Quite beautiful patterns though! But sorry.

If the cutting came from a rmv affected plant it does not matter if it is own root. Over the years I have thinned out any roses showing the tell tale signs and my garden is clean now.

Lance

The good thing about it is that it's on a rose that I was considering removing anyway, and not on one of my favorites. Now I have the incentive to take it out and replace it...time to go shopping for more roses...

I'm not sure that Dr. Manners would agree that it's necessary - but I've heard a UC Davis expert recommend cutting back an RMV-infected rose, immediately applying Roundup to the stump, and waiting for a couple of weeks before removing it, to ensure that there are no live RMV-infected roots in place when you plant a replacement. Fall is a good time of year to do that, as the plant is pulling nutrients down to its roots. Seems prudent. We now do this on any diseased rose in the Sacramento cemetery.
Anita

Thanks for the info on using Roundup to kill the roots. I was worried about having any residual traces of the virus left if I just dug it up. Not much risk of transmission, but why take any chances?

If it was a rose I loved, I'd just leave it, because the plant seems pretty darn healthy and vigorous other than the RMV suddenly appearing. But it's been one I've been considering removing anyway, and just had heartburn about taking out a healthy plant because I didn't love it. Now that it's not healthy, the heartburn is gone and I can try something else that's on my list of "oh I want that rose but don't have room for it".

An RMV question: I had an HT rose which did not survive and came out of it another rose. That is probably Dr. Huey which I 've read all are RMV infected. The rose is OK for me, healthy and did not see any indication of disease. But, should it be removed just to make sure?

lucretial: I am sorry for highjacking, but I think your question is answered.

The risk that you run in applying Round-Up in your rose garden is that some of the Round-Up may leave the roots, pass into the soil, and be picked up by neigboring roots.

The following are 2 recent reviewed scientific papers on this behavior.

Title: Delayed degradation in soil of foliar herbicides glyphosate and sulcotrione previously absorbed by plants: Consequences on herbicide fate and risk assessment.
Authors: Doublet, Jeremy; Mamy, Laure; Barriuso, Enrique.

Authors affiliation: INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) - AgroParisTech, UMR 1091 Environnement et Grandes Cultures, Thiverval-Grignon, Fr. Chemosphere (2009), 77(4), pages 582-589.

Abstract: "Following application, pesticides can be intercepted and absorbed by weeds and/or crops. Plants contg. pesticides residues may then reach the soil during the crop cycle or after harvest. However, the fate in soil of pesticides residues in plants is unknown. Two commonly used foliar herbicides, glyphosate and sulcotrione, 14C-labeled, were applied on leaves of oilseed rape and/or maize, translocation was studied, and then soil incubations of aerial parts of plants contg. herbicides residues were performed. Soil treated directly with herbicides was used as control. The effects of adjuvants on herbicide plant-absorption and subsequent soil-degrdn. were also investigated comparing herbicides application as active ingredients and as com. formulations. The fate in soil of herbicides residues in plants was different from that of control, and different for glyphosate and sulcotrione. Mineralization in soil of glyphosate in crops decreased compared to control, and amts. of 14C-extractable residues, mainly composed by the metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and non-extractable residues (NER) increased. In contrast, mineralization in soil of sulcotrione in maize increased compared to control, with a decrease in the 14C-extractable residues and an increase in NER. The fate of both herbicides was influenced by the type of plant organ in which herbicide was incorporated, because of differences in herbicides bioavailability and organs biodegradability, but not by adjuvants. Absorption of both herbicides in plant delays their subsequent soil-degrdn., and particularly, glyphosate persistence in soil could increase from two to six times. The modifications of herbicide degrdn. in soil due to interception by plants should be considered for environmental risks assessment."

Also, see the full paper at the following link:
http://stopogm.net/files/RGTNTPVR.PDF

Here is a link that might be useful: full paper link

Anita, I've discussed this at length with Dr. Golino, the person who made the recommendation you mentioned. What she told me was that someone asked her how they could be absolutely, utterly, 100% sure there was no virus there, so she outlined this extreme scenario, since, in theory, there COULD be a root graft form before the old roots die. Nevertheless, she agrees that the probability is so low as to be negligible, and there has likely never, in the history of rose growing, been a single actual case of a new rose catching the disease from roots left in or near the planting hole. Certainly, there is precisely zero evidence for such spread (she is in complete agreement with this). And as such, she does not "recommend" her method, in general. But she was answering a question about achieving a 100.000% "guarantee."

