Response 0f

GARDEN ROSES

 t0 a

 lanned Planting

and Maintenance
Program

TEXAS ARM UNIVERSITY
IIUITURAI EXPERIMENT STATIUN - - - TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSIUN SERVICE

College Station, Texas

v

        
      
 

oses under Texas
 simple schedule of
ons.

Anyo
condition i, fol
planting y g i’ d maint

A rden location that will receive at least 6 hours of
sunlight per day is highly desirable. In most Texas areas
a location that is shaded during the afternoon is probably
ideal. When dormant plants are preferred, they may be
planted any time that the plants are in good condition and
dormant. Most Texas areas, except the Panhandle, have
a brief dormant period in late January or during February
which is the most desirable planting period. Container
grown plants can. be successfully planted at any time
during the year if the plants are in active growth when
they are transplanted.

When the planting location has adequate drainage,
extensive bed and soil preparation are not required. In
very heavy clay soils where drainage does not occur readily,
this condition should be corrected by standard methods
before the soil and plantings beds are prepared. Under
all other conditions the following procedures will provide
an excellent soil environment for garden roses.

Prepare the area to be planted by spading or tilling
the existing soil to a depth of 12 inches. Spread a mixture
of 5O percent ‘horticultural grade perlite and 5O percent
coarse peat moss over the area to a depth of 4 inches.
Then mix this material thoroughly with the existing soil.

If past experience indicates the possibility that soil-
borne diseases, nematodes, or weeds may be troublesome,
the beds can be fumigated with a liquid carbamate soil
fumigant according to the procedure used in these studies.
Allow the soil to settle for several weeks after preparation
before planting.

Select only top-quality plants for planting, and do
not allow the tops or roots of t-he plants to dry out during
handling or planting. Prepare planting holes in the bed 2
feet apart, about 14 inches in diameter and about 10 inches
deep. Leave a mound of soil about 4 inches high in the
center of each hole.

Prune the roots on the plants to a length not to
exceed 12 inches, making sure that all roots are pruned
to this same length or less. Prune the tops to an outside
eye or bud 6 to 8 inches above the bud union of the plants.

   
    
    
       
  
    
    
   
   
   
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  

Q: u,

Set the plants down firmly on the mound of soil le 
holes so that the roots spread out naturally in all 
in the hole. Control the depth of planting so that
union will be about an inch below the soil surf 
the hole with soil and tamp it firmly and 
around. the plant. l’

.x,=
v_\
~;_

When all the plants have been set, water 
thoroughly with tap water. When the surface of 
shows signs of drying, water the bed with a c 
root-stimulator at the rate recommended by the - 
turer. Apply a 2-inch mulch to the beds as 

X;

root-stimulator has been applied using an organic,

I
 '

L

similar to that used in these trials. .53;-

After 2 weeks scratch below the mulch to 
drying has occurred in the soil below. When 
shows signs of dryness, water the entire plant
thoroughly. Watering will not be required oft
every 2 weeks or longer, depending on the du 

tween rains. Never apply additional water 

mulch or the soil below it is wet. 

1 .,
e§~
v\
‘H.
 \_
. C‘
v

Thirty days after planting ap-p-ly a fungicide
lined in this program at 2-week intervals. Disco 
application when active growth ceases in the fallif"

winter. Begin the program the second year, 
the buds begin to break on the plants in the sprin‘

the plants every 3O days with an all-purpose 
for insect control.   

Remove the old flowers from the plants 
the first petal falls, by cutting the stem just
first five-leaflet leaf that occurs below the flo.
no prune the plants in any other way during 
season. Flowers should be cut with longer 
if they are to be used as cut-flowers. I 

The following spring, in all areas where 
prevail, remove any dead or broken branches
plants. Prune the remainder back to 8 to 
from the ground and begin the same growing;
again. 

In the colder areas of Texas, delay the pru ii, A
plantings until the new buds begin to turn red 
danger of the last killing frost is over. Then 

planned maintenance program for the second 

A.
‘x '
.~ "\

     
   
 
 
   
 
 

Li‘

...................................................... _- Z
4 0n ---------------------------------------------------- -- 3
 and Materials ................................ .- 4
l‘. Preparation .................................... .. 4
:3 ting Procedures .............................. .- 4
fitment Applications ......................... .. 4
 -Starter Solution .......................... .. 4
‘i5 utrients ............................................. .. 4
gungicide Treatments ....................... -- 5
 lch Treatments .............................. .. 5

 her Routine Cultural Operations... 5

f d Discussion .................................. .. 5
 of Root-Stimulator .................... _. 5
 it of Fungicide Treatments .......... .- 6

