Chapter 4 - The Pruning Of Roses

There are few things connected with Rose culture so little understood by amateurs and gardeners generally as pruning . . .

Gertrude Jekyll And Edward Mawley

'Roses for English Gardens', 1902

Of all the garden operations that bedevil the novice there is none I think like rose pruning, and yet its importance is grossly overrated. There is a general impression that if it is carried out by an expert, the bushes will not only grow well, but bloom profusely. Let me say at once that pruning has nothing whatever to do with promoting growth, the only thing which will do that is good cultivation. A tree lives and thrives by its leaves and roots, and provided both are in a healthy condition a satisfactory plant will result. Perhaps the easiest way to understand why rose pruning is necessary is to see what would happen if pruning was disregarded altogether and the bushes allowed to grow at will. First of all they would grow into unruly shapes with long, straggly stems. There would also be a considerable amount of thin, twiggy growth, and very probably a good deal of dead wood. The object of rose pruning is to ensure the greatest possible amount of strong, healthy wood, and in so doing to improve the quality of the blooms.

The ideal would be to have the plants throwing up new growths quite low near the base, but unfortunately this can only be obtained in young plants by hard pruning, and if it is done year after year it will shorten the life of the plants.

It must be realized that roses, at least those with which we are most familiar, are virtually Climbers. That is to say that if they are planted in a position, such as against the wall of a lean-to greenhouse or the warm wall of a dwelling-house, where the wood will ripen and not be damaged by climatic conditions, the plants will act in the same way as the usual climbing varieties, with the difference that all the growth produced will flower. Roses grown under such conditions very rarely produce new basal growth, being quite happy to carry on with the old original wood which was in being when the rose was first planted. I have such a plant in a greenhouse which has been in its present position for about fifteen years, covering a space of fourteen feet by ten, which is still carrying the original wood—now as thick as one's wrist—and the vigor and growth is such that both summer and autumn pruning has to be resorted to in order to keep the plant within bounds.

Above: A suitable growth from which to obtain cuttings.
Below: Four cuttings taken from the growth shown above,
(seepages 69 to 71).

It would seem from this example that as roses do not behave anything like that in the open ground, and that there is always a certain amount of wood being enfeebled and being replaced by new growth, we prune our roses at the dictates of the weather conditions. In my own garden, which is subject to intense frosts, I have had the wood damaged on many occasions down to soil level, and in consequence have had to remove practically all at pruning time. I have observed, when the roses are hard-pruned by the elements, that recovery is very slow, owing, no doubt, to the paralysing effect on the root system, and its inability to produce the necessary foliage to sustain them. This brings me to the importance of balance in the plant.

Pruning bush roses

The rose is quite different from an herbaceous plant which has the power of storing up the energy in the roots; instead the energy is contained in the whole structure and the removal of a large part of the plant throws an additional strain on that which is left. For instance, in plants received from the nurseries, we have the wood of the plants practically intact and with a more or less reduced root system, a certain amount being left behind in the soil when the plants were lifted. To plant the rose and leave it quite unpruned is putting just as great a strain on the whole plant as when an established one has had its top growth removed by hard pruning. The balance is upset, and so by cutting back a newly-planted bush to about six inches or so, according to its strength, the whole plant is balanced. As a rule those planted in the autumn will not require such hard treatment as those planted in March or April, when it would be better to leave about three inches of growth or stems. The only exceptions to this golden rule are the climbing sports.

On no account must these be cut back as there is a very great likelihood of the plants reverting to the original dwarf form, which rather proves my point about the stunting effect of pruning.

Related to the whole conception of rose pruning is the behavior of the plants under different soil and growing conditions. It must be obvious that roses growing in what one might term more favorable areas, such as the Weald of Kent or Sussex, Essex and parts of the midland counties, will tolerate and even succeed with pruning which would mean their early decline in light, sandy soils or in districts where the atmospheric conditions are not conducive to healthy growth.