Senko, not all 'Dr. Huey' is infected; mosaic-free 'Dr. Huey' is readily available from UC Davis, and numerous nurseries us it as a rootstock.

This is a very interesting discussion. I grow roses propagated in several countries in Europe. I grow or at least have grown close to a hundred different varieties over the years, many roses I grow are about 10 years now, some much older but I did't plant them. I have never seen patterns like this on any of my roses, but I doubt the situation is any different here.

I suppose when we grow rose varieties that are more that 50, 100 or 200 years old lots of things can have happened to them. I know the big rose nurseries that produce rootstocks check for varius viruses and use healthy plants. Many rootstocks are seedgrown too, and they should be clean?

Are any of the heat treated roses send to Europe? They might be healthier than what some nurseries have here. We don't have this discussion among regular rose growers here. I hope the professionals take care of it.

The following link gives an example of what can happen when one is dealing with old roses:

http://royalsociety.org.nz/Site/publish/Journals/nzjchs/2009/009.aspx

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Interesting information Henry

Rather horrible situation. It will be costly to clean up these enormous rose fields, and take a lot of time and labour. At least it looks like there are some healthy plants among the virused ones.

Malcolm Manners Said: " . . . there has likely never, in the history of rose growing, been a single actual case of a new rose catching the disease from roots left in or near the planting hole. Certainly, there is precisely zero evidence for such spread . . . "

*** Malcolm -- Thank you so much for this update.
This is what I always understood to be the case, but there's been some argument about it of late, so I wondered.
I'm glad to learn that there's still no evidence of that sort of spread actually having happened.

Jeri

In the case of roses the lack of documented evidence for a type of virus spread does not have much practical significance. An example may help to illustrate this:

Lets say that I plant a rose where a virused rose had been previously planted (in a cool climate) and 4 to 10 years later discovered that the new rose had a virus. How am I to know where the virus came from? Was it originally virused? Was there a root graft to a nearby virused rose, was there contact between the branches of the new rose and a nearby virused rose? Insect spread? Nematode spread? Pollen? Wind? (Of course there is some research ruling out temperature sensitive virus's spread in hot climates by some of the above possibilities, but I live in a much cooler climate than where the research was done.)
The following is a general article about plant virus spread:

http://www.answerbag.com/articles/How-Do-Viruses-Spread-in-Plants/53b57ec9-4f29-9a26-196b-23bf13196e70

Notice the section: "Virus particles can infect soil for a long time and be carried to leaves of new hosts by wind or rain-splashing mud."

Since there has been relatively little (relative to the complexity of the subject) rose related virus spread research, I suggest that the safe approach (if you live in a cooler climate) is to look at what has been determined for rose related plants and viruses that infect them and apply appropriate procedures to protect your roses.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for my summary

I must say tho Lucretia -- Your particular manifestation of RMV is quite decorative!

Jeri

Jeri,

Yeah, it's kind of pretty. The plant is very vigorous and seems otherwise to be quite healthy. No other sign of disease, but the sucker balls like crazy, so it's a goner. (Especially with Vintage posting even MORE roses today...)

As good a reason as any.

I've had roses that've waited as much as 20 years before I could SEE the signs (tho I knew they were there).
But when it did show, it was part of the plant demonstrating that it was anyhow in trouble, and ready for removal.

Jeri

For completness, I am including a recent informal virus research "progress report" from a NORTHERN LOCATION.

http://www.rosehybridizers.org/forum/message.php?topid=23447&rc=2&ui=2316041392

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

My discussion of climate dependent virus problems is at:

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

Here is a link that might be useful: progress report (second post in thread)

Here we go again.
When reading HKs replies, I would encourage the reader to realize that

1. Dr. Kuska is not a rose mosaic researcher, and has apparently never done any work of any kind on this disease or any other plant viral disease. Indeed, he is ignorant of the subject to a degree that is nearly unbelievable, in a trained scientist.

2. He is in complete disagreement with ALL legitimate researchers of the disease.

3. He cites vast numbers of scientific papers, "supporting" his bizarre ideas, but close reading of those papers reveal that they are nearly always
a. about some other virus than those causing rose mosaic, or
b. the right viruses but on some other plant genus than roses, or
c. for other reasons, are not relevant to rose mosaic in roses, or
d. when he does cite a relevant paper, concerning the right viruses and on roses, he nearly always misquotes or misinterprets the papers, drawing entirely the wrong conclusions from them.

