Even with the lottery ticket method I wonder why only Kordes can get really disease resistant modern roses to the market. Other breeders raise about the same amount of seedlings, but still launch BS magnets. It’s probably their rigorous selection that disfavours other traits like fragrance, flower form and colour fastness that other breeders have higher on their priority lists.
Also, German breeders like Noack and presumably also Kordes do use the groundcover roses, like The Fairy and Immensee and their subsequent descendants to produce healthy shrubs and floribundas.
Last year I planted R. virginiana and R. carolina and some other species. They are not native and they suffer from anthracnose. So they may be a source for BS resistance, but they may introduce susceptibility to other fungal diseases.
I’m going to try R. gallica cultivars and maybe R. pendulina in the future.
Rob
Many German rose trials are totally unspraied at least the second year after planting and there is a market for no chemical roses there.
That it is hopeless to breed better desease resistant vars from actual HTs and FLs is a fact. That seedling testing has to be changed is another fact. To breed better desease resistance the first greenhouse screening for nice flower and health is a nonsense.
Knock Out certainly would be discarded in most breeder’s greenhouse.
In my experience in a climate that alternatively favours all known deseases, small seedling as well as greenhouse desease resistance are not related to garden performance/resistance.
That is why most florist roses if beautifull flowered are so desease prone when grown outdoor.
That is why I do all screening outdoor and not earlier than the second year.
I am not so sure I agree 100%. There are some roses that are not species roses but are very close to species and that have the potential for good disease resistance.
I will not be using any species crosses for the next couple of years. Ross Rambler might be considered an exception to that statement. Somewhere I read that acicularis nipponensis is completely disease resistant so I might try some experiments with it.
All the roses that I have added to my garden that I consider very important are near species crosses but really resemble more modern roses than species roses.
Beauty of Leafland is an example. Very very hardy. Not sure about its disease resistance. I thought I read that spinnosima roses are only average in disease resistance when compared to some other species.
Glen Dale and Applejack are other examples. I only have 1 report on the disease resistance of Glenn Dale. Was told that it is very disease resistant. Applejack is pretty darn resistant as well.
A lot of my Buck rose do get disease. Take Aunt Honey for example. I think its a fantastic rose, very beautiful and fairly modern in appearance. It does get blackspot but, for me, only on a few lower leaves and never over the entire plant. Never any pm for me either. I think roses like it are very important.
The grand irony to me is that a full grown specimen of Knock Out, Blushing Knock Out, Double Knock Out and Pink Double Knock Out looks identical in plant habit/shape to any random floribunda, lol. I seriously don’t see what makes them a shrub over a floribunda. Pink Double Knock Out looks like Gene Boener in person, but with one row less of petals, and a tad nicer foliage. Rainbow Knock Out comes a bit closer to shrub habit when full grown, because it is smaller/twiggy and comes off looking like a shrublet.
But I would still never want one. They’re drab in the landscape and in arrangements, whereas something like Rosarium Utersen (I choose this example since I own it, and have used it a lot) can do all of the above and have pretty foliage too. There comes a point where growing something in the same spot as a rose becomes more realistic. That is part of the dynamic practice of the very nature of horticulture.
The real question regarding all of this is: Is it really worth the effort and loss of aesthetics to breed for a +5% resistance margin elsewhere in the world? Not to me. But I do believe that adding more species would widen any known possibilities-- to each his own path, imo.
Aesthetic loss is not a fatality. Ultimately our roses all stem from species and species introgression is an historical rose breeding backbone that never stopped progress of flower qualities…
Why is breeding with species a necessity.
Wild plants mostly grow quite far apart mixed with other unrelated plants. Species roses particularly.
Plant domestication first step is selecting for resistance to monoculture induced deseases. Knowing or not.
Was this done for roses?
When the first rose devoted gardens were grown it was by rich people. In a time where newly imported exotic plants were highly sought after, collected and cared for by numerous and quite educated staffs with ample budget. No upper middle-class garden could do without a beautifull greenhouse and a renowned chief gardener. They rivaled at growing the more difficult plants and exhibiting outstanding specimens.
It was even more appealing if there was more difficulties to overcome. Expertise was not applied at selecting the more resistant plants but on the contrary at elaborating more sophistication at growing the more fragile ones.
Teas being delicate exotic greenhouse beauties were promptly prefered.
Later Pernetianas did not suffer at all from being desease prone and expensive as unable to root and grow owroot. They only set a new standard: roses have to be grafted and spraied. Everybody was delighted: the elitist sophisticated flower lover, the nurseryman with more added value as well as the breeder with a single flower sophistication challenge.
