Um, do you perchance happen to have a more close up photo?

It is hard to say from the photo, but doesn't look typical, so I'm guessing no. Looks more like a chimaera, and if so, only that one branch should be affected. Is that the case?

I apologize about the photo. I need to find my camera. I took it using my ipad. No other leaves are showing this, though. I looked up chimaera. It doesn't seem to effect the health of the plant, correct?

Thanks for the input. I'll just relax and see what the plant does :-)

Anne

In my experience, even RVM doesn't really affect the health of the plant--so I don't worry about it when it appears on a couple of my roses. Most of the time, it doesn't show any symptoms on my roses. I'm not sure what triggers it to make zigzaggy marks on the rose leaves sometimes but not other times. My Earth Song has an outbreak every early summer and then goes right on blooming beautifully anyway, and it has been doing this for about 7-8 years now.

Kate

RMV symptoms are usually expressed on leaves that grew out during cool weather. Normally it would affect most of the leaves that grew out at that time on that plant, and not just one leaf.

Interesting. Thank you everyone. Sometimes I need to take a chill pill.

Anne

Just a last minute confirmation. There are roses with RMV growing at my last garden. They are healthy and 15 years old. My current Cecile B has RMV. She's 10 and is HUGE and healthy.

Carol

I have two roses affected by RMV. One is nine years old and the largest, most floriferous, of my five Evelyn roses. I remember a few leaves marked the first year I grew her, and haven't seen the marks since. The second rose is Princess Alexandra of Kent, just in her second season, and a real bloom machine, also growing very well. I find it interesting that both are Austins, and that Evelyn came from Austin. I just ignore the RMV --it doesn't seem to affect the roses, except for the few marks. Diane

I think most folks have virused roses that they don't KNOW are virused. If you haven't seen signs, that does NOT mean the virus isn't there.

And, FWIW, unless someone has plants that were heat-treated at South Florida, or at Davis, there ARE no plants of 'Sombreuil, Cl.' that are NOT virused.

If you have a plant, and have not seen signs, do not assume it is not virused. Assume, instead, that it is there, but not manifesting itself. Don't worry about it.

Jeri

Thanks again for the reassurance--I really appreciate it! And, that is good to know about Sombrueil, the Cl.

Anne

Anne

Just FYI, I discovered a useful University of Georgia site that contains a photo of a RMV pattern similar to yours and one of a pattern similar to Josh's (another thread.) You each have patterns which are, in my experience, less common ones. My roses all have RMV vulgaris. You two are honored with RMV specialoso and RMV extraordinaire. The U of G page shows all three kinds of RMV patterns as well as other disease photos. I'm currently battling anthracnose and there's a lovely mugshot of that fungal evil included in the line-up.

I hope you can relax and enjoy your Sombreuil. In a very short time, she'll be huge, healthy, and blooming her head off. Nice rose choice, by the way. She's lovely!

Link to U of G below.

Carol

http://www.caes.uga.edu/departments/plantpath/extension/plants/woodyornamentals/RoseDiseaseImages.html

Is it true that Wilt-Pruf can help stop roses from getting RMV? I seem to remember some discussion about this a few years ago.

Altorama, roses don't "get" RMV. They either are infected at propagation time, or they're not.

Wilt-Pruf has been recommended for powdery mildew.

Despite the UGa photo (which is WAY atpyical of rose mosaic), I don't think this photo shows mosaic. I really think it's chimaeral. Of course as Jeri says, that doesn't mean this plant is not infected. But this particular leaf gives no reason to think so.

In the 1970s and into the mid-'80s, virtually all (all?) 'Sombreuil' sold in the USA were likely infected, since practically anyone who purchased old roses got them from a single California nursery, or from someone who had received from them, and all of their stock was uniformly infected with a single, mild strain of PNRSV. We heat-treated the variety in 1983 or 1984, and distributed the clean plants to many nurseries. Since then, many of our good OGR nurseries have maintained and marketed that clean strain. I'm not aware of any recently available infected material of 'Sombreuil', although of course that's always a possibility.