Of course, most legitimate and relevant literature on the subject is ignored completely, since it doesn't agree with his view of the disease.

4. He tries to discount the knowledge of warm-climate researchers with made-up stories about mosaic being different in cold climates. Again, he completely misinterprets and obfuscates what is known about this subject, and to date, everything he has said on the subject has been false. NO ONE other than he believes such nonsense, and it is, indeed, complete nonsense.

5. Legitimate, thoughtful, factual discussions of the disease in any thread always end when he enters, since he makes sure he destroys any possibility of further discussion, and the people who know what theyÂre talking about tend to disappear quickly, in disgust, at yet another exercise in futility.

I realize there may be readers who have no more reason to believe me (or anyone else here) than they do HK, but I would encourage them to read up on the disease, and yes, read his countlessly many citations. After a few of them, you'll likely find yourself coming to the conclusion that he's entirely mistaken about virtually everything he believes about rose mosaic. I'm sorry to have to say that, and I don't like "bad mouthing" anyone.

The real experts in this country about the disease are the folks at UC Davis (who he occasionally misquotes or misinterprets, but generally ignores) and those at the University of Washington's Prosser research center (who he always ignores).

In my 26 years of operating Florida Southern College's rose mosaic heat therapy program, I've come to realize that the people at Davis and Prosser really do know what they're talking about, and that our methods of heat-therapy and indexing really do work. There is far less mosaic around now than there was 10 or 20 years ago, and none of that is even slightly thanks to the efforts of HK.

So after years of putting up with this malarkey, I'm really tired of it, and as an educator, I am deeply offended at this affront to truth and legitimate scholarship. There can be no excuse for it.

The following statement was made:
"He tries to discount the knowledge of warm-climate researchers with made-up stories about mosaic being different in cold climates. Again, he completely misinterprets and obfuscates what is known about this subject, and to date, everything he has said on the subject has been false. NO ONE other than he believes such nonsense, and it is, indeed, complete nonsense."

I have added the number of times that each paper that I cited about temperature behavior to my paper on the subject. Also, please note that the papers were in reviewed journals. Therefore the authors, reviewers, and the editors had agreed to the statements in the articles. It is interesting (to me) that one of the authors is Professor Griffin Buck the hybridizers of many important roses including Carefree Beauty (one of my favorates).

It appears that the knowledge that the behavior of the Rose Mosaic Viruse "group" is temperature dependent is now starting to get into the general State University type fact sheets: "Cool temperatures tend to favor virus multiplication and disease development within the rose plant.", see the University Of Arkansas fact sheet:

http://arhomeandgarden.net/News/Arkansas_gardener/steve_vann/virus_diseases_roses.pdf

As always, the papers cited do not state what is being claimed here. We've all known, for many, many years, that virus titre rises and falls with the season. No one has ever disputed that. We can also detect virus in an infected plant ANY time of year. Always have been able to. Same at UC Davis, where their shirofugen testing works ONLY in the summer. And everyone agrees that it is highly sensitive.

So as usual, I'm not disputing anything those refereed papers say; I'm pointing out that they don't say what you claim they are saying. As usual. None of them makes the wild claim (as you do) that rose mosaic becomes in some way contagious in cooler climates. That concept is never a part of these papers.

I'm sure this will bring on a plethora of citations of equally irrelevant papers, and as usual in these frustrating threads, I think I'm done commenting now. Let it die.

Possibly the condition shown at the start of this thread is not actually virus-induced rose mosaic. Everyone seems to be working from that assumption, how do we know for sure just looking at a picture?

Carl E. Whitcomb did describe two episodes where trees apparently picked up glyphosate from large-rooted weeds growing among them in his 1987 (rev. 1991) book Establishment and Maintenance of Landscape Plants (Lacebark Inc., Stillwater) - and were damaged by the herbicide. (There was no spray reaching the leaves or stems of the trees in either instance). On page 333 he concludes:

The likelihood of this happening seems remote, yet the trees were dead only in the areas where nutsedge and milkweed were treated with Roundup. At this point additional caution appears justified when using Roundup on perennial weeds with extensive roots or storage organs near woody landscape plants

For another view...