Because most attempts at breeding tougher plants failed through the species qualities being constantly diluted by backcrossing to the refined consanguine beauties.
Because of the constant failures encountered by the uneducated gardeners majority.
Because of the worldwide growing concerns about the never innocent use of agrochemicals.
We have to rebuild the roses looking for resistance from the species.
Species introgression was mainly or only at flower novelty such as new colors.
We have to change priorities as well as breeding strategy.
Yes, I know all of this. I’m just not buying into such a strict, monocular view.
I wonder if the focus of Kordes (and other breeders) on disease resistance may concentrate this trait in subsequent generations of their roses: with every generation they again select only the offsping that is most resistant. That way the chance of getting disease resistant offspring from their roses increases with each generation, making winning the lottery more probable every time.
If you look back at rose breeding the last 30 years or so, German breeders have come a long way from species hybrids, to first species-like groundcovers, then to more attractive groundcovers, to end with the current healthy floribundas and even hybrid teas. Now is the goal to breed fragrance into these lines, because this is often lacking. Following this path they have introgressed disease resistance from R. wichurana and R. multiflora into modern roses. I hope that using these roses makes it possible to get disease resistant seedlings and a beautiful rose in one plant.
I do believe species are still interesting to work with though, not only for disease resistance, but especially for other traits, like beuatiful shrub form or foliage. Floribundas and hybrid teas really lack in this area.
Rob
Rob, Ive been wondering what has been used in the new Fairy Tale line of floribundas by Kordes. I always felt they’d meld their shrublets/groundcovers in their floribundas, and wonder if theyre doing that now.
Paul,
I know that you like a good debate. I was wondering when you were going to stir the pot again.
One advantage we amateurs have over the major breeders is time. They are not going to work with species because it is going to take too much time to get any return on their investment from them. They are in it for the money and pretty flowers are what bring in the money. So that is what they breed for and what they cull for. Any disease resistance is just icing on the cake. I’ve done some calculations and to incorporate hardiness or disease resistance genes from a species is going to take a minimum of two and more likely three generations. What major breeder is going to wait that long to get a return on it’s investment? Expessually if they are working with once blooming plants that take four or five years between generations.
There is always going to be an arms race with roses and the fungal diseases. One will have the upper hand for a while then the other will. It’s just a matter of time before the disease will mutate into a form that will overcome the plants defenses. It doesn’t matter if it’s a modern rose or a species it is bound to happen. Hansa for example has long been considered to be highly resistant, but lately there is strain of Black Spot going around that it is highly susceptible to. How long has Hansa been on the market, a hundred years? A plant could be on the market for 5 years or 100 years before the disease mutate to a strain that the plant isn’t resistant to. So I don’t think it is out of line that the Mordens have lost their resistance after 20 years.
I can understand your reluctance to using moderns in a breeding program. I’ve been pretty frustrated by the lack disease resistance from them myself. But I feel that using just the species is going take an incredibly long time to create anything that is commercially viable. More time than it will take by incorporating moderns in the breeding programs. I think that if the breeder is smart and uses only the most disease resistant cultivars, they can expedite process. Also like Steven says, using some of the modern shrubs that have known disease resistance can expedite the process as well. It has taken more than one thousand years to get roses to were they are now. And to start over from scratch and not take advantage of what already has been developed is just wasting time.
Also you make the argument to use the species roses for creating plants for patios or for containers. Most species are either big arching shrubs or they sucker so bad that they can get out of control. Neither are plants that I would want in a container or patio. Very few species are small well behaved plants suitable for that role. There are plants already developed that fill that role much better. I think we need to use these as a starting point and work with them to make them better, by incorporating disease resistance and winter hardiness into them.
Paul
I am trying to work in both camps. Among the moderns I am trying to cross what I consider the best of widely different breeding lines such as those of Kordes, Explorers, Mordens, Austins, Florist’s H.T., and Radlers.
This is an example of trying to be in both camps.
(Illusion X John Davis) X (suspected tetraploid acicularis OP)
Just yesterday, I picked one hip from this plant so I should be able to use it to cross with something with a better flower such as Heritage or Carefree Beauty (or to one of my crosses such as Heritage X Illusion).
http://picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/HenrySRoses/photo#5070423052215341858
Link: picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/HenrySRoses/photo#5075222229335903826
In the above list please add Bucks.
Jadae, I’m assuming they do, but I’m not certain because the parentage is not available most of the time. From recent patent information I learned they also use Rugelda, Postillion and Lichtkonigin Lucia to produce yellow climbers and shrubs. Sterntaler, or Golden Fairy Tale is seedling x Rugelda.