[i- of Mulchingwigz-i: ....................... .. 6
 of Fertilization ............................ .. 6

 of a Combination
 all Treatments .............................. -. 6

g1: - "gments .......................................... -. 8

tenance Program

Planned Planting and

A. F. DeW/ert/J
Department of Soil and Crop Science:

HE CULTURE OF GARDEN ROSES has long been considered
a specialized undertaking. Considerable scientific infor-
mation about the cultural requirements necessary for producing
good rose plants under nursery and greenhouse conditions is
available, but these findings have not been applied to the
culture of roses in garden or landscape environments. Many
of the cultural practices recommended in the past for the
growthand development of garden roses are timeworn pro-
cedures that might now be discarded in favor of a predeter-
mined and planned schedule for the planting and mainte-
nance of these garden subjects. Much of the information
available that deals with growing garden roses is based on
results obtained in climatic regions where the seasonal changes
are not closely related to those experienced in the various sit-
uations encountered in Texas and the Southwest. It is exceed-
ingly difficult to adapt these recommendations to Texas con-
ditions with any success.-

For many years Texas ranked second in the production

of garden rose plants in the United States. During recent
years the reputation for the production of quality rose plants

has been disminishing, even though the top-graded plants
produced have continued to be of high quality. This concept

may be due, to some extent at least, to poor cultural practices
applied to these plants after they are received and are placed

in garden or landscape plantings. These practices are also
uneconomical and disappointing to the home gardener.

No available records of any scientific investigations in
Texas during recent years have been directed specifically to

the problems involved in growing roses in landscape or garden
locations. Past problems related to growing garden roses

3

successfully indicated that a need existed for a reliable
schedule of cultural procedures, including soil preparation,
method of planting, spacing of plants, rapid establishment
after planting, proper application of nutrients, control of
insect and disease problems and the pruning, mulching and
moisture requirements involved.

Research with roses and other woody plants grown
in containers and under garden conditions at the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station and elsewhere indicates
that the usual recommendations for planting, for soil pre-
paration, for soil structural requirements and for other
cultural practices may be greatly modified. Studies were
initiated at College Station in 1960 to evaluate the response
of hybrid rose plants to various cultural practices applied
to these plants under landscape and ganden conditions.
In addition, some information was obtained on the effect
of heavy winter mulches on the performance of garden
roses under prevailing climatic conditions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Three planting beds, 96 feet long and 6 feet wide,
were constructed in the open field in full sun. The ex-
perimental beds were enclosed in 2 x 6-inch redwood
curbs that extended 4 inches above the existing grade.
Each of the beds was divided, with redwood dividers,
into 12 equal 6 x 8-foot plots. This established a ran-
domized block design consisting of 36 plots, with an area
of 48 square feet in each plot.

Twelve rose plants, spaced 2 feet apart on centers,
were planted in each plot. Four varieties of hybrid tea
and one variety of hybrid floribunda roses were included
in the trials. Each plot contained 4 plants each of three
varieties randomized throughout the experiment that was
composed of 87 plants of each variety, making a total of
435 plants.

Twelve treatments were used in the study. Each
treatment was replicated three times. The treatments
were composed of the four following materials that were
coded with the indicated letters.

R I root-starter solution
X I no treatment (control)

N I nutrients

M I mulch

F I fungicide
These materials were used as 12 treatments alone and in
combinations as numbered and listed below:

1. MNF 5. NF 9. R
2. F 6. N 10. M
3. MN 7. RN l1. NMFR
4. RFN 8. MRF 12. X

The rose plants used were obtained from a source of
commercial nursery plants and were No. 1 grade on Rom
m-iultiflora understock. No varieties were designated when

  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
   
   
  
   
  
 
  
  
  
  
    
    
 
 
  
 
  

the plants were ordered. Those sent by the source?
considered as representative varieties for garden use. i
varieties planted were hybrid tea-variety Peace, hybri,
variety Alamo, hybrid floribunda-variety Pinocchio, i
tea-variety The Doctor, hybrid tea-variety Charlotte i‘
strong.

Soil PreRdI§ati0n'

The existing soil type in the area where the?»
were conducted is Lufkin fine sandy loam. k
within the experimental plots was rototilled to a 
12 inches. Four inches of a mixture of 50 perce i
cultural grade perlite and 50 percent sphagnum pe
by volume, were evenly spread on the surface
area was again rototilled until these material
thoroughly incorporated with the existing soil.
perimental area was then fumigated with a liquid c p _,
soil fumigant at the rate of 1 quart per 100 square if
area. The soil was rototilled again 7 days after i‘
plication to aerate the soil. Then the soil was ae - ___,
an additional 14 days before the plants were planti

.5

Planting Procedures

The plants were prepared for planting as soon h
were received from the nursery by pruning the i
to exceed 12 inches in length. The tops were p
approximately 8 inches above the bud union.

Holes not larger than 14 inches in diamet
prepared in the plots, with a mound of earth piled
center of the hole. The plants were set on this
so that the roots extended evenly in all directii
the mound. The depth of planting was controlle
bud union was set at, or just below, the existing 
after the soil was settled after planting.

Treatm ent A pplicationr

The various treatments were applied to the =i
cording to the following procedures.

