Shrub Roses - Traits Worth Judging

General Discussion
1

As indicated in the discussion about plant architecture, the ideal depends on the type of rose that we are talking about. The same can be true for various other traits. I am wondering what you all think is the ideal shrub. What is most important when judging shrub seedlings.

I know that some do not like the classification “shrub”, because it is often a garbage class (not that the particular varieties classified as “shrub” are bad, but that every kind of rose seems eligible to be put into the class). For the sake of this thread, I would like to define shrub as a rounded, well branched plant, with evenly spaced blooms - from a 2 foot ball to a 6 foot ball.

What traits are most important to you?

Here are a few to consider, please add more if they are important to you.

Fragrance

Plant Architecture

Foliage - how well clothed

Disease Resistance

Floriferousness - total amount of bloom and continuous vs not continuously blooming

Cold Hardiness

Self Cleaning

Color - desirable vs undesirable

Bloom Type

Number of Petals

Novelty

Size of Blooms

Foliage Type - glossy vs matte

Foliage Shape - rounded vs pointed

Some of these traits you may consider unimportant. There are other traits too. How would you rank your top 5 traits, “must haves”, in shrub roses? Of course there is no wrong answer - what are your opinions?

Jim Sproul

2

  1. Health

  2. Own root vigour / easy striking propagation

  3. Heat and humidity tolerance

  4. Branching / Architecture

  5. Foliage distribution (i.e not sparse)

Perfect shrub, imo, is one like ‘My Stars’… since Paul showed me this I am now a fan and think this is the benchmark.

3

Here is my list. I tried to specify the list because my definition probably differs here and there from others.

  1. Overall Health (is it healthy, but when it gets a disease does it preserve through it or does it die or does it just linger in misery)

  2. A plant that even my sister could grow. (Meaning it does not need special treatment to survive.) I guess I call this vigor

  3. Rebloom or a single large flush that is spectacular enough to forgive the non-rebloom

  4. A plant that is not awkward. Some roses like a large section of the hybrid teas and some others just don’t look well when in a mix garden setting. Roses are plants and they belong beside other plants not in beds all by themselves. Some of the older classes look great mixed in beds. But many of the newer classes have too stiff of growth for my taste.

  5. The it factor. For me this is what separates a rose from all the roses like it. Very few roses out there are totally different. They all have something fairly similar but even if you divide them in groups certain roses just have something to them that make them stand out. This could be anything from clarity of color, a certain perfection of form, the scent that beacons a person from the other end of the garden, or just the happy face of a flower that even brightens up the cloudiest of days. I can not describe it but a few plants just have it. It is usually the sum total of traits that make up this it factor. They are like the person who walks in the room and everyone takes notice of.

4

I dont know. Bukavu and Golden Wings are all-time my favorites. I absolutely love them but the majority of people could care less about them. Theyre also too big for most people. Theyre like a growable buddy, lol.

Size, even branch spacing and density is probably a huge factor. I’ll breed for something manageable for most people but I would breed for massive, full-sized shrubs for myself, lol. I love a good back drop rose that you dont have to care for even though it provides consistantly every year. Theyre also good at rounding out the harsh landscape angles that I really hate :slight_smile:

5

These are all excellent traits and I would only add that I’m aiming towards plants that have all of the above traits and that are smaller in stature. I’m also interested in leaf color, (aiming towards dark green and grey/bluish coloring), good fertility both ways and drought tolerance

6

Sometimes I would really like to know why some roses are put in the shrub catagory, if there is a good and consistent reason. Since I use this catagory a lot in landscaping with roses, I do think there are some characteristics that are more important than others.

#1. is mostly DISEASE RESISTANCE, but many homeowners accept some degree of mildew. It is easily treated, and usually only persists in the early to mid spring.

#2. would have to be FLORIFEROUSNESS. Why plant a rose as a shrub, if you don’t want the flowers, or the show?

#3. The overall plant ARCHITECTURE/STRUCTURE is important if the rose doesn’t get planted in a rose only formal setting. Kinda like fitting in on the playground; they only can produce those wonderful displays for so long, so they better look good the rest of the time.