Controlled tests have shown that plants with mosaic produce fewer flowers, shorter stems, are more difficult to propagate, are less cold-hardy, don't live as long, etc. UC Davis's actual numbers:
reduced graft success (20% vs. 90%)
reduced number of flowers (40-50%)
delayed flowering (5 weeks)
bush size reduced (only 50% of nursery plants reached size standard)
reduced survival after planting (80% vs. 97 %)
Increased # deformed flowers (22% vs. 1%)
Reduced rooting success (no numbers provided)

Of course that doesn't mean you can't grow a "good" rose with mosaic; but it does mean you are FAR more likely to grow a "great" rose without it. Also some varieties seem to be far more severely affected than others -- some old "workhorse" varieties don't seem to suffer much. Yet even they are, in my opinion (after 30 years' observation), superior when clean. Also, there are more- and less-debilitating strains of virus which cause mosaic. The one from the old, infamous CA nursery was not a very damaging strain, and tended not to show particularly bright symptoms. Yet those plants are nearly always noticeably better performers, once cured.

So the bottom line is, if a plant is infected, there is no urgent need to rip it out and burn your field! But if you can get a known non-infected plant, it is likely to be better in the long run.

Okay, this is my real question which I should have just asked at the beginning. (Malcolm brought up my real concerns--thank you for that very thorough answer). I bought the rose at ROYAT and have since read on the forum about the particular strain of RMV that their roses have or have had. So, while the Sombrueil is still tiny, I am torn as to whether to pull it out now and get one from another nursery IF I can get a VI one.

Thanks, Anne

I wish I knew which remaining nurseries have a clean Sombreuil.

Jeri

Sorry to say that I don't know anything about virus status of the current ROYAT.

If they have it, the 'Sombreuil' from RU, ARE, Vintage, and Heirloom should all be clean. And anyone who received their stock plants from those folks, over the years since the 1980s. But since we can't guarantee sources at this point, I'd not promise it for any of them.

Thank you Malcolm. Actually I was thinking of the Rose Rosette
Virus, sorry if I confused anyone by my confusion:)

ARE's possible for us. RU is far too expensive for my blood, to ship to CA -- and by the time I could order, I'm afraid Vintage will be out of the picture.

Actually, our Sombreuils came from ARE, back, oh, close to 25 years back. But the Sombreuil they had then was the same virused plant everyone had.

(I checked on that, some years ago, when we were looking all over for a plant that did not descend from ROY&T. FWIW, we couldn't find any. Every one of 'em traced back to the same source.)

I'm happy to know that ARE "upgraded." :-)

Jeri

altorama, some people were trying Wilt-Pruf as a shield against rose rosette virus infection. The "hope" was that the mites that carry and transmit the virus would not recognize the Wilt-Pruf covered leaf as a rose leaf.
----------------------------
For those readers in a cooler climate, you "may" have to worry about plant to plant above ground transmission such as by pollen or branches rubbing against each other, or not cleaning your pruners between bushes. Roses have an immune system against what has been considered the most common rose virus (PNRSV). It turns out that the immune system is temperature sensitive - it works better at higher temperatures. The result is that at high temperatures the PNRSV virus is found mainly in the roots.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~kuska/high_temperature_effect_on_pnrsv.htm

The link below is to a very recent (2013) published, reviewed scientific paper on the types of rose viruses that they found in New Zealand. Of particular interest here is that they reported:
"There was not a strong correlation between viruses detected and symptoms observed, however, some trends were noted. Rose samples infected with PNRSV, either as a single infection or as a mixed infection, often exhibited a defined oak-leaf line pattern typical of that described for RMD. If PNRSV was co-infecting with other viruses e.g. RSDaV, the oak-leaf symptom often appeared to override symptoms associated with other viruses. Leaf rosette symptoms were often found on samples infected with RSDaV as has been reported in the literature (Salem et al. 2008a). Vein banding or central vein chlorosis was more often associated with RYVV infection. Cryptic viruses are thought to be symptomless in their hosts. In New Zealand, roses in which RCV-1 was detected as a single infection were often seen to have mottling, leaf spots and necrosis. Flower break was also noted on one sample with a single RCV-1 infection. However, as RCV-1 was also found in three symptomless samples, it’s possible that the symptoms observed in some samples were caused by other viruses not detected at the time of testing.