The statement was made:

"None of them makes the wild claim (as you do) that rose mosaic becomes in some way contagious in cooler climates. That concept is never a part of these papers."

One of the papers reported (this one relates directly to infectivity)and my summary are reproduced below in case a reader is not able to reach my linked information:

In addition to lower concentration with higher temperature papers, there is a published U.S study that reports that Tobacco Ringspot Virus (another of the viruses that together are called "Rose Mosaic Virus") from infected Iowa roses has a temperature dependence to its ability to infect indicator plants. They do not present their data in a table but instead use a continuous line graph with dots indicating their actual data points (their Figure 5a). The graph is a smooth curve with 9 data points located right on the line (no obvious scatter to the fitted line). To convert their small graph into number results in approximate values - these are my approximations:

At 75.2 degrees F - leasons per leaf, about 161.
At 82.4 degrees F - leasons per leaf, about 158.
At 89.6 degrees F - leasons per leaf, about 152.
At 96.8 degrees F - leasons per leaf, about 148.
At 104 degrees F - leasons per leaf, about 141.

Please note this is not a concentration effect as the same collected sap was used ("For TIP studies, 0.2 ml of undiluted sap were placed in thin-walled test tubes (15 X 30 mm), heated 10 min, cooled immediately, and assayed on five cowpea plants." and that this amount of effect was noted after only 10 minutes at the stated temperature exposure. The graph continues until no lesions were observed at slightly less than 147 degrees F.

One could say: but there is only a 2 % decrease in infectivity from 75 deg to 97 degrees is this within experimental error?. My reply is that this observed effect is from a smooth fitted curve with the data points on the curve. To me the interesting question is: if that much infectivity was lost after only 10 minutes exposure, how much would be lost after time periods of hours/days/weeks?

They also studied the longevity of infectibility in vitro and obtained a smooth curve which went to zero at 72 hours (the study was done at a temperature of 77 degrees F). These results are complicated by their use of a mixture (1:2 sap/0.01 M phosphate buffer).

The article is:

Title: Isolation of Tobacco Ringspot Virus from Rose

Authors: G.L McDaniel, G. J. Buck (I assume that almost everyone on this forum is familar with Buck's croses), and R.E. Ford

Published in Phytopathology, volume 61, pages 45- 49, (1971). The back issues on the internet only go back to 1973 so I cannot give a computer link.

I would expect that the "probability of infection of a rose" would depend on both the concentration of the virus in the sap AND on the infectivity of the sap due to the temperature that it was exposed to.

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

Summary

Contrary to early "thinking" plants do have what could be called an immune system (natural defences), it appears that we have a combination of 3 interdependent effects as the temperature increases: 1) a decrease in concentration of the virus due to the virus being less stable as the temperature increases, 2) the plant's natural defenses being better able to overcome the temperature weakened virus as the temperature increases, and 3) the infectivity of the virus is weakened.

bbboy, literature concerning the possibility of Round-Up reaching neighboring plants is referenced in my "Posted by henry_kuska z5 OH (kuska@neo.rr.com) on Tue, Oct 13, 09 at 21:26" contribution.

It is my understanding that with roses Round-Up damage looks more like Rose Rosette Disease (virus?) than one of the rose Mosaic viruses.

Tobacco ringspot virus is NEVER included among the viruses causing "rose mosaic." So its behavior is completely irrelevant to any discussion of temperature effects in rose mosaic (which consists of PNRSV, ApMV, and AMV viruses only).

Many thanks to malcolm_manners for the clarifications.

Title: Roses: virus and virus-like diseases.
Author: Lisa-V
Published in: Colture-Protette. 1998, 27: 5 Supplement, 35-38; 14 ref.
Language of article: Italian
Abstract: "Notes are given on the viruses and virus-like diseases that are known to affect roses around the world. The most common and widespread virus disease is rose mosaic, associated especially with prunus necrotic ringspot ilarvirus (PNRSV), apple mosaic ilarvirus (ApMV), arabis mosaic nepovirus (ArMV) and strawberry latent ringspot nepovirus (SLRV), but also with tobacco ringspot nepovirus, tobacco streak ilarvius and tomato ringspot nepovirus. Tobacco mosaic tobamovirus and an unidentified closterovirus are found sporadically. The virus-like diseases of unknown aetiology include rose ring pattern, rose flower break, rose streak, rose rosette (or rose witches' broom), rose leaf curl, rose spring dwarf and rose wilt. Other disorders are caused by hormonal imbalances or other types of incompatibility between the graft and the rootstock of unknown aetiology, such as rose bud proliferation, rose dieback (or rose stunt) and frisure. Techniques for diagnosing viruses in roses and methods for their control are described."
----------------------------
In McDaniel, Buck, and Ford's abstract the following is stated:
"Host range, physical properties, and serological properties confirmed the identity of the virus, which has previously been called rose line-pattern mosaic virus and is listed in the rose Mosaic virus (RMV) group according to symptons."
-------------------------
Title: "Isolation and identification of tomato ringspot virus associated with rose plants and rose mosaic virus."