ROOT-STARTER SOLUTION: A commercial 
solution was applied to all plots designated for 
ment at the time of planting. No further a
were made. .1

The material used was a commercial producti.
lated for this purpose. It contained 5 percent i
20 percent phosphoric acid, 1O percent potash p
percent indole-butyric acid. This product was -.»__
1 part in 8O parts of water and was applied to 
nated plots at the rate of approximately 1 gall:
solution per square foot of soil surface. This Tf
was equal to approximately 3 pints per rose w‘

NUTRIENTS: A commercial formulation
plete fertilizer was used for all plots designated 

l.

  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
   
  
 
  
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  

ii ion during the trials. This commercial product
{especially formulated for the fertilization of
i?‘ plants, using the following components:

p, t nitrogen (4 percent from ammonium sul-
"rcent from diammonium phosphate) 10 per-
 oric acid (7.5 percent from 20 percent super-
cl 2.5 percent from diammonium phosphate)
ash (from 60 percent muriate of potash).
~_._ to the above ingredients, the product also con-
percent organic nitrogen from cottonseed meal,
 minor elements in ‘the following amounts:
cent; manganese 0.012 percent; zinc 0.013 per-
0.004 percent; boron 0.008 percent; and mo-
0008 percent.

iertilizer was applied at the rate of 3 pounds
e feet as a dry surface application. The first
 was made 4 weeks after the planting date.
 pplications were made during the growing
week intervals. Care was taken to be certain
was uniformly moist when the fertilizer was
the plots were then thoroughly watered after
ons were made.

 TREATMENT-SI The fungicide used in
 was a commercial formulation containing 50
 -trichloromethyl-thiophthalimide. Applications
3 o the designated plots at the rate of 2 pounds
erial to 100 gallons of water at 2-week intervals
growing season. The first application was made
if the buds began to swell after planting.

‘in TREATMENTS: A commercial product com-
"shredded pine bark prepared for this particular
 used in these trials as a mulching material.
ial was applied to the surface of the plot to
'mate depth of 2 inches. The mulch was ap-
_ the soil had been well watered following

‘r

 ROUTINE CULTURAL OPERATIONS: All plots
1 ed in accordance with tensiometer readings or
 re testing methods, and were kept weed free.
A between the trial plots were mowed, trimmed,
 ed in accordance with good turf management

c, pests were controlled by a preventive spray
 ing a combination insecticide formulated es-
i) the control of major insect pests attacking
S‘ is material was, applied at recommended rates
iintervals during the growing season. No fungi-
 'als were included in this formulation.

fs on the number of actively growing breaks

 r of flowers produced were made at about
als. All flowers were removed to the first

five-leaflet leaf at the time of first petal fall. No other
pruning was performed.

Data on root-starter solution plots was taken 30 clays
from the date of planting by selecting representative plants
from the plots receiving the root-starter solution treat-
ment, digging them and comparing the number of roots
produced on treated plots with the number of roots pro-
duced on plants on untreated plots. Root growth on
representative plants was again compared at the end of
the growing season.

Measurements on all other plots were taken at monthly
intervals or as the growth and development of the plants
indicated. The following criteria were used in accumu-
lating data: number of healthy "breaks" produced per
plant; number of flowers produced per plant; vigor and
general condition of plants as observed by a panel of
workers and recorded by photographs; number of leaves
and stems expressing disease symptoms; evaluation of
varietal and individual differences at the end of the grow-
ing season; and evaluation of the condition of all plants
at the end of the first and second growing seasons.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Present recommendations for planting garden roses in
Texas stipulate that fall or winter planting is most desir-
able but garden conditions are unstable during the winter
months and dormant roses are not always obtainable in
good condition in the fall. The plants in this investi-
gation were planted in early spring. on February 20, 1962
to determine whether spring planting might not be de-
sirable and satisfactory under Texas conditions.

The only application of the root-stimulator used was
made on February 21. The first fertilizer application was
made on March 5 and the mulch was applied on March
12. The fungicide applications were started on March
26. The spraying program with the all-purpose insecti-
cide was started on April 2, 1962. The trials were con-
tinued until December 31, 1963.

Effect of Root-Stimulator

There was no significant difference in the number
of flowers and the number of healthy breaks produced by
the plots treated with root-stimulator when compared
with the plots not receiving this treatment. However,
data was taken on the average number of roots produced
on the plants in plots treated with root-stimulator and the
control plots by digging representative plants and counting
the roots produced during the first 45 days after planting.

With the exception of the variety Alamo where no
significant differences were noted, all of the plants treated
with root-stimulator had produced approximately 25 per-
cent more feeder roots than those in the untreated plots,

5

Figure 1. Comparison of rose plants (variety Peace) shouting
the effect of root starter solution on early root development. The
plant on the left was treated with starter solution.

Figure 1—comparative photo. N0 further data was taken
on these plots since the principal value t0 be derived from
the use of the root stimulator is the early development of
feeder roots to aid in the rapid establishment of a vigorous
root system.

