Ann, that is a relatively old (1996 paper) that is discussed along with other previous papers in the 2004 New Dawn introduction. Apparently those authors, the reviewers, and the editor did not feel that the evidence up to 2004 was conclusive: "In spite of numerous studies, RRD remains somewhat enigmatic. Indeed, although many attempts have been made to isolate and characterize the causative agent, Epstein and Hill (1999) and Rohozinski et al. (2001) still consider reports on its identification to be speculative. These speculations include a phytoplasma-like organism (Gergerich and Kim 1983), a phytoplasma (Epstein et al. 1993), a virus, or virus-like agent (Di et al. 1990; Epstein and Hill 1995; Kim et al. 1995; Ahn et al. 1996; Rohozinski et al. 2001), and a mycoplasma-like organism (Doudrick 1984). Particularly impressive, however, have been the descriptions of virus-like particles (VLPs) and double membrane-bound particles (DMPs) that are associated with RRD and a variety of other plant diseases (Ahn et al. 1998; Rohozinski et al. 2001). The evidence is suggestive that these particles are the causative agent of these plant diseases. Ahn et al. (1996) actually stated that "it is believed that the DMPs are viral in nature and are the causal agents of the diseases." Nevertheless, Epstein and Hill (1995) state that "the identity of the causal agent is unknown" and "the relationship of DMPs to the infection process is unclear." Again, Epstein and Hill (1999) state, "The causal agent of RRD has not been determined." Epstein and Hill (1995, 1999) and Rohozinski et al. (2001) presented data suggesting a low probability that the causal agent is a phytoplasma-like organism. Epstein and Hill (1999) speculate that the VLPs "seem to be a response of the diseased plant rather than the causal agent itself." ------------------------------------ In Europe similar infection symptoms have been associated with phytoplasma infections. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS.2004.88.11.1283A This group of authors, reviewers, and editor also seem to indicate that the work before 2004 was not definitive: "Virus-like diseases of rose plants of uncertain aetiology have been widely distributed throughout the world (4). Symptoms include dieback, rose rosette, witches' broom, and bud proliferation. Research conducted in England (4) and the United States (1) could not reveal the etiology of the diseases." Here is a link that might be useful: Europe research

Henry, The mite movement by insects is based on several articles from Kansas long before Dr. Cloyd was a gleam in his parents' eyes. The mites were observed on wheat as they left the wheat via aphids. The mites were in such abundance that they were visible as heaving masses crawling up the wheat and encountering aphids and riding the aphids as they left. The articles aren't about roses, nor are they about the RRV virus, nor are the eriophyids the same. Dr. Cloyd may or may not be responsible for the major decrease in info on RRD in the second edition of the Compendium. There is a lot less in the second edition than in the first. Which is a shame. Citing his coauthorship of the Compendium doesn't make him a strong RRD researcher. The mite info in the Kansas two pager is based on Jim Amrine's work with the mites and their life cycle and it's condensed. The "may" on insect enhanced movement is a CYA statement. I met Dr. Cloyd whom I encouraged to get together with Dr. Fred Crowe to compare the current state of RRD in Kansas and the Kansas City area. Two different scientists working in the same place but decades apart and then comparing notes have a potential to help us all in the future. At the summit, I spent many hours with Jim Amrine. This was a continuation of our talking and visiting over the past ten+ years. Cleaning pruners makes sense, esp for spreading bacterial diseases, most of which are ill known on roses. Sharper secateurs are also important as they are more likely to make tight, sealing cuts across the vascular system of the plants, making the entry of virus particles less likely. Doderick was unable to infect roses and his published paper talks about the different methods he tried of physical inoculation. The problem with so many statements is that it is impossible to prove a negative.

The problem might go back into the 1800's. Some obscure papers (as in newspapers) in the early 1800s advised people on how to make bigger rose blooms by exarching and endarching them into fruit tree stems. The history of viruses in fruit trees goes back a long time. IF those roses were grafted onto other plants in Rosaceae that had viruses, that would have gotten the virus into rose stocks. An additional method of tranfer would be root to root transmission, also well known in other memeber of Rosaceae. I have a book with some photographs of rose production in the early part of the 20th century. Perhaps the strangest photo shows labeled buds of seven different roses (all of them much loved OGRs) ALL BUDDED ONTO THE SAME CANE of a multiflora- talk about a way to share problems from one cultivar to another. The cryptic virus in the paper that Henry linked to is also an eyeopener. The scientists got a rose that they assumed was of seed origin with no, nada, nil chance of contact with any other roses....and it was sick with Rose Rosette....and danged if they couldn't isolate RRD from it, but got another virus, instead. And this virus came from ?????. If you are 'into' rose viruses, you also need to read the paper on Rose Spring Dwarf, which has been finally characterized AS a virus by the folks as UC Davis. Dr. Golino told me that had an extremely talented post Doc who did the work. The abstract for that is linked below. Here is a link that might be useful: RSD, a luteovirus

>Some have tried anti-transpirants to disrupt the mites, or miticides or Neem to try to kill the mites, and the disease still comes." I am interested in knowing who specifically tried these methods and reported that the treated plants got RRD? Hi Henry, I thought I had posted a response in this thread earlier and only realized today that I hadn't when I found the temporary file I was using to write this response still on the computer's desktop. I'm sorry for the delay. Anyway, I tried Wilt Pruf briefly in late May and again in mid June of this year. I only had enough Wilt Pruf for maybe 2/3 of the roses in May, but in June after the new Wilt Pruf purchase arrived I thoroughly gave them all a full shower of that anti-transpirant. For awhile, maybe three weeks, I didn't toss out any more plants to RRD (of the 48 that were sitting in pots all together with a few roses planted nearby), and perhaps if I'd tried reapplying it every couple of weeks, that would have worked. However, one variety--two plants--was horribly affected by the Wilt-Pruf treatment itself in June (and I think I recall that neither of those roses had gotten a full application of Wilt Pruf in May, if they had gotten any at all). The many other roses didn't show a very significantly bad response, but both General Gallienis reacted noticeably within half a day. One recovered, and the other one didn't. I am thinking that perhaps the really hot weather might have been the wrong circumstance in which to apply Wilt Pruf--that General Gallieni might have gotten by with Wilt Pruf applications in cooler weather. I don't really know why that variety was differentially affected though. Anyway, I quit trying to use Wilt Pruf regularly for protection during the summer and haven't gone back to using it, at least not at this point. By July I was back to having RRD-infected roses to toss out. If anti-transpirants do work for RRD protective purposes, you'd have to remember to keep doing it regularly (and I've no idea of the definition of _regularly_ here), since I did a thorough job in June and by fairly early in July was having to toss plants again. I did try Neem a few times, but nothing in a programmed way and nothing else I did worked either (pyrethrin). Just tossing the roses as soon as you see several symptoms seems the best bet, unless you've been keeping such a close eye that you know the disease symptoms are only a few days' old, in which case cutting out a cane is probably well worth a try. I kind of think RRD is gone from this yard now, but with cooler weather here now, it's going to be difficult to know for sure. The three roses that have had a single RRD-diseased cane removed are going to have to spend the winter isolated in a pot until I can see what the new growth looks like next spring. Somewhere recently I read that sometimes a plant can already have RRD but can take up to a year to show symptoms. Best wishes, Mary