Authors: Halliwell, R. S., and Milbrath, J. A.

Published in: 1962. Plant Dis. Rep. volumn 46, pages 555-557, (1962).

The 1962 reference is irrelevant at this point, since that was the "dark ages" of plant virology, and RMV was little known or understood then. I had not seen the Italian article -- ok, one group of Italian researchers (where RMV is rare and relatively unknown) consider these viruses to be types of mosaic. Not so in the US, and irrelevant to this discussion.

That a plant can get a virus, in theory, somewhere in the world, does not make it important to this discussion. We've been testing symptomatic roses with mosaic for more than 26 years. To date, out of many hundreds of tests, we've only found one that did not test positive for either PNRSV or (exceedingly more rarely) ApMV, and that one had very atypical symptoms (yellow flecks) and was a plant directly imported from Europe.

This is why I say all such arguments are obfuscation -- we're dealing with a straight-forward disease with only two causal viruses in the US, in 99.9999999??? percent of the cases. To constantly rant about other viruses, novel means of spread, temperature effects, soil survival, nematodes, etc., is all blowing smoke. It's rather like bringing up the subject of leprosy or anthrax and emphasizing them every time someone gets a bacterial infection in their finger -- it is simply not relevant, and is worthless to the discussion at hand.

And as I've stated in the past, the probability of any one rose, in any one garden, actually having one of your "novel" viruses rather than rose mosaic is so low as to be negligible.

Well, I've been drawn into this valueless argument again, and I had not planned on that. So once again, I'm signing off of this discussion, realizing it is futile.

Here is a 2004 article by MAREK S. SZYNDEL who some of you may recognize as the person who wrote the rose virus article in the Encyclopedia of Rose Science, pp. 180-189.

http://books.google.com/books?id=T9Y6QAAACAAJ&dq=Encyclopedia+of+Rose+Science&ei=0k_cSuX9MI-SNuvGzdYL

It appears Dr. Manners tests found the type of viruses that he was testing for. Did he also test for the other rose Mosaic viruses? As an example lets look at Rose-X virus.

Davis did test for it and they found it in hybrid teas, see:

It takes a very specific test (Shirofugen cherry will not work):

"We recently found an association of symptoms in hybrid tea roses with the presence of the RX agent. The only reliable detection method we have at present is indexing using Rosa multiflora Burr, which reacts quite violently to infection by this agent. Symptoms on Rosa multiflora Burr include severe stunting, small deformed leaflets with dark-green/light-green mottle and wrinkling, and severe shortening of internodes (fig. 7). The agent is sensitive to thermal inactivation in two weeks at 38 C. This disease is similar to rose mosaic, but does not cause necrosis on Shirofugen cherry"
-----------------------------------
The same article makes the statement "most prevalent in the eastern states" for another of the rose Mosaic viruses, see:

"Although rose mosaic virus is considered by many to be a strain of Prunus ringspot virus, some rose mosaic symptoms may be caused by different viruses.
Serological relatedness has been shown between California rose mosaic isolates and Prunus ringspot virus from other hosts.
Rose streak is a suspected virus disease of roses occurring in Europe and North America. In the United States it is most prevalent in the eastern states, but it has been encountered in California, although infrequently. The disease, which has no known vector, is transmissible by grafting and seems to affect only roses."

Article on Rose-Gxxxxng Rose Virus. This one is running rampant at my house,see:

http://freshbreadmachine.com/rose-and-rose-virus/

If I am to understand this correctly; for all practical purpose, the only thing a gardener has to worry about is buying / propagating a virus free rose in the first place?