Effect of Fungicide Treatments

The plants to which the fungicide was applied pro-
duced an average of 11 percent more healthy breaks per
plant than plants that were not sprayed. Data was also
taken on the effectiveness of the fungicide treatments by
actual leaf counts taken once every 30 days during the first
12 months of the trials.

The average number of leaves showing blackspot or
mildew symptoms during the year 1962 are shown in
Figure 2.

Effect of Mulching

The plants in the plots that received the mulch pro-
duced 13.3 percent more healthy breaks per plant than
those in the unmulched plots. This differential is signif-
icant in this particular treatment since the plots under
the mulch required watering only half as often as the
unmulched plots to keep the soil uniformly moist during
the growing season.

Effect of Fertilization

All of the plots to which the complete fertilizer was
applied at 30-day intervals produced an average of 12 per-

   
  
   
 
   
   
  
   
  
   
 
   
   
 

Figure 3. Comparison of fertilized and unfertil'
of roses. Plants in the top photo received no treatment 
in the hottom photo received a combination of all

cent more healthy breaks per plant than those 
fertilization. i‘
However, the qualitative effect of fertilizati
much more evident throughout the growing  i
those exhibited by the quantitative data. The diff
the health and vigor of the fertilized and u 
plots is illustrated in Figure 3. 
Effect of a Combination of all Treatni
There was a significant difference among 
receiving a combination of all treatments and they‘;
Plants receiving all treatments produced an aver“
more healthy breaks per plant. The vigor, foili
and flower color were superior in the treated pl
in the control plots the foliage was chlorotic, 

\-

weak and the flowers small. iii

The results of this 2-year study indicate
performance of garden roses is .not dependent 
specialized and time-consuming cultural practicesii

The method of securing data by counting" thi
of healthy breaks and the number of flowers i
at 30-day intervals was not entirely satisfactory-ff
qualitative factors of the amount and color of rtgfi
duced, the size and color of the flowers and

   

 

Treatment No. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll
Percent Blackspot 15% 15% 25% 0 0 15% 30% Trace 56% 26% Trace
Percent Mildew Trace Trace 25% Trace Trace 0 0 0 0 0

    

Trace 

Figure 2. Average numher of leaves showing hlachspot or mildew symptoms in 1962.

 

 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov
 l l l b l l l

   
 

Plots receiving
oll treatments

Control
plots

    
   
   
     
   
   
  
   
  
   
   

"4. Cbart of number of flowers produced by variety
irnzstrong during tbe growing season.

 of vigor, of the plants used was not satis-
 ected by the data.

 the fresh weight and dry weight of the plants
 because of the number of individuals
 treatments and the duration of the study.
 data taken in this manner, however, would
 e the results obtained in this study mo-re mean-
statistically significant, and would more closely
 qualitative results that were evident through
i‘  ation and evaluation during the various peri-
fpgrowing season.

 dy indicates that many of the tirneworn prac-
ifollowed in growing garden roses may well be
‘j favor of a predetermined and well-planned
i‘ less time-consuming maintenance practices.

‘w’- e plants in this study responded well to all
gnts used during this 2-year period. The cli-
"tions that prevailed during these growing sea-
gjpnot as favorable as those of normal years in

Tince a severe drouth occurred during the second

._
‘A. '

I

4‘

‘g
.
k.
Q

i-Moy June July Aug Sept Oct Nov
C! l l l l l l l

Combination of
oll treatments

i“ if ‘iii”
Season Totals:

Treoled Plots 235

Control Plots I30

i}. Difference in number of flowers produced for
\' I v
i‘ on among control plants and plants receiving all

r

 sbown in tbis cbart.

April, 1962

 
 

 a-(r-mwa» ..  - .

June’,  ..  

July, 162

Figure 6. Tbe growtb and development of tbe garden roses
during tbe first growing season is sbown in tbese pbotos (and
cover pboto). From top to bottom: 2 montbs, 5 montbs and 6
montbs after planting. Cover pboto sbows condition of plants
7 montbs after planting.

year. All of the varieties used in these trials produced a
considerable number of flowers during each month of the
growing season. The comparative production of breaks
during this period is shown in Figures 4 and 5. These
data show that the production of flowers by the plants in
the plots receiving only the scheduled amount of mainte-
nance during the growing season produced significantly
larger numbers of flowers, especially during the hot, dry
months of the year.

Only 16 of the 435 plants included in this study died
during the 2-year period and all of these were in the
control plots.

All the plants showed very favorable responses to
individual treatments such as bi-monthly applications of
a fungici-de, monthly fertilizer application, mulching, an
application of root stimulator at planting time, and
thorough watering at weekly intervals. A combination of
these treatments produced results that were far more sig-

   
 
 
 
 
 
 

nificant than those obtained by any of the 
treatments alone.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Grateful acknowledgment i: made t0 the 
Co., The Stauffer Chemical Co. and Mirmul, I‘
for financial arsixtance; to. CQZoperative R018 
for Jupplying the rare plant; med," and to f
Thompron for gathering data. 