#4. VIGOR and general HEAT TOLERANCE. Some rose shrubs are vigorous but have little to no heat tolerance, and that doesn’t work well when temps get into the 90’s+ on a moments notice. Without vigor, shrubs just can’t bounce back from anything-pruning, dormancy, bloom flushes, heat, rain, etc., and of course the occasional disease or bug attack. And sometimes they have to survive the gardener/homeowner who over prunes, under waters, under fertilizes, and still look presentable.

The other attributes are important, but may be to a more personal degree. Color, or the ability to see the flower as distinct from its foliage is extremely important. One of the primary reasons that puts Iceberg at the top of the choice for landscaping is the fact that in addition to it being vigorous, fast to repeat, quite disease resistant, with a nicely filled out compact structure, is the fact that WHITE or very LIGHT and BRIGHT colors are the first to show up and the last to fade from view when looking at a landscape. It’s clean white sizable flowers are very easily distinguished from almost any distance. Julia Child and Bonica fit into this category as well. Up close, the choice of color is much more personal.

7

The above lists are excellent. After looking at Jim Sproul’s list something came to mind and I have not seen it listed… That would be minimal seed or hip formation. I know we are all looking for good seed bearing parents but if seed or hip formation limits subsequent bloom, then it is NOT going to be a low maintenance bloom machine for the average gardener if they have to keep deadheading to get more blooms. The single bloomers seem to be the heavy seed formers for me. Just a thought; I hate to dead head I guess.

Jim P

8

For landscape bushes, I might add flowers that shatter cleanly – as opposed to a cut-flower rose which should hold on to petals tenaciously. And yes, the lack of hippiness which goes with floriferousness – though in northern climes, I should think a different priority might exist. Hips could be nice in the winter, and a rose might not be good for many flushes anyway.

I think it depends on who/where you are marketing the rose for.

Many of the traits listed could go multiple ways for me. Foliage? Don’t care about glossy vs. matte if it is healthy and sets off flowers well. Flower color would affect preferred foliar color.

Fragrance, if it is a landscape rose, often becomes less important to some, but as I am one who will walk up to see it close up, I like fragrance. But it is not as high a priority as health and floriferousness, clearly.

9

Hi Jim.

I am enjoying reading this thread.

There is not much I disagree with in the responses so far, so I really can’t add much except to say that for me, floriferousness / remontancy (or whatever else people like to call it) is very very high up on my list, equal in importance to fragrance.

I also appreciate your attempt at defining what a “shrub rose” actually could entail. It is a definition I have asked about before on this forum.

10

The term “Shrub Rose” is a nice way of saying “mongrel”!

11

Or the miscellaneous category! Seriously though a good shrub rose can be a major garden feature.

Jim

12

Thanks to all for sharing what traits you value most when selecting “shrub” type seedlings! Paul and Jim, I agree that the “shrub” category has been used for roses that don’t fit anywhere else, but many in the category could and probably should be put elsewhere.

George, I have given my definition for a “shrub”, but it is by no means the “right” definition, because I don’t think that there is one. However, it works for me. Personally, I think that the floribunda class is the closest class and has a lot of overlap, except that shrubs can get bigger. My definition for shrubs, and the classic floribundas are my favorite rose types.

I think that we all tend to place desirable traits into hierarchies and this will vary with the types of roses that we are breeding for. My top five desirable traits for shrubs are as follows:

Floriferousness - quantity of bloom and continuous or nearly continuous bloom.

Cleanliness - no spray and still looks good (even if minor disease present).

Plant Architecture - rounded habit with lots of blooms on top, attractive from all angles.

Bloom Color - the color has to grab you, roses that have the other traits without good color do nothing for me.

Foliage Type - glossy foliage always catches my eye and makes the plant attractive between bloom cycles.

Of course fragrance, cold hardiness and blooms with more rather than fewer petals would also be welcomed traits, but the 5 that I listed are the most important to me with regard to shrub selection.

Jim Sproul

13

Yeah, I would have to say that shrublets and floribundas are by far my favorite “classes”, other than a really good pillar rose. I think the common theme is that all 3 are an excellent way in maximizing space with color.

So, sadly, I may have to put color on top of the list you made, Jim. My main goal is always to create a warm atmosphere for people to feel comfortable in. I also try to be as efficient as possible in anything that I do.

14

"The term “Shrub Rose” is a nice way of saying “mongrel”!

"

And everyone knows that mongrels make the best pets :wink: