Hi all
I have been wondering about this: are there any plants or flowers that are grown not for their looks, but for their scent? ( Imagine 'Cytisus scoparius + broom as a long-flowering potted plant )
Greetings
Definately! Hyacinths are my favorite. I planted over 100 new ones last fall and they are just starting to poke their heads up. They will be booming in another few weeks.
I also grow a lot of Lilies but some neighbors say that they don't like their smell. I like the smell of Stargazer and the flowers are really beautiful.
Some my other fragrant favorites are Lavender, Peonies, and Carnations.
They do not do well here but are interesting non the less.
Bill looking for just a rosemary that can take - 10 F
What a speedy reaction....!
And maybe I should explain: I do not have a garden, as I live in a three up appartment. I do have lots of potted plants though, and I buy cut flowers too. Right now a few hyacinths are in full bloom on my window sill, and I love the scent. BUT: Is scent as such ever used as a selection-criterion by the professional propagators / cultuvators to 'create' any new variety?: "Yeah Ma'am, I know this rose, well it looks kind of plain, but now just smell it. Now ain't that gorgeous?"
Yes there are cultivars that have been selected on this basis. We have roses that we chose for both looks and perfume where we could have had more showy looks but no perfume.
David
Unfortunately, most developers of new rose varieties seem to put scent at the bottom of their priority lists. Higher in priority are color and form of the flower, resistance of the plant to disease, and adaptability to as large a variety of climates as possible.
When roses were developed regionally for a local climate, scent had a much higher priority. Now some of the most fragrant roses from 30 years ago are no longer available commercially. These include climbing 'Chrysler Imperial' (which, however, might still be available as a bush). Last year, I searched and searched for this one. I couldn't even find anyone who had one growing in their garden who might be willing to send me a cutting for me to root.
Another peeve is the fact that most nurseries no longer sell roses bare-root. If you plant them correctly, bare-root roses adapt more readily to the soil in your garden than do roses that have been allowed to root in a container. The worst part of this is that the growers ship their product bare-root; it's the nurseries that pot them up.
These are all fragrant but they are also pretty and would be grown even if they didn't smell good. There are others that are just grown for their fragrance. Mignonette - Reseda odorata - is one that I can remember but there must be others.
I believe tuberoses are chosen for scent more than appearance. Various jasmines would be some more
herbs
Excellent. I shall start hunting for gerbera, violets and lavender. I just hope they'll be happy with staying indoors on a window sill. Thanks, you all
Evening scented stocks. They're certainly nothing to look at, but they perfume the air beautifully in the evenings.
I'm still a stubborn holdout for scent, though I agree it's hard to find. Mr. Lincoln has a nice scent and a wonderful color, but the blooms are very short-lived
Sad but true. Not even the big peat-potted "bare-roots" are worth buying, but sometimes that's the only thing on offer. Our nursery used to bury the bare-roots in a huge bin of the wood shavings, which made it easy to pull out the plant, but they no longer do that.
However. I have never had trouble transplanting, even if I had to shake off most of the [whatever] that they put in the peat pot. Main thing is to dig deep and wide enough, and to mound up he soil in the middle of the hole. Around this little hill, you drape the spread-out roots of the rose. Water amply but don't drown the newcomer. And WAIT! Patience is the name of the game.
Lightly filter extreme blasting sunlight at first until plant is established.
What about worm castings? I usually mix in some when transplanting.
Persephone. [..]
While considered a modern rose, 'Mr. Lincoln' was introduced 25-30 (or more) years ago, when growers still targeted their local regions. It has a marvelous scent, and the blooms are not as short-lived as many florabundas.
One major problem with roses from containers is that you can't examine the roots. Early last year, I bought several roses from Armstrong Nurseries (a chain in California and possibly elsewhere) that were pre-planted in paper pots. The idea is to plant the rose with the pot. Instead, I carefully peeled away the pot and shook loose the mix around the roots. Sure enough, I had to cut away broken roots from every plant.
The whole idea of bare-root planting is that the plant will adapt better to the native soil of your garden if its roots don't have to grow past an interface between potting mix and soil. With Armstrong's method -- used by many other nurseries -- the roots must also penetrate the decomposing paper pot. The result can be a root bound plant.
I stir a generous amount of superphosphate into the bottom of the hole. Phosphorus -- which promotes flowering and root growth -- does not dissolve and leach through the soil, so it must be placed where roots can find it. I then mix peat moss and a little compost into what I dug out of the planting hole. The idea is to plant the rose where its roots are above BUT NOT TOUCHING the superphosphate. (The compost contains a variety of micro-organisms, some to promote healthy roots and some to break down fertilizers into components that roots can absorb.)
Other than the superphosephate, I give NO nutrients to the rose during its first year. The goal is to allow the roots to recover and spread before encouraging foliage growth and flowering (both of which are encouraged by fertilizer). That way, there is not enough foliage to stress the plant when warm weather imposes a demand for moisture on the roots. Roses prefer abundant nutrients, and I feed heavily and frequently after the first year.
Hey, whoa - aren't those very different needs -- flowering and root growth?
does not
Actually, I don't either, so I misspoke by encouraging OP to wait "at least two weeks".
The goal is to allow the roots to recover and spread
Mea culpa! I am very lax -- and somewhat ignorant -- about fertilizing. Ex: I pruned a few weeks ago, and simply don't know or remember when/if to fertilize. Help? Remember this is So Calif coastal.
Persephone
On that subject,
On 3/1/2009 10:20 AM, snipped-for-privacy@NoSpam.com wrote [in part]:
Feed your roses now. Except for the most frost-tender plants, feed your whole garden now. Frost-tender plants can be fed in about two weeks.
The National Weather Service treats my area as a coastal valley with Thousand Oaks (California zone 45). Actually, we are more in the Santa Monica Mountains (California zone 46). Both areas are known to get frost through the end of March. Thus, I won't be feeding most of my garden for another week. (Tender growth won't start until about two weeks after feeding.) I have already fed my roses TWICE! I also fed the pink clover (Persicaria capitata) and cinquefoil (Potentilla neumanniana) that make up my front lawn and parkway, respectively, once.
Here's a Chrysler Imperial for you. And they ship to the States bare root.
Yes, they have the hybrid tea 'Chrysler Imperial'. That's a shrub. But there was a sport of it that was a climber. It was available 25-30 years ago. Today, there is no grower in the U.S. that has it.
I understand it's available in Canada, but shipping live plants across the border is so fraught with bureaucracy that no grower will ship it. I could visit my daughter, who lives in Canada, and buy it there. However, moving live plants across the border is even more difficult for individuals than for commercial growers.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.