An Evaluation Report of Shrub Roses Richard G
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Issue 11, 1997 Plant Evaluation Notes An Evaluation Report of Shrub Roses Richard G. Hawke, Coordinator of Plant Evaluation Programs he popularity of roses is centuries old, over 80 hybrids of English roses with blos- Midwestern landscapes with hardy, disease- but the care and attention required to soms in pastels, rich pinks, reds, purples and resistant plants. Both breeding programs have Tgrow hybrid roses successfully may no yellows. Many of these “old-fashioned” plants produced a broad palette of shrub roses for longer fit the lifestyle of today’s gardeners. are now in the United States and gaining pop- many uses—for growing singly, for including Roses that require less maintenance and fewer ularity with modern gardeners. in shrub and mixed borders or for massing and biocides to provide a brilliant show are now At the same time, two Agriculture naturalizing. Modern shrub roses hold the more important to gardeners, homeowners and Canada breeding programs were developing promise of being better plants for today’s land- landscapers. The solution to this challenge winter-hardy shrub roses for Northern land- scapes. But which shrub roses are best suited may be modern shrub roses with their lower scapes. The Explorer series, bred in Ottawa, for the gardens of the northern Midwest? Ontario, recognizes famous explorers in maintenance requirements, increased disease Evaluation Project Canada’s history. These roses are of three resistance, greater winter hardiness and, of The English, Explorer and Parkland roses types—Rosa rugosa hybrid, shrub and course, the blossoms that are highly cherished. were developed to expand the availability of climber. Rosa ¥ kordesii was used as a source Many modern roses have lost the charm shrub roses for the landscape. But the dissim- for disease resistance, winter hardiness and of their ancestors. Years of hybridization have ilar climates of England and Canada produced climbing habit. The breeding program at created roses with recurrent flowering and a two very different products. Whether or not Morden, Manitoba, produced the Parkland wider color range, but have also resulted in the Canadian roses would be hardy in Chicago series, many of which include “Morden” as less disease resistance and the loss of fra- was not the main question, but rather how part of the cultivar name. The native prairie grance. The desire to bridge the gap between would they react to diseases and insects like rose species, Rosa arkansana, was a source old garden roses and modern roses led to the black spot, powdery mildew and Japanese bee- for winter hardiness in these hybrids. development of a new class of shrub roses tle. Additionally, it was an appropriate concern The English roses are quite unlike the called English roses. The English rose seems whether the English roses would even be roses from Canada, but each has enhanced land- exactly what the rose fanciers want—fragrant hardy this far north. scapes in the United States. The English roses blossoms with the delicacy and charm of old In 1990 the Chicago Botanic Garden have the romance of a bygone era with improve- garden roses, natural shrubby habits and the began a six-year evaluation project to deter- ments for modern times and sensibilities, while repeat flowering aspect of modern roses. In mine the winter hardiness of English roses, in the Explorer and Parkland roses enhance the past 30 years David Austin has introduced particular, hybrids developed by David Austin that were available at the time in Canada or the United States. In addition to winter hardi- ness, the 31 hybrid English roses were evalu- ated for flower characteristics, plant form and Tom Clark Tom disease and insect resistance. A second pro- ject was initiated in 1992 to evaluate many of the Explorer and Parkland roses from Agriculture Canada. While winter hardiness was noted, the main focus of the project was the determination of disease and insect resis- tance among the 19 Canadian roses. Although the primary goal of each project differed, the overall objective was to compile a complete record of the 51 roses under evaluation (Table 1), including ornamental qualities, winter hardiness and disease concerns. The projects overlapped in time, but each was considered independently and undertaken at two different evaluation sites. The English roses were grown primarily in Pullman Evaluation Garden, a site surrounded by a wooden fence where other landscape plants ‘Jens Munk’ is rated overall one of the best shrub roses. 