I don't think it's common practice, but the Pacific-Asia Museum in Pasadena, CA, had a huge old Mutabilis trimmed like a gigantic Bonsai. It was striking.

But, of course, you lose 75% of the bloom . . .

Jeri

I'd imagine any rose which forms an enormous bush with many basal shoots should work. Not that I would want to do it to the plant, but it could be done. If you look at some of Jeri's photos on HMF of the found roses in old cemeteries, quite a few have been done this way. Take a look at these photos of Jesse Hildreth. I've seen Golden Showers manipulated that way, so I'd probably look for something like Mutabilis or a vigorous old climbing rose. Again, something with long lived wood, an enormous plant, which generates strong basals, hopefully, many of them, so you have wood to select from and work with. Very vigorous Noisettes, Climbing Teas, perhaps larger Hybrid Musks would work, too. Kim

http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.216348

http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.216312

http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.216306

This post was edited by roseseek on Fri, Jan 4, 13 at 23:28

I'm thinking about that, Kim. Perhaps it is natural for the roses, faced with "tough times" to minimalise. IOW, to husband their resources to what is vital, for survival.

Perhaps that natural process was the inspiration for that gardening style.

Jeri

If you picture that photo of Jesse Hildreth as a truncated climbing limb, it's obvious what it should be. Remember that tree of Golden Showers we saw at the cemetery after the Sacramento Cemetery event a few years ago, Jeri? Those cemetery plants are kept sheared, producing the "standard head" you expect from a tree rose. A repeat flowering type would be significantly more successfully grown like this as they are generally far less rampant in growth than something like Belle of Portugal or other enormous, once flowering type. Kim

Yeah, Kim -- I knew where you were going.
Since you were there, they've become even more aggressive, in that cemetery -- cut the Red Radiance, Louis Phillips, Betty Prior, and even Golden Showers down to almost nothing.

What could be artistic and benign in knowledgeable hands -- is pernicious in the wrong hands.

They're killing roses at a heightened rate in that cemetery. Risky techniques require skilled hands.

Jeri

Thanks for the photos and the information, Kim and Jeri. The Mutabilis was not done as a standard with a single trunk, however. It had several canes that were bare up a few feet, but the canopy was fully wide and neither the height nor the width seemed compromised. It appeared as if some of the lower laterals were removed giving it a bonsai effect. This is a photo of my mutabilis which has a similar structure to what I am referring to, although their rose was much, much taller so that the "branching" started much higher, giving it a tree-like effect. I pruned my Mutabilis very hard a few years ago (not knowing any better) and it has never gotten any taller than this since then.
Molly

You will need to select the canes you desire to use for the "trunks" and not prune those much. They need to gain height. You may also need to stake them so they remain straight and supported until they thicken sufficiently to support the growth you permit at the top. Quite often, those encountered in old cemeteries have been climbers which have thrown themselves into trees until some "well meaning" person decides to "clean up" the area by amputating the climber so it doesn't "damage" the tree. Laying on the tree limbs provides the support the rose cane required to attain the thickness you find. Years of being sheared, hedged, to prevent the elongated growth from the top of the stump, creates the head you see in those photos.

Look at Durst Plot.

http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.205998

http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.206003

The only difference between what you describe and this plant is the number of basals creating the multiple trunks. I think you would need to stimulate your Mutabilis to generate some strong basal breaks. Select those you wish to retain and stake them to give them support against the wind. Let them grow approximately the height you desire, then tip them, pinch the top to encourage them to branch. Once you have the basals developing into the trunks you desire, you can begin pruning out the lower, bushy growth to encourage the resources to be used by the trunks. It's precisely what is done to create Azalea, Camellia, Duranta and other standards for pot use, only you will be doing it with multiple trunks. Kim

When I was looking at photos of roses on the web, I noticed one of Mermaid taken by Sue Brown (who I have noticed takes many wonderful rose photos) at the San Jose Municipal Garden. It looks like a small tree--charming. Also practical, I suppose, if a major walk way is close by since M is so prickly.