In a few words then, where the plants are growing well, pruning can be either moderate or hard according to the needs of the grower, but when growth is not freely produced pruning should be very light, and in some instances dispensed with, merely consisting in the removal of old and useless wood.

One is often asked what can be done with the old and neglected roses. It is not an easy question to answer, for in the majority of cases it is not only the top part of the rose which has suffered neglect, but the roots as well. If the neglect is of several years' duration, a speedy return to health is not possible, and may take two or three seasons to obtain. To cut back drastically into the old wood would very probably cripple the plant. The best treatment would be first to cut out all the dead wood. A small keyhole saw is the handiest tool for the job. When all this dead wood is removed, cut out the very oldest wood that is not bearing any young growth on it and finally shorten back all the new growths, which the plant may have, to within about three eyes of their base. Nothing can be done in the first season to overcome the legginess of the plant by pruning, but if possible, the limbs should be bent down in a somewhat horizontal position, which may cause some dormant eyes to break into growth more towards the base of the plant. When that happens, the other growth can be dispensed with. The attention given to the plant by pruning is only one part of the treatment and will be of little use unless the roots are attended to by the soil being forked over and manured.

What I have written about bush roses applies also to standards, and to a great extent to Climbing roses and Ramblers, and although the latter will put up with rather more drastic treatment, it is not wise to remove nearly three-quarters of the growths at one time.

When roses are grown in beds and fairly closely planted, it must be obvious that the pruning must be more drastic than where the bushes are in such a position that they have ample room for development. Here again, however, in the amount of growth to be cut away, one must be guided by the growing behavior of the plants. If the plants are doing well, then leaving the strongest shoots about a foot long after pruning and the less strong about six inches would be about right, but if the plants are not doing so well, the less growth cut away the better will be their chance of building up strength.

I well remember an instance of this kind. I was asked to give a talk on roses, at a lady's house, to members of a Ladies' Garden Club, and I was asked to inspect the roses. These I found were being grown in beds surrounding a very large cedar. It was quite a picturesque position, but a more unsuitable one could not have been found in the whole garden. In addition the soil was of a light, porous nature overlying gravel. This lady had a particular aversion to cutting trees and plants, and so the roses were never pruned, except to thin out dead and useless wood. Naturally, the plants under this treatment grew very leggy but that was the only thing one could find fault with, for the quantity of bloom those plants gave was truly amazing, notwithstanding the fact that they were competing with the roots of the cedar which no doubt soon found there was rich food to be had in the rose beds. Had these plants been hard-pruned each year they would never have been able to build up a strong root system able to compete with the cedar, because any reduction of one part of a plant must have its effect on the other.

I think it may be said that the majority of the roses grown in this country are not growing in ideal conditions, for by far the greatest number of people who grow roses live in or near large towns. The conditions, however, vary enormously according to the amount of light and air available; the soil itself would show a great variation. In the older parts of the town the soil would probably be worn out, while on the outskirts the soil might have been meadow-land recently, the best land for growing good roses. Thus it must be seen that in districts separated by perhaps a mile or so, what might be sound advice to one would be quite unsuitable to the other.

If you are compelled by circumstances to live in a closely built-up district, where the atmosphere is not of the purest, and you are desirous of having roses, my advice is to disregard pruning altogether.

Whatever you do, avoid that individual who, armed with worn-out fork and a pair of hedging shears, offers to tidy up the garden. You may be certain that the first thing he will do will be to clip the roses into shape, cutting off any decent new wood the plants might have made and leaving only the old blackened parts of the bushes behind.

Poor growth in roses is not necessarily confined to town gardens, for soil conditions can also be a contributory cause of roses not making satisfactory growth. Of course one can improve one's soil or even change it, if one can afford to do so, but if it is not possible and one must make the best use of the soil as it is found, then once again prune lightly, in order that the plants will make as extensive a root system as possible.

Pruning standard rose trees

So far, my remarks have been concerned with dwarf or bush roses, but the treatment of standard roses is much the same, except that even where the growing conditions are good, it is far better to allow the plants to develop as large a head as possible. Only too often one sees these standards bearing just a few miserable shoots where, had they been allowed to grow naturally, a larger head and much more bloom would have been obtained. Although, in very many instances, the treatment received is responsible for the scarecrow specimens so often seen, much is due also to the use of unsuitable varieties. If only the nurseryman would refrain from budding those of only moderate growth and only bud the varieties which are capable of strong growth, a great deal of disappointment would be avoided.

Pruning Rambler roses

The term 'pruning' is not quite correct when applied to this type of rose, and the word 'thinning' should be substituted; but as it is generally understood to be pruning, the heading can remain. There are at least three types of so-called Rambler rose, all calling for different treatment in the hands of the pruner. We will call them Groups i, 2 and 3.

Group 1, which embraces what may be called the true Ramblers, is a type which approximates nearly to the wild parent Rosa wichuraiana, of which Dorothy Perkins, Excelsa, Lady Godiva and Minnehaha are examples. These roses are in the habit of producing new long shoots from the base of the plant annually, and the pruning is simplicity itself. All one has to do is to cut out the growths which have flowered during September and tie in the new shoots. It does sometimes happen, for various reasons, that in some seasons an inadequate number of new basal growths have been produced, when the best and strongest of the old growths may be retained, the flowering laterals cut back to two or three inches, and the shoots tied in again as if they were new growths. These will bloom quite well the following year, although the trusses of bloom will not be as large as those which come from new growth. It sometimes happens that quite useful growths are produced high up on an old growth. These also may be retained, and all the flowered laterals below it shortened.

Group 2 comprises such varieties as Paul's Scarlet Climber, Chaplin's Pink, Crimson Conquest and American Pillar. These require somewhat similar treatment to that for Group i, except that the new basal growths are not nearly as numerous and may be almost absent as the plants age. It will be found that what new growth there is comes from varying parts of the plant. Correct treatment here is to see first that there is sufficient new wood produced to allow for the removal of all that growth which has borne flowers. If not, the laterals should be cut back as advised for Group I. Where a strong new shoot has formed half-way on the growth which has bloomed, cut back the growth above it and let the new growth take its place.

In Group 3 we have Ramblers which are not as easy to deal with, and great care must be exercised in choosing their positions. Two of the most popular are Alberic Barbier and Francois Juranville. These varieties make a prodigious amount of growth and seem to delight in growing into a tangled mass. Moreover, the best growth comes on the ends of the shoots formed the previous year. Taking these plants down from their supports each year and cutting out all the old wood is anything but a pleasant task, and I have found that, provided sufficiently strong supports are given at the beginning, they are none the worse for being left to grow almost at will, which makes these particular varieties extremely useful for covering unsightly places or where a permanent screen is desired. Naturally, a certain amount of dead wood will be present, and much of this can be cut out without disturbance of the plant.

There are a few roses such as Thelma, Phyllis Bide and New Dawn, which do not come into any of the three groups mentioned. The last two are perpetual flowering. They are more suitable for growing as pillar roses, since they do not, as a rule, grow to any great height. Pruning consists of cutting out weak and worn-out wood and cutting back the laterals to a few inches. I have heard it said that the beautiful rose Mermaid will not stand pruning, and although I do not share this opinion entirely, I believe it is all the better for not being cut about too much. I have found it to be rather awkward in its habit, never producing its long new shoots in the right direction. If a shoot is growing at right angles to its support all one can do is to cut it back, for to attempt to bend it back where one wants it to be, is to be rewarded by its snapping off at its base.

Climbers and climbing sports

The pruning of these roses does not present any difficulties, and if the instructions given for Group 2 are carried out little else need be done. There is one thing, however, which might become a problem, and that is the liability of these roses, when grown on a house wall, to become rather bare at the base. When they are grown on fences or walls where the growths can be tied out espalier fashion very little trouble from lower bareness should be experienced, but on a house where the windows restrict the area it is very probable that the best and youngest growth will tend to be on the top of the plant. One way of mitigating this perfectly natural tendency is to take the plant from the wall and lay the growths down in a more or less horizontal position early in the year. Leave them there until there are signs of growth near the base, then place the growths back in their original positions. Another plan, which is quite a good one where the climbing sports are used, is to plant a dwarf bush of the same variety quite close to the other. If left almost unpruned it will cover the base of the climber and greatly improve the general effect.

Hybrid musks

One great feature of these charming and neglected roses is their continuity in blooming. Unlike the climbing roses, they do not produce non-flowering growth. Every growth will have flowers on its end. Accordingly, when one cuts them down almost to the ground or allows them to grow into large bushes, one cannot prune the flowers out of them as would happen if one pruned those roses whose blooming period is confined to June. I am not advocating the hard pruning of these roses, for they are so valuable for planting as informal hedges, or as specimen shrubs, that to prune them hard would be to destroy what is to my mind their most useful characteristic. Gutting out old and weakly growth is all that is necessary, and the reward will be an abundance of bloom over a long period.

Tools

There is a certain amount of controversy about whether roses should be pruned with a knife or secateurs. Usually it will be found that those who champion the use of the knife as the right and proper tool for the job are old and experienced rosarians. Without a doubt, a sharp knife in the hands of an experienced pruner is the ideal tool to use; nothing else will make such a clean cut; but having observed, over a period of many years, the effect of both knife and secateurs, I find there is little to choose between them. Let me add, however, that these comparisons were made where both secateurs and knife were perfectly sharp. The same comparison could hardly be made if both knife and secateurs were blunt, for although one could prune with blunt secateurs, one could hardly do the same with a knife, and to attempt it would be dangerous in the extreme.

Having agreed that secateurs are the best tool for the average rose grower, which are the best of all the many types for sale? I think it may be fairly stated that all types are good when made by a firm of repute, and, while new, cut very cleanly. It is when they have been in use for some time and used for a wide variety of purposes that they begin to cause damage to the plants. It is very important, when a cut is made on a growth, that the cut should be given an opportunity of healing over, thus allowing the resulting branch to have the benefit of an even flow of sap. If the cut is badly made and bruised, this healing process cannot take place and it becomes an ideal spot for the entry of spores of the die-back disease. It is most important, therefore, to see that before pruning is begun, the secateurs are sharp and properly adjusted. The kind with two cutting edges should have the centre nut tightened up if the blades do not engage properly, and should be tested to cut a piece of paper. If it is found that the blades are blunt a small Carborundum hone will soon put an edge on them.

Then there are the types which have a single blade cutting on a flat surface or anvil. These, it would seem, are the kind favored by the majority of people. They have a definite advantage over the two-bladed type in that one is enabled to use the tips of the tool for cutting out wood in inaccessible places. I find that, although when new they cut very well and cleanly, after considerable use a groove is cut in the flat metal surface and in consequence the performance of the tool is less efficient. This can be overcome by filing the anvil until the groove is just a fine line. Care must also be taken when sharpening the blade to see that a perfectly level edge is maintained, or it will be found that the blade does not meet the anvil evenly. When this happens it is necessary to renew both parts, and the secateurs should then operate as a new pair.

To sum up, the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of secateurs are as follows. The two-bladed type is very long-lasting, and will give almost a lifetime of use with reasonable care, but it has the disadvantage that one is not able to use the tips for cutting, but only the centre. The single-bladed type is much more costly in upkeep, and only cuts cleanly when in use for a comparatively short time, as against the longer efficient cutting life of the two-bladed type. The great advantage of the single-bladed kind is that it is very handy and useful for cutting out wood in inaccessible places on a plant.

It is quite possible that the useful life of these secateurs could be prolonged if they were not subjected to the strain of removing wood which should have been the work of the saw. It is not fair to try to cut out hard wood of about an inch in thickness and then expect to cut soft wood cleanly. Such hard wood should be removed with a saw and the kind I use is of the keyhole variety. The thin, pointed blade will reach into almost any part of the bush or tree without causing damage to the growth to be retained. All cuts so made should be pared over with a knife to facilitate the healing process. When pruning bush plants it is quite a good thing to use a small hand-fork to expose any old or dead wood buried in the soil. At the same time any suckers of the wild stock can be traced to their origin and removed.

Time Of Year To Prune

There is a general idea that roses should on no account be pruned before the latter end of March or early in April, so that they may escape the damaging effects of frost. If in actual practice they did escape, the idea would be quite a laudable one, but as May frosts turn up with the regularity of the cuckoo, it does not matter whether the plants are pruned in March or April. They are certain to be in growth by the first week in May when the spring frosts are most usual. No one can prune roses so that they will be in a leafless state at the time of frosts any more than one could have early vegetables by delaying sowing or planting until the risks of frost are past.

In point of fact, roses pruned in late March and April suffer more from the effects of frost than those pruned in February. Also, those pruned at the earlier date come into growth sooner than those pruned later, and as the growth is subjected to inclement weather conditions they are much more hardy and able to withstand the shock of a frost much better than those coming into growth later.

Some time ago I took the trouble to find out something about the history of pruning. In my research I found that the pruning of roses is of quite recent origin, and that it began when the rose became a florist's flower and was exhibited at shows. These rose-growers were merely concerned with the production of large blooms; quantity was unimportant, as numbers could be obtained by growing a large number of plants. They also wanted their blooms to be ready at the time of the shows which were, for the most part, in late June. It will be seen that what was a matter of convenience and necessity from their point of view, has to-day become an established practice. Furthermore, it must be realized that in the earlier days of rose growing, the types in common use in gardens were the Hybrid Perpetuals and the Tea roses.

There are very few examples now in cultivation of these Hybrid Perpetuals, which were of a strong and hardy nature, and gave very few blooms after the first flush was over. Moreover, the hard pruning that these were subjected to seems to have been the correct treatment. The Tea roses were, for the most part, rather tender, and growers went to endless trouble to protect their plants against a severe winter, and even then there were considerable losses. Pruning consisted in cutting away all the growth that the winter had damaged, which meant, in many instances, cutting the plant down to the ground. Our modern roses are the result of crossing these two types, hence the term Hybrid Tea.

It will be realized from this that although the roses of to-day are very different from those of earlier times, we still cling to methods which were suitable for those old varieties. One well-known rose grower of my acquaintance prunes his roses in the late autumn and has done so for many years, and claims that never once has he had cause to doubt that it is the best time. The only objection to pruning at that time is that often our roses are still carrying a few buds and flowers, and it would require a stout heart to cut all those away, knowing that many months must elapse before any more are on the bushes to gladden our eyes.

To my mind the best time for pruning is when the plants are dormant, which varies from year to year depending on whether January or February is mild or not. It must be a bad practice to wait until the plants have broken into growth and then to cut it all away, for it must be remembered that all that top growth represents a corresponding amount of new root growth and the removal of one nullifies the use of the other. The only objection to pruning roses early in the year is that the weather is not likely to be as pleasant as it would be towards the end of March. On the other hand, if pruning is done early there is one job less to do at a very busy time of the year. Of course, exhibitors who do not want their roses to come into bloom until the end of June or early July will continue to prune late in order to get the flowers at the time they are required. But, as keen exhibitors nearly always propagate their own plants, the bad effects of late pruning are not of very great consequence, as they nearly always rely on young plants to get their blooms for showing, many of them having been budded the previous year.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...