2 Plant Evaluation Notes intermingled among the roses. The well- and a secondary site for some of the English received more water when the turf grass was drained, clay loam soil had shredded leaves roses, was an open area in full sun at the edge irrigated. Plants were not routinely fertilized, and wood chips added prior to planting; no of the Garden’s lagoon. The planting beds but the roses in the open site were fertilized in additional soil amendments were made at were excavated to 12 inches and then raised the spring of 1994 with a 20-20-20 water-sol- planting time. A pH of 7.4 was recorded dur- 6 inches above ground level to improve uble fertilizer at a rate of one-half gallon per ing the evaluation period. During the summer drainage. The soil was a mix of clay loam and plant. A mulch of shredded leaves and wood months, the site was in full sun approximately composted leaves with a pH of 7.4. Turf-grass chips was maintained for aesthetics, water 12 hours, but large trees in the vicinity cast pathways surrounded the beds on all sides. conservation and weed control. The roses shade on the perimeter in early morning and Plants received no supplemental protection were not additionally mulched or covered for late afternoon. The site received about six from wind, but were enclosed by an electric winter protection. hours of winter sun each day. A fence, located fence to control deer damage. Three plants of Post-winter care was restricted to the on the east, west and north sides of the site, each cultivar were also represented here. removal of dead or injured canes. The cultur- was a buffer to strong winds but also limited Maintenance practices were kept to a al practice of annual renewal pruning air circulation during the growing season. minimum in each test site to simulate home (removal of the oldest canes at ground level Three plants of each cultivar were evaluated. garden culture. Irrigation was supplemented during each dormant season) was not fol- The primary site for the Canadian roses, as needed, although the plants in the open area lowed. Roses were not treated with fungicides Table 1: Shrub Rose Characteristics and Performance Summary Rating Bloom Period Peak (includes repeat Bloom Height Width Rating1 Rose Series 2 Flower Color Flower Size Flower Form period) Coverage 3 Range Range 3 ★★★ ‘Adelaide Hoodless’ PA red 2 ⁄4-3 in. semidouble early Jun-late Aug 60-80% 60-97 in. 64-78 in. ★★★★ ‘Assiniboine’ PA purplish red 3 in. single, cupped early Jun-Sep 60-80% 29-40 in. 32-47 in. ★★ ‘Belle Story’ ER silvery pink 3-4 in. semidouble, incurving mid Jun-Sep 20-40% 40-54 in. 29-54 in. 1 ★★ ‘Bredon’ ER pale yellowish pink 2 ⁄2-3 in. quartered, double mid Jun-Oct 20-40% 39-48 in. 28-38 in. 1 ★★★★ ‘Champlain’ EX dark red 2 ⁄2-3 in. double mid Jun-mid Oct 80% 34-52 in. 46-57 in. ★★★★ ‘Constance Spry’ ER soft pink 3-4 in. double mid Jun-early Jul 60-100% 74-94 in. 74-90 in. 1 ★★★ ‘Cuthbert Grant’ PA dark red 2 ⁄2 in. semidouble early Jun-Oct 60-80% 47-73 in. 40-54 in. ★★ ‘Cymbeline’ ER pale pink 4 in. double mid Jun-Sep 20-40% 45-77 in. 45-55 in. 1 ★★ ‘Dapple Dawn’ ER light purplish pink 3 ⁄2-4 in. single, flat mid Jun-Oct <20% 43-57 in. 36-57 in. 1 ★★★ ‘David Thompson’ EX deep purplish pink 2 ⁄2-3 in. double early Jun-mid Oct 40-60% 36-42 in. 48-55 in. 1 ★★ ‘Emanuel’ ER pale purplish pink 2 ⁄2-3 in. double, rosette mid Jun-Oct 20-40% 33-39 in. 36-41in. 1 ★★ ‘English Elegance’ ER blush pink 2 ⁄2-3 in. double mid Jun-Oct 20-30% 35-48 in. 32-44 in. ★ ‘Fair Bianca’ ER pure white 3 in. double, cupped late Jun-Oct <20% 10-32 in. 8-18 in. 1 ★★ ‘Francine Austin’ ER white 1-1 ⁄2 in. pompon late Jun-mid Oct 20-40% 17-34 in. 22-40 in. ★★ ‘Gertrude Jekyll’ ER purplish pink 3 in. double, rosette mid Jun-late Sep 20% 55-98 in. 45-55 in. 1 ★★★ ‘Graham Thomas’ ER deep yellow 2 ⁄2-3 in. double, cupped mid Jun-mid Oct 20-40% 72-108 in. 53-86 in. 1 ★★★ ‘Henry Hudson’ EX white 2 ⁄2 in. semidouble mid Jun-early Oct 40% 30-45 in. 44-64 in. 1 ★★★★ ‘Henry Kelsey’ EX medium red 2 ⁄2-3 in. semidouble mid Jun-early Oct 60% 63-80 in. 72-85 in. 1 ★★★ ‘Heritage’ ER blush pink 3-3 ⁄4 in. double, cupped early Jun-early Oct 40-60% 59-89 in. 40-60 in. 1 ★★★★ ‘Jens Munk’ EX medium pink 2 ⁄2 in. semidouble early Jun-mid Oct 60-80% 45-72 in. 60 in. 1 ★★★★ ‘John Davis’ EX medium pink 3-3 ⁄2 in. double, quartered mid Jun-early Sep 80-100% 34-55 in. 58-72 in. 1 ★★ ‘John Franklin’ EX medium red 2 ⁄2 in. double mid Jun-early Sep 60% 31-43 in.