I've tried posting a link. Not sure if it will work but very easy to find using google search for "mermaid rose" images.

Here is a link that might be useful: Mermaid

yes, that is the look I am speaking of. Thank you again for the information. I see one particular picture of Mermaid that is exactly what I am talking about. I think I understand what would be necessary to accomplish this, but I may not have the patience or skill to acquire that look, although I think I may give it a try. Of course, I would never attempt this on a rose that is not easily replaced in case I really mess it up! If done properly, it won't affect the rose adversly, right?
Molly

The rose you select will need to be one with very long-lived canes. A traditional HT probably won't work as they require continual rejuvenation to remain productive. Think of the "one can wonders" which eventually become unproductive, too senile to produce the new flowering wood required. We've all encountered those. Something which retains the productivity in the older wood...Teas, Ramblers, Chinas such as Mutabilis, roses which perform because of the thick, old wood and all of the nutrients stored in it, would be better selections than perhaps a Queen Elizabeth or many of the more modern roses. That type "plays out" faster due to senile wood than the previously mentioned types.

Even for those, though, maintaining them as large bonsai can eventually put them into decline. The monstrous old climbers function well with thick, old wood like that because their tops, their "food factories", are permitted pretty much unfettered growth, producing all the foliage they require to feed the plant and generate the food stores they need to remain productive. A plant kept severely pruned, with potentially insufficient foliage mass it requires to maintain itself, can eventually become one of the "one cane wonders" none of us wants in our gardens. The difference between them is one of scale. From a two to four foot one cane, woody plant versus a tree sized one. If selected properly and sufficiently maintained, it CAN work, but it will require as much attention to eliminating all the new basal and lateral growth needed to maintain a Gardenia, Camellia, Azalea, etc. standard produced from a single plant and not grafted on a stock to create the tree.

Climbers like the Mermaid in the photos, can be trained like this on an umbrella form. Tying basals on to the form then training them over the head of the umbrella so they fountain downward, can give the effect. Roses naturally grow against gravity and toward the light, so keeping the upward growing laterals trained or trimmed off so it retains the umbrella or fountain shape will be necessary. Many weeping trees form those upward growing canes, too. I work with a weeping cherry tree at a client's house which frequently throws upright growing shoots from the weeping ones. Sometimes they can be trained downward to retain the umbrella look. Usually, they have to be carefully pruned off the branch. Kim

My 'Madame Alfred Carriere' ended up as a limbed-up tree of sorts--otherwise we would not have been able to get through the front gate. It actually looked pretty cool.

Be sure you don't use Louise Odier. The canes live about 18 months.

Just had a thought, perhaps what would make a type suitable for root stock may be one of the criteria for its suitability for limbing up? Longevity of the canes. You bud on the one cane of a stock. If that cane is short lived, so is the budded plant. Kim

Just had a thought, perhaps what would make a type suitable for root stock may be one of the criteria for its suitability for limbing up? Longevity of the canes. You bud on the one cane of a stock. If that cane is short lived, so is the budded plant. Kim