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, R. E. Patterson, Director, College Station, Texas

  Response 0f

GARDEN ROSES

 t0 a

 lanned Planting

and Maintenance
Program

TEXAS ARM UNIVERSITY
IIUITURAI EXPERIMENT STATIUN - - - TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSIUN SERVICE

College Station, Texas

v

        
      
 

oses under Texas
 simple schedule of
ons.

Anyo
condition i, fol
planting y g i’ d maint

A rden location that will receive at least 6 hours of
sunlight per day is highly desirable. In most Texas areas
a location that is shaded during the afternoon is probably
ideal. When dormant plants are preferred, they may be
planted any time that the plants are in good condition and
dormant. Most Texas areas, except the Panhandle, have
a brief dormant period in late January or during February
which is the most desirable planting period. Container
grown plants can. be successfully planted at any time
during the year if the plants are in active growth when
they are transplanted.

When the planting location has adequate drainage,
extensive bed and soil preparation are not required. In
very heavy clay soils where drainage does not occur readily,
this condition should be corrected by standard methods
before the soil and plantings beds are prepared. Under
all other conditions the following procedures will provide
an excellent soil environment for garden roses.

Prepare the area to be planted by spading or tilling
the existing soil to a depth of 12 inches. Spread a mixture
of 5O percent ‘horticultural grade perlite and 5O percent
coarse peat moss over the area to a depth of 4 inches.
Then mix this material thoroughly with the existing soil.

If past experience indicates the possibility that soil-
borne diseases, nematodes, or weeds may be troublesome,
the beds can be fumigated with a liquid carbamate soil
fumigant according to the procedure used in these studies.
Allow the soil to settle for several weeks after preparation
before planting.

Select only top-quality plants for planting, and do
not allow the tops or roots of t-he plants to dry out during
handling or planting. Prepare planting holes in the bed 2
feet apart, about 14 inches in diameter and about 10 inches
deep. Leave a mound of soil about 4 inches high in the
center of each hole.

Prune the roots on the plants to a length not to
exceed 12 inches, making sure that all roots are pruned
to this same length or less. Prune the tops to an outside
eye or bud 6 to 8 inches above the bud union of the plants.

   
    
    
       
  
    
    
   
   
   
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  

Q: u,

Set the plants down firmly on the mound of soil le 
holes so that the roots spread out naturally in all 
in the hole. Control the depth of planting so that
union will be about an inch below the soil surf 
the hole with soil and tamp it firmly and 
around. the plant. l’

.x,=
v_\
~;_

When all the plants have been set, water 
thoroughly with tap water. When the surface of 
shows signs of drying, water the bed with a c 
root-stimulator at the rate recommended by the - 
turer. Apply a 2-inch mulch to the beds as 

X;

root-stimulator has been applied using an organic,

I
 '

L

similar to that used in these trials. .53;-

After 2 weeks scratch below the mulch to 
drying has occurred in the soil below. When 
shows signs of dryness, water the entire plant
thoroughly. Watering will not be required oft
every 2 weeks or longer, depending on the du 

tween rains. Never apply additional water 

mulch or the soil below it is wet. 

1 .,
e§~
v\
‘H.
 \_
. C‘
v

Thirty days after planting ap-p-ly a fungicide
lined in this program at 2-week intervals. Disco 
application when active growth ceases in the fallif"

winter. Begin the program the second year, 
the buds begin to break on the plants in the sprin‘

the plants every 3O days with an all-purpose 
for insect control.   

Remove the old flowers from the plants 
the first petal falls, by cutting the stem just
first five-leaflet leaf that occurs below the flo.
no prune the plants in any other way during 
season. Flowers should be cut with longer 
if they are to be used as cut-flowers. I 

The following spring, in all areas where 
prevail, remove any dead or broken branches
plants. Prune the remainder back to 8 to 
from the ground and begin the same growing;
again. 

In the colder areas of Texas, delay the pru ii, A
plantings until the new buds begin to turn red 
danger of the last killing frost is over. Then 

planned maintenance program for the second 

A.
‘x '
.~ "\

     
   
 
 
   
 
 

Li‘

...................................................... _- Z
4 0n ---------------------------------------------------- -- 3
 and Materials ................................ .- 4
l‘. Preparation .................................... .. 4
:3 ting Procedures .............................. .- 4
fitment Applications ......................... .. 4
 -Starter Solution .......................... .. 4
‘i5 utrients ............................................. .. 4
gungicide Treatments ....................... -- 5
 lch Treatments .............................. .. 5

 her Routine Cultural Operations... 5

f d Discussion .................................. .. 5
 of Root-Stimulator .................... _. 5
 it of Fungicide Treatments .......... .- 6

