Kim said... >My original obsession was outrageously out of hand and I loved it. [...] I'm keeping to the level area as much as possible. Weeding that slope is offensive enough without having to traipse up and down, sliding on every other step, to maintain anything down there. I know I will resent the ones which go on the slope and will eventually allow them to go the way of the Dodo, so I'm choosing to rid myself of them, instead. That's a LOT of roses, quite a few of which are seedlings either generated through my obsession or those shared with me by other "obsessives", but that is what it is going to take to keep this "fun", doable and prevent the water requirements from eating me out of house, home and desire. Weeding through them to maintain those which are just happier to be here with me and those which are endangered, has been a real chore. Now, if there was a ton of level land with high ground water. Hi Kim, Back in the Dark Ages we lived in California in just the sort of spot you are conjuring up as a high ground water fix. But native trees really like spots like that too... and our house had lots of shade, too much shade for most roses. Still, we wouldn't have dreamed of cutting down a tree. We didn't own the house, we like trees, and anyway, removing a tree was illegal without a good reason for a permit where we lived (a Monarch Butterfly preserve). Anyway, we were relative youngsters at the time and didn't know just how wet that property was until our vegetable garden was swimming in water during the winter months. It was fine, fine black silty sand that held on to the water pretty well too. Your post made me think about what we'd do if confronted with your lack of water problems back in California again. What you're doing makes a lot of sense. But I also am wondering whether a bank full of Renaes rambling around might not survive and also keep the weeds down once they proliferated and established themselves? They might take over the other remaining roses, but if you weren't still trying hard to keep those... A bunch of Renaes might not require so much watering once established? I don't think a big crowd of them would look bad at all, depending on personal tastes, of course. In fact, I prefer that kind of look. We've done that crowded thing in a pretty good sized area with azaleas and rhododendrons here; they all grow together and if there's a weed under there somewhere, well, you can't easily penetrate to find or see it. Once in awhile there's a tree sneaking in that will have to be pulled up, but basically it's too shady under all the plant thickness for most weeds to grow. And I adore the looks of those crowded plants! No, we don't have big problems with fungal diseases, even with the crowd. Maybe fewer than average problems, though phytopthera wilt sometimes does require some cutting back of rhododendron limbs. You know a big problem with azaleas and rhododendrons is that they aren't drought tolerant. Well, we have lost huge numbers since our drought problems began big time here around 2001. It's been wonderfully rainy most of the time during the last couple of years, but the next drought period is probably just around the corner... and if we lose some more azaleas and rhododendrons then, well, I'm thinking of trying to establish some Renaes and Annie Laurie McDowells in their place in the relatively sunnier spots... along with some more camellias, which are drought tolerant after the first year. (Though blooming is less than ideal if August and September are dry.) We lost our Annie Laurie McDowell to Rose Rosette Disease last year, but I am figuring that if it's anything like our Renae here, well, it's as no-care, no-worry a plant as any other plant of any kind we've ever had in our yard. Not a touch of blackspot or any other disease here thus far (though that may well change just a bit as we get more shade as the sun angle changes during the fall). Anyway, I'm hoping for another Annie Laurie McDowell eventually too. Ours is a no-spray all-organic yard for everything we grow and Renae fits well into that way of doing things. I think Annie Laurie McDowell will too. I know it hurts to cut back some on what you are able to continue doing, Kim. But I keep thinking mostly about your achievements and how much you have helped so many others in what you have already contributed. Thank you! Best wishes, Mary

I recently posted this picture in the Shade combo thread. I think the foliage of these hellebores looks good even without bloom. The foliage also holds well from spring to late fall - this area still looks just as fresh as the picture right now in late October. The Corsican Hellebore is iffy in my zone but does well in this sheltered location against the house wall. The leaves in the upper left are from a burning bush. Upper right and bottom right, fine deep green foliage is H. foetidus (Stinking Hellebore), it has upright limey yellow green colored blooms, like a stalk sticking straight up. Middle is H. argutifolia (Corsican Hellebore). It has serrated shiny green foliage with a somewhat yellow caste to it compared to the others and small lime green flowers above the foliage that show well. It grows much larger and taller than the other two. H. orientalis (Lenten Rose) has dark matte green foliage and flowers like the others in very early spring here after the foliage has taken a pretty bad beating from our winter. As a result the flowers are more prominent that you might think. I also cut out some of the bad looking foliage to show off the flowers. The foliage promptly grows back and looks good until snowed over. Closeup of angustifolius Closeup of flower on unnamed Lenten Rose in early spring

Hhmmm...consider raising the pH in your garden to above 7 toward 7.5. Phosphorus is not readily available at low pH and thus you will not get flowering like the folks in the midwest as GA is about 5.5 or LESS!. In the alternative make sure you provide "available P" at the correct time in the plants' development with a foliar spray. Try a hydroponics supplier...or, simply adjust the pH in your soil for it to occur naturally with normal soil fertilizers or high P fertilizers like bat guano.

Mine are every which way now, all higgledy-piggledy. But I don't like that effect and, when I have enough new beds prepared, I'll do color combos that I find pleasing. That's the plan at least. Examples might be: A hot bed - oranges, orange-reds, and bright yellows. With a few creams and other colors to tone it down just a bit. Probably lots of green foliage as backdrop or interspersed. Hot bed(s) would be a distance from the patio, as the brilliant colors would easily show up even at a distance. Pastels, polychromes, pale pale yellows or the like, with some dark colors interspersed. Purples, raspberries, rich pinks, etc. and, if they work, some blue-reds. A few pale things, eg, creams or some pale lemon yellows interspersed. Alternatively, one could do purples and black reds with silver foliage plants. That might look smashing. Darker colors, small ones, my most special ones would be close to the patio for careful viewing and because the darkest colors generally don't show well from afar. IMO. Ideally, the preponderance of the daylilies would be selfs or the like, with gaudier edged/eyed and/or patterns interspersed. Dark colors and reds that fade or melt to be planted where they get morning sun and afternoon shade. I strongly prefer mixed plantings - daylilies + other perennials + even annuals + grasses + shrubs. Maybe that's because I'm not such a good daylily mixer-upper LOL. I also do not care for masses of mixed colors. My preference is for tight color ranges, with a few contrasting colors to avoid a boring look. OTOH, I've long wanted to recreate my famous (or should I say infamous) Bad Taste Garden. To do it with daylilies, as opposed to the annuals it was composed of, I'd have bright roses and pinks with PRIMAL SCREAM, SCREAMCICLE, and the like. Heh heh heh.