I am a horrible meddler with this sort of thing - definately, some roses are more receptive to this than others. My first major success (although that is probably only in my eyes!) was with a huge moyesii - an enormous shrub which is terribly stingy with basals and a tendency to have gaunt, rigid, thorny and totally bare 'legs'. There is now a Forest Pansy cercis growing as an understorey with Russian sage poking through while the whole crown of the rose towers above - it looks rather well. Encouraged, I started limbing up a few climbers (Meg, Altissimo, a huge Scharlachglut and Iceberg) - any rose which has sufficient rigidity does well - A Graham Thomas grows on top of a 7foot wall while mutabilis is underneath in my garden at home. It was a combination of necessity - having to use as much height while making the maximum use of the tiny growing areas available - and curiosity - I am addicted to mucking about with plants, especially pruning and grafting although hybridising is still a bit of a fail for me). Have only just managed to stop short of attempting espaliers and step-over roses.
Roses which have not enjoyed this pruning and training regime(raising the crown, thinning out but definately not grown as standards or tree roses as such) tend to have a fair bit of multiflora - they just cannot be easily kept within bounds and take up too much ground area. Hybtid musks - well, Penelope shows promise (again, a bit mean with basal growth and exactly the right sort of sparse canes) while Moonlight or Buff Beauty are respectively too vigorous (the canes are too slender and long) or just too lax and sprawly. In shady gardens, a rose will naturally stretch for light so limbing roses is a way of working with the hand you have been dealt - in my tiny garden,Zepherine Drouhin, grows against a high north-facing wall and the entire height of the rose is naked and in shade - just a couple of long bare canes tight against the wall - white martagons, ferns and hellebores do a sterling job of concealing the canes) while at the top of the structure it arches forward over a 4 foot wide pergola, flinging out long laterals over the garden like a green roof. Previously, it was a mildewy mess but the ventilation increase of arching through the air instead of huddling against a dark wall has turned a problem into a triumph (slight hopeful exaggeration here).
So, this is well worth experimenting with - Sophies Perpetual is next on my list as well as a very upright moss, Mme Louis Leveque. Will probably be having a good prune of Darlow's Enigma (as it is going to block the vegetable garden paths if not curtailed). Falstaff would definately be a good Austin to try.
It is a fairly useful way of utilising posts, especially when traditional pillar techniques are not appropriate - I grow some roses absolutely upright and either grow a clematis or something like mina lobata or eccremocarpus or simply leave the upright canes bare as with standard wisteria - as long as the roses can make some horizontal growth over an arch, it will flower profusely.
Hmmm, thinking about this question has made me realise that many of my roses are pruned and trained in exactly this way - a good way of maximising space and it looks, to my eyes, graceful and abundant if other planting is encouraged to fill in around the base of the roses.

Campanula, this is also my thinking exactly:

"many of my roses are pruned and trained in exactly this way - a good way of maximising space and it looks, to my eyes, graceful and abundant if other planting is encouraged to fill in around the base of the roses."

Additionally, I like for my sprinklers to be able to spray beneath the roses thereby reaching other low-growing plants rather than just spraying the back side of a large rose with low-growing laterals. From one meddler to another, the plants I'm growing seem okay with this method. Lou

I had an accidental one from a Felecia. We used to have a big dome shape in the back made out of long wood 2x2s that made big triangular shapes that formed a partial sphere. I planted a felecia on one of the sides and she eventually covered the top. Then a purple trumpet vine got planted. Then dad decided to remove the trumpet vine and cut off all but one of the felecia canes. Then the wood of the dome rotted away.

Now I've got a very odd lopsided umbrella of branches tied up to a metal pipe. I was thinking of building another structure for it but my sister likes the open space. I think the only solution is to start over in another spot. These kinds of roses need heavy support or they lean and rock in the wind. I keep thinking she will fade away being on that one cane only but she doesn't.

After reading these responses, I better understand that this growing technique can be accompished without too much labor, but, certainly requires the right rose. I will walk through my flower beds with new eyes and will look for roses that show promise in their ability to carry their own weight for this type of growth.
Kim, thank you for the specific information regarding the growing and pruning required to accomplish this look.
Suzy and Lou, thank you for sharing your experiences in growing roses in this way, and Suzy, thanks for the specifics on which roses you have found to be suitable or not suitable.
Molly

Dito Molly's post. I have a coming 4 year old big Mac that might just work. Also a coming 2 year old Mermaid. The Mermaid makes me cringe as it doesnt have prickles. It has spikes.
We'll see. Thank you all. There is always so much to learn here.
Jeannie

You're welcome Molly, I'm glad I could help! Good luck. Kim