[i- of Mulchingwigz-i: ....................... .. 6
 of Fertilization ............................ .. 6

 of a Combination
 all Treatments .............................. -. 6

g1: - "gments .......................................... -. 8

tenance Program

Planned Planting and

A. F. DeW/ert/J
Department of Soil and Crop Science:

HE CULTURE OF GARDEN ROSES has long been considered
a specialized undertaking. Considerable scientific infor-
mation about the cultural requirements necessary for producing
good rose plants under nursery and greenhouse conditions is
available, but these findings have not been applied to the
culture of roses in garden or landscape environments. Many
of the cultural practices recommended in the past for the
growthand development of garden roses are timeworn pro-
cedures that might now be discarded in favor of a predeter-
mined and planned schedule for the planting and mainte-
nance of these garden subjects. Much of the information
available that deals with growing garden roses is based on
results obtained in climatic regions where the seasonal changes
are not closely related to those experienced in the various sit-
uations encountered in Texas and the Southwest. It is exceed-
ingly difficult to adapt these recommendations to Texas con-
ditions with any success.-

For many years Texas ranked second in the production

of garden rose plants in the United States. During recent
years the reputation for the production of quality rose plants

has been disminishing, even though the top-graded plants
produced have continued to be of high quality. This concept

may be due, to some extent at least, to poor cultural practices
applied to these plants after they are received and are placed

in garden or landscape plantings. These practices are also
uneconomical and disappointing to the home gardener.

No available records of any scientific investigations in
Texas during recent years have been directed specifically to

the problems involved in growing roses in landscape or garden
locations. Past problems related to growing garden roses

3

successfully indicated that a need existed for a reliable
schedule of cultural procedures, including soil preparation,
method of planting, spacing of plants, rapid establishment
after planting, proper application of nutrients, control of
insect and disease problems and the pruning, mulching and
moisture requirements involved.

Research with roses and other woody plants grown
in containers and under garden conditions at the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station and elsewhere indicates
that the usual recommendations for planting, for soil pre-
paration, for soil structural requirements and for other
cultural practices may be greatly modified. Studies were
initiated at College Station in 1960 to evaluate the response
of hybrid rose plants to various cultural practices applied
to these plants under landscape and ganden conditions.
In addition, some information was obtained on the effect
of heavy winter mulches on the performance of garden
roses under prevailing climatic conditions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Three planting beds, 96 feet long and 6 feet wide,
were constructed in the open field in full sun. The ex-
perimental beds were enclosed in 2 x 6-inch redwood
curbs that extended 4 inches above the existing grade.
Each of the beds was divided, with redwood dividers,
into 12 equal 6 x 8-foot plots. This established a ran-
domized block design consisting of 36 plots, with an area
of 48 square feet in each plot.

Twelve rose plants, spaced 2 feet apart on centers,
were planted in each plot. Four varieties of hybrid tea
and one variety of hybrid floribunda roses were included
in the trials. Each plot contained 4 plants each of three
varieties randomized throughout the experiment that was
composed of 87 plants of each variety, making a total of
435 plants.

Twelve treatments were used in the study. Each
treatment was replicated three times. The treatments
were composed of the four following materials that were
coded with the indicated letters.

R I root-starter solution
X I no treatment (control)

N I nutrients

M I mulch

F I fungicide
These materials were used as 12 treatments alone and in
combinations as numbered and listed below:

1. MNF 5. NF 9. R
2. F 6. N 10. M
3. MN 7. RN l1. NMFR
4. RFN 8. MRF 12. X

The rose plants used were obtained from a source of
commercial nursery plants and were No. 1 grade on Rom
m-iultiflora understock. No varieties were designated when

  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
   
   
  
   
  
 
  
  
  
  
    
    
 
 
  
 
  

the plants were ordered. Those sent by the source?
considered as representative varieties for garden use. i
varieties planted were hybrid tea-variety Peace, hybri,
variety Alamo, hybrid floribunda-variety Pinocchio, i
tea-variety The Doctor, hybrid tea-variety Charlotte i‘
strong.

Soil PreRdI§ati0n'

The existing soil type in the area where the?»
were conducted is Lufkin fine sandy loam. k
within the experimental plots was rototilled to a 
12 inches. Four inches of a mixture of 50 perce i
cultural grade perlite and 50 percent sphagnum pe
by volume, were evenly spread on the surface
area was again rototilled until these material
thoroughly incorporated with the existing soil.
perimental area was then fumigated with a liquid c p _,
soil fumigant at the rate of 1 quart per 100 square if
area. The soil was rototilled again 7 days after i‘
plication to aerate the soil. Then the soil was ae - ___,
an additional 14 days before the plants were planti

.5

Planting Procedures

The plants were prepared for planting as soon h
were received from the nursery by pruning the i
to exceed 12 inches in length. The tops were p
approximately 8 inches above the bud union.

Holes not larger than 14 inches in diamet
prepared in the plots, with a mound of earth piled
center of the hole. The plants were set on this
so that the roots extended evenly in all directii
the mound. The depth of planting was controlle
bud union was set at, or just below, the existing 
after the soil was settled after planting.

Treatm ent A pplicationr

The various treatments were applied to the =i
cording to the following procedures.

