You'll get better results if you do not cut any more of the plant body away - as with humans additional amputation does not increase ability to prosper. In fact, the energy for growing new tops and roots after pruning comes from the stems and roots - the greater total volume of this storage tissue is still present the more a transplant can grow after it has been moved.

The dwarfing effect of combined top and root pruning is partly why this is done to bonsai every year, as a maintenance procedure.

If too much root has been cut for your rose to be able to keep itself hydrated it will dry out whether you whack the top back or not.

Thanks for the help, Jane and Embothrium!

It's a Lions-Rose; I will keep all the main canes on it then.

I'm not familiar with Lions-Rose, is it perhaps a Floribunda type?

I was told it was a shrub; but actually you are right: it's a Floribunda according to HMF

It sounds like a good rose, if it's on its' own roots, it has a good chance of coming back, just keep a watchful eye on it.

Sure I will; and will report back if it survives.

Lions Rose grows like a vigorous shrub and is a really good non-stop bloomer. A healthy plant is covered rather thickly with foliage. A totally outstanding no-spray Kordes shrub rose. AKA Lions Fairy Tale, and Champagne Moment.

With days growing shorter, you can give it a good pruning without triggering a burst of new top growth. I'd do that now, especially since it sounds like it lost a lot of its root system when dug up.

Additional pruning now will reduce subsequent initial size increase rather than assure it.

I have to respectfully disagree, if it doesn't have a lot of root ball it needs to be pruned back. In the past 3 years through 2 moves in trandplanted 70+ rose and I pruned them back hard. One move was made in the heat of May. If the top is too big for the roots to support it will stress the rose out more than prunning it back will. It may spur some growth, but it will greatly lessen the water demands on the rose. Plants, whether grass or trees need to have a balance between roots and crown. That's why the grass in your lawn is more drought resistant if you mow it higher, the roots get as long as the grads is tall. Same with trees and roses. Just my experience, if it were mine I would cut it.

Bottom line

:

•

There is no need to top-prune landscape plants if

post-transplant irrigation is available (and all

new landscapes need post-transplant irrigation!).

•

The only time transplanted materials should be

pruned is to remove broken, dead, or diseased

branches, or to make structural corrections to young trees.

•

If pruning is warranted, use thinning rather th

an heading cuts to preserve tree structure.

https://puyallup.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/403/2015/03/transplant-pruning.pdf

I realize current research is going against transplant pruning, as we have seen in our extension studies, but call me a traditionalists or just stubborn, but I have much better survival rates when I prune back my roses and trees than when I have not. It isn't research based or scientifically studies, but it is my own practical experience.

Kingcobb........ I'm with you on this, I have the exact same experience.

As an arborist I can confirm that the quoted info is applicable to trees and shrubs. Mature camellias, forsythias, azaleas and many other shrubs can be successfully moved following these instructions. Perfectly true for fruit trees and ornamental trees as well.

However, roses are unique in their structure and growth pattern and in roses, heading cuts are the rule. Typically when we cut back and shape our roses-- from floribundas to shrubs to antiques-- we use heading cuts. With twiggy, dense structures and many thorns thinning is just not a practical way to reduce the top growth.

Here's the biggie: the root structure of woody landscape plants (trees and shrubs) is much sturdier, so it is much easier to get a good mass of roots when the plant is removed from the nursery row. So Extension agents are now pointing out that if you have irrigation and intend to keep the transplanted shrub/tree well-hydrated there's no need to remove top growth. When we move a camellia/azalea/forsythia/holly or whatever at the arboretum where I work we don't cut it back at all. Never had a problem.

My practical experience over 5 decades in public gardens is that roses are different than other woody shrubs. They're harder to transplant, more likely to suffer a setback, and have much better survival rates when they are pruned back. Mostly we try like heck to put them in the right place with enough room to thrive.

Hope this helps clarify the referenced quote. It is excellent information. Not everything commercial nurseries do is correct or even very smart; they can be slow to change traditional practices in production and harvesting. The quote seemed to be directed at them as well as landscape maintainers.

You've all, of course, based your personal experience derived conclusions on organized experiments you conducted where half the test subjects functioned as controls (were not pruned), in order to have a specific basis for comparison, right? And you dug them all up and weighed them at a sufficiently later time, to see which ones had grown more after the transplanting, as well?

My relevant experience with roses is that you can get small pieces to live and sprout new growth, that perhaps with another kind of shrub might not be big enough. Hard pruning at transplanting also implies an inherent toughness, rather than a comparative delicacy. Wild rose species in particular are actually kind of like blackberry plants.

Some years ago the Royal National Rose Society got more bloom from bush roses sheared flat across the top, like a hedge than with the traditional thinning ("opening up the center"). This was because the non-selective shearing left behind more top to support the production of new flowering stems. Yet another instance where it was found more shrub left after pruning = more growth later. New growth is fueled by energy stored in stems and roots, the more plant body is present when growth starts the greater the subsequent increase in volume.