Some rose samples were noted to have symptoms such as chlorosis, mottling, spots and necrosis, but no viruses were detected. Previous reports have shown that symptom expression, virus distribution and virus detection can be influenced by several factors including cultivar, changing seasons/weather and growing conditions (Manners 1997; Sala-Rejczak and Paduch-Cichal 2005; Sertkaya 2010; Wong et al. 1988). It is therefore possible that the time of year or the environmental conditions prior to and during sampling may have contributed to a reduced titre of some viruses to a level too low to detect. The inability to detect viruses could also be attributed to uneven distribution in the rose plants. Alternatively, it is possible that other viruses were present in the roses which have yet to be described, or that symptoms similar to those caused by viruses were caused by nutrient deficiencies in the roses (Horst and Cloyd 2007)."

Here is a link that might be useful: A survey of viruses infecting Rosa spp. in New Zealand

Thank you to everyone for your thoughtful responses and sharing your knowledge!

Anne

"For those readers in a cooler climate, you "may" have to worry about plant to plant above ground transmission such as by pollen or branches rubbing against each other, or not cleaning your pruners between bushes. Roses have an immune system against what has been considered the most common rose virus (PNRSV). It turns out that the immune system is temperature sensitive - it works better at higher temperatures. The result is that at high temperatures the PNRSV virus is found mainly in the roots. "

Of course this is completely false. It is unfortunate that every discussion of mosaic ends up in this way, but go ahead and read the refereed papers -- they do NOT say what is being claimed for them here.

I do not intend to get into yet another fight, ad nauseum. But as always, the whole idea of cold-climate growers having different problems with the potential for natural spread is all in the mind of one man, and there is precisely ZERO evidence for it. Virus researchers in Minnesota and other cool climates would agree completely -- the concept is utterly without merit.

Yes, an absolute flood of references will now no doubt appear. Please do read them! And you'll discover that not a single one of them states nor even suggests that rose mosaic (we're not discussing ANY other viral disease here) is spread naturally in cooler climates.

I am so very sorry that this is now the end of all intelligent discussion on this thread.

It always ends up that way, doesn't it? Still -- thanks Malcolm, for pitching in with the voice of sanity. It IS appreciated.

Jeri

Malcolm

Thank you for correcting what the U of G photo identified as RMV. I read that you believe that the one that resembles Anne's foliage color break pattern is chimeral. What is behind the odd variegation in your opinion?

One of the other photos looks like typical RMV (yellow zig zags), but the third is spotty yellow like the photo in Josh's trouble in paradise post. Does that U of G photo illustrate another way that an RMV strain can present, or is it also misidentifiying another problem in your opinion?

Thank you for any info you have a chance to supply. I'm keeping rose disease files on my computer and would like them to be as accurate as possible.

Carol

This post was edited by PortlandMysteryRose on Sat, Jun 29, 13 at 4:07

The following was stated: ""Yes, an absolute flood of references will now no doubt appear. Please do read them! And you'll discover that not a single one of them states nor even suggests that rose mosaic (we're not discussing ANY other viral disease here) is spread naturally in cooler climates."
---------------------------------------------
H. Kuska comment. The following are quotes from the 2013 published New Zealand scientific publication referred to by me earlier in this thread.