ROOT-STARTER SOLUTION: A commercial 
solution was applied to all plots designated for 
ment at the time of planting. No further a
were made. .1

The material used was a commercial producti.
lated for this purpose. It contained 5 percent i
20 percent phosphoric acid, 1O percent potash p
percent indole-butyric acid. This product was -.»__
1 part in 8O parts of water and was applied to 
nated plots at the rate of approximately 1 gall:
solution per square foot of soil surface. This Tf
was equal to approximately 3 pints per rose w‘

NUTRIENTS: A commercial formulation
plete fertilizer was used for all plots designated 

l.

  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
   
  
 
  
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  

ii ion during the trials. This commercial product
{especially formulated for the fertilization of
i?‘ plants, using the following components:

p, t nitrogen (4 percent from ammonium sul-
"rcent from diammonium phosphate) 10 per-
 oric acid (7.5 percent from 20 percent super-
cl 2.5 percent from diammonium phosphate)
ash (from 60 percent muriate of potash).
~_._ to the above ingredients, the product also con-
percent organic nitrogen from cottonseed meal,
 minor elements in ‘the following amounts:
cent; manganese 0.012 percent; zinc 0.013 per-
0.004 percent; boron 0.008 percent; and mo-
0008 percent.

iertilizer was applied at the rate of 3 pounds
e feet as a dry surface application. The first
 was made 4 weeks after the planting date.
 pplications were made during the growing
week intervals. Care was taken to be certain
was uniformly moist when the fertilizer was
the plots were then thoroughly watered after
ons were made.

 TREATMENT-SI The fungicide used in
 was a commercial formulation containing 50
 -trichloromethyl-thiophthalimide. Applications
3 o the designated plots at the rate of 2 pounds
erial to 100 gallons of water at 2-week intervals
growing season. The first application was made
if the buds began to swell after planting.

‘in TREATMENTS: A commercial product com-
"shredded pine bark prepared for this particular
 used in these trials as a mulching material.
ial was applied to the surface of the plot to
'mate depth of 2 inches. The mulch was ap-
_ the soil had been well watered following

‘r

 ROUTINE CULTURAL OPERATIONS: All plots
1 ed in accordance with tensiometer readings or
 re testing methods, and were kept weed free.
A between the trial plots were mowed, trimmed,
 ed in accordance with good turf management

c, pests were controlled by a preventive spray
 ing a combination insecticide formulated es-
i) the control of major insect pests attacking
S‘ is material was, applied at recommended rates
iintervals during the growing season. No fungi-
 'als were included in this formulation.

fs on the number of actively growing breaks

 r of flowers produced were made at about
als. All flowers were removed to the first

five-leaflet leaf at the time of first petal fall. No other
pruning was performed.

Data on root-starter solution plots was taken 30 clays
from the date of planting by selecting representative plants
from the plots receiving the root-starter solution treat-
ment, digging them and comparing the number of roots
produced on treated plots with the number of roots pro-
duced on plants on untreated plots. Root growth on
representative plants was again compared at the end of
the growing season.

Measurements on all other plots were taken at monthly
intervals or as the growth and development of the plants
indicated. The following criteria were used in accumu-
lating data: number of healthy "breaks" produced per
plant; number of flowers produced per plant; vigor and
general condition of plants as observed by a panel of
workers and recorded by photographs; number of leaves
and stems expressing disease symptoms; evaluation of
varietal and individual differences at the end of the grow-
ing season; and evaluation of the condition of all plants
at the end of the first and second growing seasons.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Present recommendations for planting garden roses in
Texas stipulate that fall or winter planting is most desir-
able but garden conditions are unstable during the winter
months and dormant roses are not always obtainable in
good condition in the fall. The plants in this investi-
gation were planted in early spring. on February 20, 1962
to determine whether spring planting might not be de-
sirable and satisfactory under Texas conditions.

The only application of the root-stimulator used was
made on February 21. The first fertilizer application was
made on March 5 and the mulch was applied on March
12. The fungicide applications were started on March
26. The spraying program with the all-purpose insecti-
cide was started on April 2, 1962. The trials were con-
tinued until December 31, 1963.

Effect of Root-Stimulator

There was no significant difference in the number
of flowers and the number of healthy breaks produced by
the plots treated with root-stimulator when compared
with the plots not receiving this treatment. However,
data was taken on the average number of roots produced
on the plants in plots treated with root-stimulator and the
control plots by digging representative plants and counting
the roots produced during the first 45 days after planting.

With the exception of the variety Alamo where no
significant differences were noted, all of the plants treated
with root-stimulator had produced approximately 25 per-
cent more feeder roots than those in the untreated plots,

5

Figure 1. Comparison of rose plants (variety Peace) shouting
the effect of root starter solution on early root development. The
plant on the left was treated with starter solution.

Figure 1—comparative photo. N0 further data was taken
on these plots since the principal value t0 be derived from
the use of the root stimulator is the early development of
feeder roots to aid in the rapid establishment of a vigorous
root system.

