Article | 02. 2015 Vol. 33, Issue. 1
Effect of Rootstock on Rooting and Early Yield of Stenting-propagated Cut Roses



Division of Applied Life Science (BK21 Plus), Gyeongsang National University1
Institute of Agriculture & Life Science, Gyeongsang National University2
Research Institute of Life Science, Gyeongsang National University3




2015.02. 11:17


PDF XML




The study was conducted to investigate the effect of rootstock on growth and early yield of stenting-propagated cut roses (Rosa hybrida Hort.) ‘Pink Aurora’ and ‘Yellow King’. The scions, prepared as single-node cuttings, each with a five-leaflet leaf, were grafted onto cuttings of Rosa indica ‘Major’, Rosa multiflora ‘Chille Wonye No. 1’, Rosa multiflora ‘K-1’, or Rosa multiflora ‘Burr’ as the rootstock. The rootstock cuttings were removed of all leaves and buds before grafting. The base of scion and the top of rootstock were held together and simultaneously cut at a 45° angle for ease of grafting. Scion-rootstock unions were stuck in rockwool cubes and placed on a misted glasshouse bench for rooting before being transplanted into a rockwool slabs for cultivation. Rooting was the greatest in the ‘Pink Aurora’ and ‘Yellow King’ grafted on the rootstock Rosa indica ‘Major’. In ‘Pink Aurora’, stem length, stem diameter, five-leaflet leaves per stem, and stem fresh weight of the harvested cut flowers were not affected by the rootstock. The greatest total yield of ‘Pink Aurora’ was obtained in plants grafted onto the Rosa indica ‘Major’ rootstock. Overall growth of ‘Yellow King’ was the greatest in plants grafted onto Rosa multiflora ‘Burr’ rootstock, although total yield was not affected by the rootstock. These results suggest that Rosa indica ‘Major’ is the most effective rootstock not only for rooting, but also for early yield and growth for stenting propagation of these cut roses.



1. Bersi, M. 2002. Tomato grafting as an alternative to methyl bromide in Marocco. Proc. 2002 Annu. Intl. Res. Conf. Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA. p. 3-6.  

2. Bredmose, N. and J. Hansen. 1995. Regeneration, growth and flowering of cut roses cultivars as affected by propagation material and method. Sci. Hortic. 64:103-111.  

3. Byrne, T. and T. Furuta. 1967. Rootstock and chemical composition of roses. HortScience 2:18.  

4. Cabrera, R.I. 2001. Effect of NaCl-salinity and nitrogen fertilizer form on yield and tissue nutrient status of roses. Acta Hortic. 547:255-260.  

5. Cabrera, R.I. 2002. Rose yield, dry matter partitioning and nutrient status responses to rootstock selection. Sci. Hortic. 95:75-83.  

6. de Vries, D.P. and L.A.M. Dubois. 1990. Shoot production of ‘Sonia’ on hybrid tea rootstock clones of different vigour. Gartenbauwissenschaft 55:268-271.  

7. Dole, J.M. and J.L. Gibson. 2006. Cutting propagation, p. 3-16. In: J.M. Dole and D.J. Hamrick (eds.). Propagation basics. Ball Publishing, Batavia, IL.  

8. Edwards, R.E. 1955. A survey of rootstocks for roses. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. p. 137.  

9. Fuchs, H.W.M. 1994. Scion-rootstock relationships and root behaviour in glasshouse roses, p. 17. In: H.W.M. Fuchs (ed.). The effect of rootstock on bush development and production. PhD Diss. Wageningen Agricultural Univ., Wageningen, The Netherlands.   

10. Gammon, N., Jr. and S.E. McFadden, Jr. 1979. Effect of rootstocks on greenhouse rose flower yield and leaf nutrient levels. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 10:1171-1184.  

11. Gerardo, M. 2007. Rose propagation, p. 44-45. In: M. Gerardo (ed.). Cut rose cultivation around the world. Schreurs, De Kwalcel, The Netherlands.   

12. Han, Y.Y., S.K. Chung, and B.H. Kwack. 1994. Effect of different rootstocks on the productivity and quality of cut roses grown in greenhouse. RDA J. Agri. Sci. Hort. 36:453-459.  

13. Hanan, J.J. and K.L. Grueber. 1987. Understocks, p. 29-34. In: R.W. Langhans (ed.). Roses. Roses Incorporated, Haslett, MI, USA.  

