|
|
Post by Louise on Jun 29, 2011 19:02:20 GMT
The age-old query ..... how do i know ! If what looks like a sucker has only 5 leaflets instead of the sucker 7 leaflets, is it still a sucker ? I've realised that on my climbers there are mostly fat thorny stems - which must be suckers right .... fat and thorny = sucker ? Well these have 5 leaflets as a proper rose stem would have but why are they fat and thorny then ? I've cut the fat stems off now and am left with next to nothing  I'm aware that suckers shouldn't be cut off but it was easier than rummaging around under ground for the graft  I'd appreciate some information on this 7 leaflets = sucker business and why my fat stems have only 5 on them (as do the other rose (thin) stems). |
|
|
|
Post by seaburn on Jun 29, 2011 19:24:03 GMT
suckers usually have thorns as that is the usual wild form. but if the rose is thornless then the thorny stems are suckers. I normally think of suckers are being thin and wirery and normal rose as fatter ones. perhaps I'm wrong there louise. The only certain way to be sure is to trace them back to the roots and see where it comes from. above the graft rose, below the graft sucker. not much help am I  |
|
|
|
Post by Lou78W on Jun 29, 2011 19:28:14 GMT
Not at all Seaburn....that is an excellent description of the difference  |
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jun 29, 2011 20:49:14 GMT
Could you tell us more about the rose Louise, and is it recently planted ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fractal on Jun 29, 2011 21:00:26 GMT
Need to know the variety too. Some vigorous shoots from the base (of the proper variety) can have different characteristics to the upper later growth.
Any photo's and name of variety to go with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fractal on Jun 29, 2011 21:03:18 GMT
This reminds me of a fellow that brought a bag of new and healthy vigorous shoots in complaining that they were suckers. I told him that the colour and relative thorniness were indicative of that particular variety and that he had removed lovely new future stems. He did sort of leave with his head a little lower than when I met him. |
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jun 30, 2011 5:04:48 GMT
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Louise on Jun 30, 2011 5:57:53 GMT
Steve, that could be me ! Seaburn, i was told that the fat stems were the suckers, not the thin ones The roses are ..... Compassion, Summer Wine and Cherrys Pink Perpetue. I cut off all the fat thorny stems and have left the thin stems, the fat ones had no flower buds up along their length - another feature of a sucker i was told. |
|
|
|
Post by Fractal on Jun 30, 2011 6:51:30 GMT
The new stems wouldn't flower until they themselves had produced secondary growth the following year. If they were bright green, they were suckers. If they had reddish or bronze in them, you have cut off the new shoots of your variety. All of these should have this bronzed new growth especially the very, very new growth at the tips.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fractal on Jun 30, 2011 6:53:37 GMT
Healthy new growth of any of these varieties from the base should be thick and strong. Suckers usually have pale all green foliage and generally, these always seem to be thinner to me!!.....sorry....
|
|
|
|
Post by Louise on Jun 30, 2011 7:16:22 GMT
No, don't be sorry Steve, i'm a person who appreciates the honest truth.
So back to it ...... the fat stems here were a reddish bronze colour when new and very thorny and they had produced flowers at the very end of the stem.
The older and non-sucker stems were thin and whippy. Why ? Why aren't they fat like the brand new reddish ones ? ?
The older stems were barely thorny at the bottom of the stem but the fat ones were very very thorny.
So have i definately cut off the new stems, can i then say that i can identify those new stems, when they eventually grow back, as non-suckers ?
Presumably yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geranium on Jun 30, 2011 8:09:42 GMT
I think a photo might clarify it, Louise, once the shoots grow back, I mean. |
|