Effect of Fungicide Treatments

The plants to which the fungicide was applied pro-
duced an average of 11 percent more healthy breaks per
plant than plants that were not sprayed. Data was also
taken on the effectiveness of the fungicide treatments by
actual leaf counts taken once every 30 days during the first
12 months of the trials.

The average number of leaves showing blackspot or
mildew symptoms during the year 1962 are shown in
Figure 2.

Effect of Mulching

The plants in the plots that received the mulch pro-
duced 13.3 percent more healthy breaks per plant than
those in the unmulched plots. This differential is signif-
icant in this particular treatment since the plots under
the mulch required watering only half as often as the
unmulched plots to keep the soil uniformly moist during
the growing season.

Effect of Fertilization

All of the plots to which the complete fertilizer was
applied at 30-day intervals produced an average of 12 per-

   
  
   
 
   
   
  
   
  
   
 
   
   
 

Figure 3. Comparison of fertilized and unfertil'
of roses. Plants in the top photo received no treatment 
in the hottom photo received a combination of all

cent more healthy breaks per plant than those 
fertilization. i‘
However, the qualitative effect of fertilizati
much more evident throughout the growing  i
those exhibited by the quantitative data. The diff
the health and vigor of the fertilized and u 
plots is illustrated in Figure 3. 
Effect of a Combination of all Treatni
There was a significant difference among 
receiving a combination of all treatments and they‘;
Plants receiving all treatments produced an aver“
more healthy breaks per plant. The vigor, foili
and flower color were superior in the treated pl
in the control plots the foliage was chlorotic, 

\-

weak and the flowers small. iii

The results of this 2-year study indicate
performance of garden roses is .not dependent 
specialized and time-consuming cultural practicesii

The method of securing data by counting" thi
of healthy breaks and the number of flowers i
at 30-day intervals was not entirely satisfactory-ff
qualitative factors of the amount and color of rtgfi
duced, the size and color of the flowers and

   

 

Treatment No. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll
Percent Blackspot 15% 15% 25% 0 0 15% 30% Trace 56% 26% Trace
Percent Mildew Trace Trace 25% Trace Trace 0 0 0 0 0

    

Trace 

Figure 2. Average numher of leaves showing hlachspot or mildew symptoms in 1962.

 

 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov
 l l l b l l l

   
 

Plots receiving
oll treatments

Control
plots

    
   
   
     
   
   
  
   
  
   
   

"4. Cbart of number of flowers produced by variety
irnzstrong during tbe growing season.

 of vigor, of the plants used was not satis-
 ected by the data.

 the fresh weight and dry weight of the plants
 because of the number of individuals
 treatments and the duration of the study.
 data taken in this manner, however, would
 e the results obtained in this study mo-re mean-
statistically significant, and would more closely
 qualitative results that were evident through
i‘  ation and evaluation during the various peri-
fpgrowing season.

 dy indicates that many of the tirneworn prac-
ifollowed in growing garden roses may well be
‘j favor of a predetermined and well-planned
i‘ less time-consuming maintenance practices.

‘w’- e plants in this study responded well to all
gnts used during this 2-year period. The cli-
"tions that prevailed during these growing sea-
gjpnot as favorable as those of normal years in

Tince a severe drouth occurred during the second

._
‘A. '

I

4‘

‘g
.
k.
Q

i-Moy June July Aug Sept Oct Nov
C! l l l l l l l

Combination of
oll treatments

i“ if ‘iii”
Season Totals:

Treoled Plots 235

Control Plots I30

i}. Difference in number of flowers produced for
\' I v
i‘ on among control plants and plants receiving all

r

 sbown in tbis cbart.

April, 1962

 
 

 a-(r-mwa» ..  - .

June’,  ..  

July, 162

Figure 6. Tbe growtb and development of tbe garden roses
during tbe first growing season is sbown in tbese pbotos (and
cover pboto). From top to bottom: 2 montbs, 5 montbs and 6
montbs after planting. Cover pboto sbows condition of plants
7 montbs after planting.

year. All of the varieties used in these trials produced a
considerable number of flowers during each month of the
growing season. The comparative production of breaks
during this period is shown in Figures 4 and 5. These
data show that the production of flowers by the plants in
the plots receiving only the scheduled amount of mainte-
nance during the growing season produced significantly
larger numbers of flowers, especially during the hot, dry
months of the year.

Only 16 of the 435 plants included in this study died
during the 2-year period and all of these were in the
control plots.

All the plants showed very favorable responses to
individual treatments such as bi-monthly applications of
a fungici-de, monthly fertilizer application, mulching, an
application of root stimulator at planting time, and
thorough watering at weekly intervals. A combination of
these treatments produced results that were far more sig-

   
 
 
 
 
 
 

nificant than those obtained by any of the 
treatments alone.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Grateful acknowledgment i: made t0 the 
Co., The Stauffer Chemical Co. and Mirmul, I‘
for financial arsixtance; to. CQZoperative R018 
for Jupplying the rare plant; med," and to f
Thompron for gathering data. 

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, R. E. Patterson, Director, College Station, Texas