14. Hartmann, H.T., D.E. Kester, F.T. Davies, and R. Geneve. 2010. Hartmann and Kester’s plant propagation: Principles and practices, p. 425. In: H.T. Hartmann, D.E. Kester, F.T. Davies, and R. Geneve. (eds.). Principles of grafting and budding. 8th ed. Pearson Higher Education, Harlow, UK.   

15. Holley, W.D. 1969. Understocks, p. 78-92. In: J.W. Mastalerz and R.W. Langhans (eds.). Roses. Pennsylvania Flower Growers, NY State Flower Growers Association and Roses Inc., Haslett, MI. USA.  

16. Hu, X. 2001. Growth and productivity of cut rose as related to the rootstock, p. 22. In: X. Hu. (ed.). Growth of rose cultivar ‘Frisco’ as affected by rootstocks in the knot-growing system. PhD Diss. Wageningen Agricultural Univ., Wageningen, The Netherlands.  

17. Ioannou, N., M. Ioannou, and K. Hadjiparaskevas. 2002. Evaluation of watermelon rootstocks for off-season production in heated greenhouses. Acta Hortic. 579:501-506.  

18. Jensen, H.E.K. and W. Hansen. 1971. Keeping quality of roses. I. The influence of the stage of maturity at the time of harvest on the longevity and opening of the flower. Danish J. Plant and Soil Sci. 75:591-596.  

19. Johansson, J. 1979. Leaf composition of flowering shoots from different greenhouse rose cultivars as influenced by rootstock and season. Acta Agric. Scand. 29:85-92.  

20. Kacjan-Marsic, N. and J. Osvald. 2004. The influence of grafting on yield of two tomato cultivars (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in a plastic house. Acta Agri. Slovenica 83:243-249.  

21. Niu, G. and D.S. Rodriguez. 2008. Responses of growth and ion uptake of four rose rootstocks to chloride- or sulfate-dominated salinity. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 133:663-669.  

22. Obiol, R. and J. Cardus. 1974. Influence of rootstocks on rose culture. Acta Hortic. 43:197-200.  

23. Ohkawa, K. 1980. Cutting-grafts as a means to propagate greenhouse roses. Sci. Hortic. 13:191-199.  

24. Ohkawa, K. 1986. Rootstock native to Japan. Acta Hort. 186:61-66.  

25. Park, Y.G. and B.R. Jeong. 2010a. Effect of plug cell size used in propagation on the growth and yield of stenting-propagated cut roses. Hort. Environ. Biotechnol. 51:249-252.   

26. Park, Y.G. and B.R. Jeong. 2010b. Effect of topophysis and uniting method of rootstock and scion on rooting and subsequent growth of stenting-propagated (cutting-grafted) roses. Kor. J. Hort. Sci. Technol. 28:456-461.  

27. Park, Y.G. and B.R. Jeong. 2012a. Effect of light intensity during stenting propagation on rooting and subsequent growth of two rose cultivars. Flower Res. J. 20:228-232.  

28. Park, Y.G. and B.R. Jeong. 2012b. Growth and early yield of stenting-propagated domestic roses are not affected by cytokinins applied at transplanting. Flower Res. J. 20:55-63.  

29. Raviv, M., S. Medina, Y. Shamir, S. Gil’ad, O. Duvdevani, Y. Shor, and R. Schayer. 1993. Clonal variability among Rosa indica rootstocks: Morphology, horticultural traits and productivity of scions. Sci. Hortic. 53:141-148.  

30. Safi, M.I. 2005. Flower production related to re-blooming time of three Rosa hybrida cultivars in response to rootstock type. ScienceAsia 31:179-181.  

31. Safi, M.I. and J.S. Sawwan. 2004. Growth and flower quality of three Rosa hybrida L. cultivars in response to rootstock. Mutah Lil Buhuthwad Dirasat 19:11-24.  

32. Singh, B.P. and S.D. Chitkara. 1982. Effect of different salinity and sodicity levels on establishment and bud take performance of various rose rootstocks. Haryana J. Hort. Sci. 11:204-207.  

33. Singh, B.P. and S.D. Chitkara. 1987. Effect of different salinity levels on water potential and proline content in leaves of various rose rootstocks. Indian J. Hortic. 44:265-267.  

34. van de Pol, P.A. and A. Breukelaar. 1982. Stenting of rose: A method for quick propagation by simultaneously cutting and grafting. Sci. Hortic. 17:187-196.  

35. van de Pol, P.A., M.H.A.J. Joosten, and H. Keizer. 1986. Stenting of roses, starch depletion and accumulation during the early development. Acta Hortic. 189:51-59.