"PNRSV is known to be transmitted mechanically, by root grafting and by seed (Abdel-Salam et al. 2008; Golino et al. 2011). The virus may be transmitted by pollen in rose although this hasn’t been fully ascertained (Kuska 2003). The high incidence of PNRSV in New Zealand is unsurprising as it is also vectored by the Western flower thrip (Frankliniella occidentalis) which is reportedly spread throughout New Zealand (Greber and Teakle 1992; Teulon and Nielsen 2005) and is known to infest many glasshouse crops (E. Milleza, unpublished data). "
-------------------------------------------------------
"Reports of pollen transmission of ApMV in rose are inconclusive (Kuska 2003), but in view of the characteristics of other ilarviruses, it is possible that ApMV could be dispersed by pollen."
------------------------------------------------------
The reference that they cite is: "Kuska H (2003) Can North American rose hybridizers use pollen from virus infected roses? Rose Hybridizers Assoc Newsl 34:7-10"

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The following is the conclusion section of my (H. Kuska) updated version 2003 paper:

" I conclude that the studies indicate that natural field infected pollen transmission in cooler climates will probably be low. But, for a cool climate hybridizer who shields the mother from foreign pollen the existing research cannot be used to exclude the possibility that some infected seedlings will be produced if one uses infected pollen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to suggest what I consider to be a definitive experiment regarding PNRSV transfer from infected pollen through rose seed to seedlings: hand pollinate a statistically significant number of fertile non-infected roses (that had their own pollen removed) with diseased pollen from an infected local rose (or several infected varieties) that is (are) known to cross with them (one should avoid importing viruses from other areas). The hand pollinated flowers would then be covered to prevent stray pollen from contaminating the chosen flowers (the seedlings raised from the seeds resulting from these crosses would have to be kept in an insect free environment, and sanitary procedures utilized to prevent "after germination" contamination in order for the experiment to be considered truly definitive). The experiment would have to be carried out in a cool climate or in a temperature controlled greenhouse. The seedlings would then have to be tested by one of the sensitive methods such as PCR as visible symptoms alone is not sufficient and even ELISA may not be sensitive enough to detect a natural infection."

Here is a link that might be useful: Updated version of my 2003 paper

As I said, read the refereed papers (not the Kuska papers, none of which is refereed) and see what they actually said. Not one of them demonstrates movement of a virus causing rose mosaic (as opposed to other viruses), in ROSES (as opposed to other plant species), by any means other than grafting (or nematodes in the case of arabis mosaic virus, which is not believed to exist in roses in the USA). Not one.

Citing a 10-year-old, non-refereed opinion article, with zero data in its support at the time or in all those 10 years since, does not make it fact.

The suggested experiment is also misguided and misinformed, and its premises could not be supported by anyone who actually works with plant viruses, e.g., "and even ELISA may not be sensitive enough to detect a natural infection." Utter silly nonsense.

Regarding the statement: "But as always, the whole idea of cold-climate growers having different problems with the potential for natural spread is all in the mind of one man, and there is precisely ZERO evidence for it. Virus researchers in Minnesota and other cool climates would agree completely -- the concept is utterly without merit."
----------------------------------------------
H.Kuska comment: The following was stated by one of the cold climate researchers in Minnesota.
"I agree with Henry that it is highly likely to be caused by a virus. For many of the typical rose viruses the symptoms are more pronounced in cooler weather. The heat of summer significantly slows the replication of many viruses and the symptoms tend go away until conditions are more favorable again."

H. Kuska comment. Please notice the statement: "significantly slows the replication of many viruses ".

The next comment in the same thread by another hybridizer is also of interest: "Sounds like human viruses too! Not a coincidence?"

H.Kuska comment. The premise is that something with a good immune system (for a specific virus) is better able to fight off a viral infection of that particular virus than something with a weaker immune system toward that particular virus. In the case of plants such as roses, the effectiveness of the PNRSV immune system is temperature dependent (not as effective in lower temperatures). Therefore, I propose that tests should be done in cool climates before one can conclude that prior tests done in hot climates are valid in cool climates. Please note my use of the word "may" in my initial warning in this thread.
"For those readers in a cooler climate, you "may" have to worry about plant to plant above ground transmission such as by pollen or branches rubbing against each other, or not cleaning your pruners between bushes."