Almost all Kordes roses are a combination of a known variety and an unknown seedling. Sometimes you read that the patented variety is more disease resistant than the known parent variety. It is not written that it is more resistant than the unknown parent (own Kordes seedling). So, maybe this tells us that they use known varieties for flower quality and their own seedlings for disease resistance.
It would be nice to know what lineage these unnamed seedlings have!
Rob
Henry in addition to adding Buck to the list I wondered what you, or anyone else, thought about adding Brownell to the list as well? Are any of the roses that Brownell brought to us useful in breeding for disease resistance? I’ve been looking at the parentage of many of the Brownell roses and some are very closely related to R. wichurana as you probably already know. Many of the Brownell roses may not have ‘perfect flower forms’ but I’m wondering if some of them are worth going back to to breed for disease resistance. I’m thinking of ones like Glenn Dale, Golden Glow, Break o Day, White Cap and Pink Princess.
I have been using Golden Glow a lot this year for that very reason. Its yellow and reported to have good disease resistance. Vast majority of the hip that I had set were Golden Glow x AppleJack
When looking for disease resistance coupled with yellow flowers, I dont have a lot of options.
I wonder if Clare Grammerstorf was disease resistant. Anyone know? 2 yellows from it, Chinatown and Lichtk
Golden Glow x Applejack was a good choice for a cross Steven. I like Lichtk
Paul,
I don’t make the argument to use species for developing patio roses. I wouldn’t do that, because like you say they tend to be tall, arching shrubs that sucker profusely. No species has done a better job to develop disease resistant groundcover roses suitable for growing in containers than Rosa wichurana. In my opinion. this species has remarkable characteristics for this purpose that can’t be improved on. This includes disease resistance and the ease of propagating these groundcover cultivars on their own roots, which is the ideal way to grow them.
Yes, I agree using species in a breeding program is a long term project. But that is likely the best alternative to develop disease resistant roses that blend better in today’s landscapes, which would make them more attractive to the consumer. At the present time, roses are declining in popularity. One main reason for this is, why would a gardener want to put up with an unsightly plant because of a disease problem when he/she can choose annuals that have a wide range of colours and are attractive looking all summer? Rose growers don’t spray their shrubs to keep them attractive like they used to anymore.
I’ll come back to my original point. Unless one wins the rose breeding lottery, developing disease resistant roses can’t come from strictly using Hybrid Teas and Floribundas in a breeding program. At the very least, cultivars having a good dose of Rosa wichurana that makes them disease resistant or Rosa kordesii hybrids should be used. Unfortunately, this likely sacrifices fragrance but it’s difficult to have everything when developing roses.
That wichurana is the best species for desease resistance breeding is questionable and certainly not easy. The Kordesses that got the best results from this species took many tens of years to breed their Fl vars. Few being fully resistant as they state and many among the best with perfectible plant habit.
That the latest yellow climbers are Rugelda derived is obvious. I have similar seedlings from this var.
HT Eliza though not as desease resistant as said is from another line. Why not from Delicia 2002 a large flowered purplish pink rugosa hybrid.
From the published pedigrees one can infer that they grow large progenies for years going back to the known and old for them resistant parent.
It is something I do also as I do not at all intend to propose a strict monocular view.
Rose breeding history is facts.
I do not at all know which species introgression or development and which strategy will be most rewarding.
I know we have to try as different pathes as possible. That is why I do not propose those I got successes with.
There is an infinite option number available from rebuilding/reinventing roses from the numerous species to introgression of modern rose features in a species or doing as the Kordess that breed back to modern roses looking for the outstanding seedling that unites species resistance with actual flowers. Rejuvenating, shifting or actualizing older achievements still another path.
The exploration minded with far sighted views will do species crosses and or invent new rose categories when other will cross latest bests among themselves. As Henry I do quite varied things.
Everything is OK! Have pleasure!
Pierre, which are the names of the latest yellow climbers derived from Rugelda?
Good thing you told me about Golden Fairy Tale. I try to stay away from the Robusta line. They usually BS like crazy here.
This thread in interesting cause it got me to thinking, “As a gardener first, which rose breeder produces the best results for me here in my garden?” And Harkness usually comes up as #1. Which makes me ask – What breeding method do they use? ie. what are their numbers per year like? I do know that they often use the same lineages in a variety of directions over and over again, but that is about it.
I did not see the patents but I am speaking of Moonlight and Golden Gate.
By the way HMF mixes infos about two roses for each name: a climber and a florist rose. The climbers I grow do not qualify as florist roses.
Rugelda is a lot more BS resistant than Robusta here. Better than most Harkness vars.