Hi Andrea, you're going to find almost as many "theologies" about planting depth as you will pruning, fertilizing, spraying, disbudding, you name it! Mine is as follows: "1) It discourages rootstock suckers." If they say so. I have very seldom had ANY issues with root stock suckers unless there has been damage done to the feeder roots of the plant. Digging around too close to an established bush will break roots which often throw new top growth. Gophers gnawing through roots have caused the same. "Gardeners" who 'cultivate' rose beds CAUSE forests of Dr. Huey as well as encourage gall. Frequent, too-shallow watering also encourages all roots to move to the surface where you are much more likely to experience sucking from stocks and varieties alike. I haven't noticed buried bud unions "discouraging" suckers. I have experienced Lavender Pinocchio (awful, weak plant to begin with, even budded) getting buried, going own root and dying, leaving Dr. Huey growing beautifully around the dead own root plant. I don't buy # 1 based upon my three-plus decades of growing MANY roses in this climate. As long as the stock is properly prepared; the scion is vigorous and growing well; no one "cultivates" around the bushes, damaging feeder roots to stimulate sucker growth; shovels remain out of the rose bed, preventing root damage from their use; gophers aren't an issue in the beds, causing root damage and encouraging stock suckering; water is applied properly so it flushes deeply through the soil instead of remaining too shallow so the roots grow TO the surface when suckers are more likely to occur, stock suckers have not been an real issue for me. "2) It encourages grafted roses to form their own roots, which, in the long run, increase the plant's viability." Really? That will depend upon many variables. MANY roses we've discussed on these forums are dawgs own root. Those should first be removed from their blanket statement of benefit. Add those which sucker madly. Do you want a rose to sucker all over your rose beds and lawn? Perhaps those types which you may have specifically obtained budded should also be removed? How about those whose genetics are simply not suitable for you soil and water types? Multiflora genes come to mind. They don't mix well with my soil and water, but put them on Huey roots and they don't become and remain albino due to chlorosis. I will agree that it MIGHT encourage some roses to form their own roots. The second part is a large, "it all depends". They presume all roses are good own root, in all places, which, as we have seen, is not true. "3) Roses seem to put out more canes when the graft is buried." Oh, for a time machine! Perhaps in the warmer nursery cans of rich soil compared to the cold, damp ground at Berkeley Hort. Nursery. I've been there and it is a gorgeous, interesting and fun nursery. I would LOVE to be able to snatch that person, drag them back in time to that Newhall canyon and SHOW them how in this climate and soil, what they advise resulted in one and two cane wonders which refused to produce new basals. Uncover the bud unions and magically, new basals! "4) It looks more natural and aesthetically pleasing to have several canes coming out of the ground than to have a dried-out looking graft bulge above the soil's surface." That is a statement of personal preference and not a horticultural benefit. "Roses grown on their own roots should be planted at the same level they are in their nursery container." Why? What is the difference between planting a budded plant two inches deeper so it has multiple canes protruding from the soil to encourage it to go own root and planting an own root plant two inches deeper to encourage it to develop multiple, own root plants? You can suffocate many plants by planting them too deeply or raising the soil level around them after they are established. What about those which don't go own root, remaining dependent upon their budded roots? New basals come from the bud union. Pushing it deeper into the soil reduces what stimulates it to produce new basals. If own root plants need to be planted at their original growing level, what is so different about budded plants? Run your own experiment. Buy two, identical budded roses and plant one each way, following each style of advice for them. See which performs to your satisfaction. I honestly have not done that. I have witnessed what I've described and how the plants responded to being planted "properly". VERY seldom has being planted too deeply produced results I found beneficial. In fact, the only case which comes to mind was with the Harkness Hulthemia hybrid, Euphrates. Erosion buried the imported plant which responded by rooting from every cane. Instead of one, vigorous budded plant, I had MANY, smaller, smaller growing own root plants. I can't explain why the person writing this thinks or thought that way. Just as I can't explain why someone in a climate not requiring it for winter protection, would advise pruning HTs to 18" every year. Most roses are so bloody persistent, they will live to spite you. But, they will probably not be as good as they COULD have been. Kim

WOW John, I am sorry about that. I enver would have expected that. At least I have a possible solution for you. Make about a 4' wide mound to plant the tree in. Make the old root flare about even with the original ground level, awhile the new developing root flare will be at the top of the mound. The ideal is that the mound will allow gas exchange to all roots while the tree sorts out it's root issues. By the time the caliper is 8-10" the mound won't be noticeable anymore. Our clay has necessitated that I plant almost everything we have in this manner, and ti has worked extremely well. Also now that I am expanding the mulch rings around them, the mound is not at all noticeable. Lastly, the nursery needs to know about this. I have talked to them before about root bound plants etc, and they have been the most forthcoming of anyone I've talked to about it. Arktrees

It has been shown that norway spruces regularly exposed to strong winds develop a different cross-section of their major roots. The roots on unstressed trees have oval/circular cross-section while those of stressed trees have a T-shaped cross-section that improves their resistance to wind-throw. Biological systems (and most complex systems, also inanimate ones) develop in different ways in response to consistent stresses. Just as a plant develops a deeper root systems in response to droughts, or grows taller to reach canopy, I don't see what is so unbelievable in imagining how a plant will direct its resources to improve its structure, when repeatedly stressed by wind. What Tom mentioned is, I believe, also responsible for the phenomenon of the Fir Waves... Now, coming to the topic of the conversation, I believe these adaptations will take time to set in, and I think staking would make sense in that light. Also, staking means everything and nothing. I can stake a tree so that its trunk will not move by one inch. Or I can stake widely enough just so it won't topple. These two ways of staking must have completely different effects on how the plant will adapt to wind.

In the leaves, plants produce a carbohydrate called glucose (a sugar molecule) which is transported to other parts of the plant for energy. This carbohydrate is produced by photosynthesis. The vascular system of plants consist of two parallel "arteries" the xylem and phloem. In the xylem, water and dissolved nutrients are moved upwards (from the roots). This is a one-directional movement powered by a pumping action. The evaporation of water in the leaves creates a vacuum which helps pull water (and dissolved fertilizer nutrients) up the vascular pathways. In the pholem, which is responsible for transporting glucose (sugars), the direction is not limited to one direction. The movement is from sugar producing tissues (sugar sources) to sugar consuming tissues (sugar sinks). Sugar sinks are consuming entities, such as fruit, flowers, roots, etc whereas sources are tissues which produce the glucose, or which is responsible for breaking starch down into glucose. The transport inside the phloem is done by another force called hydrostatic pressure. In the phloem by the leaves water is mixed with high concentrations of glucose (sweet water) creating relatively high pressure (tugor). In the roots, the sugar is removed/consumed which causes water concentration in the phloem to drop. The result is that you have a high pressure at the production site and a low pressure at the consumption site. I.e. you have set up the requirements for a pump to work. The flow will be from high sugar concentration (low water concentration) to low sugar concentration (high water concentration). The reason this takes place is that water though osmosis will either flow into the tube or out of the tube to match the sugar flow (rules of diffusion). Therefore, to answer your question: By pruning off relatively large parts of the plant you are removing tissue which would otherwise be used to produce sugars (photosyntehsis potential), but sugars do not by rule move 'upstem'. Quite on the contrary. Most sugar is produced 'high on the plant' (in the leaves) and is often transported to the roots, although quite a bit also end up in flowers and thus, yes, some sugar does move 'up-stem'. But you are not preventing this movement from taking place just because you prune high or low. These two issues are not connected. If you want to know what happens when you prune a plant, take a look at the below article. Here is a link that might be useful: Cutting and Pinching - article