Also please note that the reviewed 2013 published paper correctly cited the significance of my paper. They stated:

"The virus may be transmitted by pollen in rose although this hasn’t been fully ascertained (Kuska 2003). "
AND
"Reports of pollen transmission of ApMV in rose are inconclusive (Kuska 2003), ...."
---------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Do others feel that the question of above ground spread is settled? Below is what appears on Baldo Villegas web page concerning pollen spread.

"CONTROL: Since there is no cure for the virus diseases it is important to purchase only quality materials which have no symptoms of the disease. Some pathologists suspect that mosaic may be pollen transmitted which could prompt removal if other roses in the garden are valuable and not already infected."

http://www.sactorose.org/ipm/83rosemosaic.htm

H. Kuska comment. I feel that his use of "suspect" is similar to my use of "may".

--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
The following was stated: "The suggested experiment is also misguided and misinformed, and its premises could not be supported by anyone who actually works with plant viruses, e.g., "and even ELISA may not be sensitive enough to detect a natural infection." Utter silly nonsense. "

H.Kuska comment: The following was stated by a rose virus researcher. "This is a very interesting line of thought. Elisa isn't always that accurate depending on ones threshold for color (background color can vary depending on things inherently in the rose tissue which can be partly cultivar dependant) and how concentrated the virus is. I help Ben Lockart on his rose virus projects. PCR tests are more sensitive.
H.Kuska comment. Please notice "how concentrated the virus is" and "PCR tests are more sensitive."

http://www.rosebreeders.org/forum/read.php?2,14137,14229#msg-14229

-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------

As a cool weather gardener growing virus-infected roses for over 30 years, I have never seen it transmitted thru any means other than through grafting to an infected rootstock.

Even the fairies in my gardens have never been able to spread this disease.

Dr. Manners - you are absolutely right in all of your conclusions re: the virus studies. Your information that you have generously shared with all of us over the years is regarded by all as the final word backed by solid research.

Thank YOU!
stephen scanniello
Cold weather rose gardener

stephen scanniello, I enjoyed you book and I will link to your virus section at the end of this post.

First regarding your statement: "I have never seen it transmitted thru any means other than through grafting to an infected rootstock."

H.Kuska comment: A common statement on this forum over the years is for someone to state that they had a rose for X years and this is the first year that it exhibited virus symptoms. Someone then answers along the following line: "it did not catch it, it always had it but the symptoms did not show until now."

Of course unless the person had that particular rose virus tested when he/she obtained it we do not know if the above explanation is correct. I assume your experience was similar and that you had some roses first exhibit virus symptoms after the first year. If my assumption is correct, I feel that your stated observation carries no weight scientifically.

---------------------------------------------
Regarding your second statement: "Dr. Manners - you are absolutely right in all of your conclusions re: the virus studies. Your information that you have generously shared with all of us over the years is regarded by all as the final word backed by solid research."

H.Kuska comment: I am discussing the possibility of cool climate above ground spread. Please produce the link that you feel is the "final word backed by solid research". Also, how can you say "all" when I have given a link to a 2013 reviewed published scientific rose virus paper that cites my 2003 article concerning spread and a quote from Baldo Villegas' web page (see my previous post)?
-------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a link that might be useful: book section Stephen Scanniello rose virus discussion

And he's off, and where it stops nobody knows.

Sorry, but I don't have time to deal with this.

I forgot how tedious these forums can get.

But, really, I have to go. There are some fairies in my garden, I have to make sure they don't spread any viruses (they're armed with grafting knives).

PS: I love my virused roses. The symptoms come and go. C'est la vie.
s

I have doubts about whether or not it can be spread during pruning - this is certainly not natural transmission - so I am not convinced that it is proven that such transmission cannot occur.