There are several viruses out there, and in Europe others are more common than RMV? There are lots of mail-order nurseries here, and these days we order from almost any where within EU. Roses produced in Germany, France, Denmark and Holland are grown just about any where. I know two gardeners who even as ordered from Vintage Gardens in USA, and have given cuttings to rose nurseries for grafting.

Does the heat therapy program work on many types of rose viruses or mostly RMV?

taoseeker: Yes, to your first question. And the great majority of European roses appear still to be free of mosaic. Heat therapy does work with many but not all viruses.

I don't know that I'd say others are more common in Europe -- because of the common use of seedling rootstocks over the years, European roses have been generally less likely to have debilitating viruses. On the other hand, arabis mosaic virus, one of the causes of rose mosaic, does occur in Europe, along with the nematode that spreads it. Still, it's not particularly common.

And as is true here as well, while there may be countlessly many viruses affecting roses, there are only a very few that are common enough to be worthy of any concern at all -- here, rose rosette is of concern, since it can destroy bushes and is contagious in the field, via mites. The only other one we see often enough to worry about is the RMV complex, here, which are prunus necrotic ringspot virus and apple mosaic virus, neither of which kill the plant, but can weaken it.

Regarding Europe, I started a thread on the European Forum:

http://www.uk.gardenweb.com/forums/load/roses/msg071057108109.html?14

taoseeker, I just noticed that you are in Norway. I strongly recommend that you take into consideration that findings from hot climates may not apply to your area. The information that this recommendation is based on has already been presented in general form in this thread and in the parallel thread, but I will attempt to put it more focus for Europe.

A 2001 paper

http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/PHYTO.2001.91.1.84

looked for 7 different rose viruses in the the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Germany, and Portugal. From page 88: "Virus prevalence in rose. Our survey for viruses infecting roses of European origin revealed only the presence of PNRSV out of seven viruses screened. PNRSV was present in 4 out of 100 greenhouse rose origins."

Does this "prove" that the other 6 viruses are not in roses of those countries? I propose that the answer is no. Why did the French group not find them?

Perhaps they did not look at enough "non cut flower/non greenhouse" roses from cooler climates, (see last part of page 84 and the first part of page 90) to be stastically meaningful. On page 87 of the results section the following appears: "Virus survey in rose. Through biological indexing and ELISA confirmation, PNRSV was the only virus detected in the collection of 100 European origins of greenhouse roses surveyed.". Please note that the survey testing was on greenhouse roses - not roses grown in public gardens.

AND/OR

Perhaps they did not run enough duplicate samples with their ELISA testing "Representative plants suspected to be virus-infected were indexed on rose rootstock R. indica cv. CE10 propagated in vitro and on P. persica (L.) Batsch, cv. GF305 seedlings (two plants each) by chip budding. Each plant in trial one was also individually tested once for PNRSV by double antibody sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (DAS-ELISA). A total of 80 plants, belonging to 80 different cultivars and suspected to be virus-infected, based on the symptoms observed, were biologically indexed as described previously. The inoculated indicator plants (peach and R. indica) were tested once a month for presence of viruses (PNRSV, ApMV, TSV, ArMV, SLRSV, TRSV, and TomRSV) by DAS-ELISA up to 6 months after inoculation, and symptoms were recorded."

The same group published a parallel paper that examined (very critically in my mind) the methodology (i.e ELISA) used for PNRSV, see:

http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PHYTO.2000.90.5.522 (cited by 18 other papers).

Please note: "Between 21 and 98% (depending on the season) more samples were identified as positive by using ELISA on samples from shoot tips grown in vitro rather than on leaves collected directly from the PNRSV-infected mother plants."

Note, they did not use the higher sensitivity "in vitro" method in the screening of the non PNRSV viruses.

I interpret this to mean that normal ELSIA testing is part of the "dark ages" (see a post on Sun, Oct 18, 09 at 22:09 for an earlier use of this expression) of rose virus testing.

The University of Minnesota scientists are looking at the actual virus molecules with an electron microscope - I consider the use of the electron microscope for rose virus detection as the "real" marking point of this science leaving the "dark ages". Their work should also be of interest to rose growers in Norway as they are looking at viruses in a cool climate.

