ... "And you also seem to be under some delusions about what a dwarfing rootstock is. They only have limitations regarding topgrowth.....they are quite able to expand their root system to meet their nutrient needs, as are any other trees."

https://casfs.ucsc.edu/documents/for-the-fruit-grower/rootstock-basics.pdf
Joe Blow
Original Author
8 years ago
It got awfully quiet gardengal ... are we to assume that you are retracting your statements regarding dwarf rootstocks which are in direct conflict with the pros at UCSC ... or are we to assume that your words are correct, and the folks at UCSC are just flat out wrong and publishing misleading information on this subject ?

You wrote :

"it is the broad (and unsubstantiated) generalization that they are a) more brittle then the roots of a standard sized tree and b) somehow mysteriously less able to absorb and transport water and nutrients than the roots of a larger growing selection.