Just wish rose introducers would clean up their act and stop cheap propagation practices that have led to this becoming endemic. When I pay for a new rose, I'm only paying for the rose, I'm not willingly paying for disease as well.

Must be nice and not feed troll

This post was edited by Kippy-the-Hippy on Sun, Jun 30, 13 at 1:03

I don't appreciate everyone putting down the contributions of henry kuska. It seems that he is seeking knowledge.

The expert posting here who is rudely dismissive, seems to have a vested commercial interest in selling virus indexed plants. Now that business would not be viable, if it were in fact true that RMV could spread by other means such as insects, pruning shears, etc. Everyone should keep that in mind when reading his posts.

johnnidappl, thank you for speaking up concerning your view that: "It seems that he is seeking knowledge. of the issues." Perhaps some background concerning how and why the report was prepared will help. Fortunately, the procedure used is still available on the Rose Hybridizers web site. Here are some excerpts:

"This a first draft, all comments, suggestions, questions, etc. welcome (unfortunately, my formatting, use of bold face, etc. was removed when I uploaded the manuscript)."

"Rather than my submitting a whole new draft at this point, will those of you that are willing to act as "on-line editors/referees" of this draft please concentrate on comments concerning the science that has been presented as well as comments on how to improve the clarity."

"Dave, testing seeds from infected plants is where I think the previous researchers made their mistake.

Your suggestion: "Wouldn't a stronger test to see if the virus is pollen transmitted to cross pollen from an infected parent onto a clean parent? You don't have the confounding factor of the possibility of virus being transmitted through the egg. Of course one would risk infecting your clean female parent. If some of the seedlings are infected (and of course we assume they will be isolated to rule out post germination infection) the source of the virus should be the infected pollen."

is exactly what I am proposing.

I have added the word "non-infected" to my definitive experiment proposal to make that point clear."

"I have not posted a complete revised copy because of the size and because it changes almost hourly as I receive e-mail comments and comments from this web page. I have sent Peter Harris full revisions whenever I felt that the revisions were major. I will also place full revisions from time to time on this board."

Here is a link that might be useful: Procedure used in preparation of report

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Sun, Jun 30, 13 at 9:26

Hello Johnnidappi (I apologize for not using your real name, since this is the only name you have posted).

Regarding your last post re: this thread.

It's not clear who you are referring to as the commercial grower with vested interest in virus-infected roses.

Perhaps you are referring to me or Dr. Manners?

Neither myself nor Dr. Manners have a vested commercial interest in selling roses, virus-infected plants or clean. Our interest with roses is solely with the joy of growing roses and sharing our knowledge and experience with other rose growers throughout the world.

I am not a commercial grower, I'm a gardener. I've had to deal with infected roses since the 1980's in both the public garden sector as well as with private gardens.

Dr. Malcolm Manners is not a commercial grower, but instead a highly esteemed professor and researcher of horticulture. Roses are his hobby and he has successfully integrated his love of roses into his curriculum at Florida Southern College.

Dr. Manners shares his virus-free roses with large commercial growers and smaller nurseries. He does not sell them. He continues to make generous offers to nurseries to help them clean up their stock. In addition to this, he has donated thousands of virus-free roses to community projects (Heritage Rose District of NYC, American Rose Society are two current projects).

We all agree that the commercial growers have a responsibility to clean up their act. Unfortunately not all heed our free advice. As far as I know, most of the infected, if not all, are still in the US. I know of at least one commercial grower who completely ignores this issue. This place shall remain nameless.

I find it highly unprofessional that individuals will take up time and space on this forum to insult the one person who continues to work (most of this time on his own dime) to clean roses of RMV.

In heeding the advice of a very wise Kippy-the-Hippy, I shall stop my contributions to this thread and once again sign off from the forum and spend this time in my garden.
Thank you,
Stephen

Stephen, thank you for your helpful words.

Happy rosing!

Kate