Is Sterility more prevalent on Modern Roses?

General Discussion
1

As a general question has anyone noticed if “modern” roses, hybridized from ~1960 on wards, are more susceptible to being sterile than their counterparts?

Take David Austin’s roses for example. From what I’ve read and experienced, most of his roses suffer either from partial to full sterility. Even if you do manage to get a plant to set hips, the seeds are almost entirely sterile.

Is a low reproduction rate specific to individual growers or hybridizers? Or is there a larger question to be had about the ethics of modern commercial hybridization?

Seeing as almost every industry from cars to cellphones to supermarkets etc. has become corrupted by shareholders and greed, producing inferior products to increase profit margins, And don’t even get me started on genetically engineered mono-crops that are designed to use brand specific fertilizer otherwise they die or destroy a farmers output, is there a concern that commercial hybridizers, either currently or in future, are or will resort to intentionally producing infertile stock to “protect” plant breeder patents?

Even if sterility or infertility are not intentional bi-products or traits of current rose hybridization efforts, is it not concerning that the “beauty” of a plant or certain traits are being taken to extremes to the point where it compromises the genetics of a plant to the point where the only viable option for reproduction is through cuttings? Of course this may also be attributed to artificial fertilizers and synthetic pesticides.

I can’t even purchase own root roses in South Africa, all commercially grown roses are grafted which also cripples the ability of roses to naturally spread through other means, such as suckering.

Have the hybridization methods of modern plant breeders and methods of propagation, fertilization and disease or pest control by commercial rose farms resulted in crippled rose genetics in favor of variety or certain more “desirable” traits? Or are modern rose hybrids just as healthy in terms of reproduction as pre-1900 hybrids and wild species roses?

1 Like
2

If you want to play with sterility, dig into Teas. You can find many more modern roses to use for breeding than you can Teas. Yes, there are some, but there are more that refuse every effort than there are willing types.

3 Likes
3

I think when a breeder may test and discard 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of test seedlings, a certain possibility may rise to the surface. That possibility is that sterile roses (or simply less fertile maternally) may have an advantage in floriferousness. In other words, they are self-deadheading, and are not putting their limited resources into nurturing hips. They keep creating new flowers. And given a breeder with good observations and record-keeping, that may be the difference between a rose that makes it to market, and one that doesn’t.

1 Like
4

Definitely “self cleaning” should alert you that it is likely of lower fertility in at least one direction. It could be either pollen or seed (or both). So, if “self cleaning” is on your “to create” list, you likely would want to explore these types. If you just want a “rabbit” that mates with virtually anything you put on it (or it, on), I’d avoid them.

2 Likes