Is there some "tip of the iceberg" information that gives some credulence to my "suspicions" that there are more Rose virus varieties in cool climate northern Europe than the above normal ELSIA and relatively low sampling size/selection of greenhouse roses study found. Yes, a testing of field grown roses in Warsaw, Poland using ELSIA (261 plants tested) found SLRSV in addition to PNRSV.

http://psjc.icm.edu.pl/psjc/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?AAAA012568

I suggest that in Norway at least both SLRSV and Blackberry chlorotic ringspot virus (BCRV) should be of concern.

If you are not familar with BCRV in roses, see:

http://www.bspp.org.uk/publications/new-disease-reports/ndr.php?id=013005

Please note that the term "new Disease" does not mean that it has not been around for a long time, it means that it was not detected earlier. This virus was found by double stranded RNA (dsRNA) isolation.

OH MY GOODNESS!!!! Henry, give it a rest!

Hi Henry

This was a lot to read and take in. It is always interesting to know what goes on in the research field. I am just a gardener who grows a lot of roses, and really don't have much choice other than buying hopefully healthy plants. I don't know of anyone here (EU really) who does the same kind of treatment therapy that Malcolm does.

We do have the much the same stories about roses here as I read about here in the Rose Forums; old roses that has reclined in vigour and health over the years, overly propagated roses and so on. Many old roses we grow do just as well as the new ones, hybrid teas, floribundas, etc. It would be interesting to compare a few old varieties with the heat treated ones.

Sorry I ever posted. Good grief. Never intended this to turn into urinary olympics--this was just the first time I've seen RMV in my garden, and since it was described to me by a grower as "Classic RMV", AND backed up by photos on line (at legitimate sites, not Bob's Drive-in) I thought I'd share what I thought was an interesting picture. Yes, it's an assumption based on a photo. So what? I don't hear other people on this forum running out to get titres to prove their plants have RMV before they post.

And PLEASE, if you want to cite papers, do so via a link. If you want to go on and on about how your analysis is the right one, AND have the scientific data to back it up, put your money where your mouth is, write a paper yourself and present it at the appropriate venue. This forum isn't it.

Taoseeker stated: "It would be interesting to compare a few old varieties with the heat treated ones."

I am not sure if you are refering to what what I think you are.

If you are interested in whether a virused but then heat treated plant does better or worse than one of the same variety that was never virused, this is my response.

Plants are very complex, it is possible that the virus and / or the heat treatment may have affected other mechanisms (could be positive or negative). There are many types of examples but since a very recent (2009) example of the "expression of heat stress proteins" has been studied in a rose, I will present that example. The actual research paper is very technical. The paper is at the following link:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6203748

Rather than looking at the specific details most readers would probably benefit more from the following summary of the field:

http://www.cspp.cn/Annual2009/upload/pub09.pdf

Please notice the statement:

"It is known that rapid heat hardening can be elicited by a brief exposure of cells to sub-lethal high temperature, which in turn provides protection from subsequent and more severe temperature."

This does not "prove" that heat treated roses will have better heat resistance. Maybe a longer term of high temperature will result in other effects (positive or negative). I am presenting this to indicate that one cannot assume that other variables are being held constant.

It is possible that effects may not show up till years later. Some "cured" polio victims are now finding that many years later problems related to the polio are appearing.

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

The effects of a virus infection can be very unexpected.

The following link discusses the observed effect of a virus on aphid population (not done on roses):

http://www.springerlink.com/content/uw13564v21223876/

I have posted several times about my experince with a virused Culbert Grant from Pickering. Up to then my best Climber was Illusion. This new Culbert Grant bloomed and grew much better than Illusion all summer. I was very excited. That winter I received a letter from Pickering that it was virused and that they were pulling it off the market. That spring it was dead.

Scientists at Cornell University surveyed approximately 2500 roses by visible assessment. They found that 166 had virus symptons:

http://www.actahort.org/books/234/234_53.htm

From the abstract, it does not appear that anything unusual was observed, but from the full paper a number of unexpected results were reported such as: "Total flower cut weight and total number of flower cuts with nonsymptomatic foliage was greater from PNRSV (severe) inoculated rose plants than from healthy control plants. The data revealed also that PNRSV (severe) and ApMV (severe) inoculated plants outyielded the PNRSV (mild) inoculated plants, which in turn outyielded the healthy tissue inoculated plants. These results were unexpected since reduced yields would be anticipated from virus infections."

They then discuss some "maybes. one of these is: "Another speculation is that the initial stage of viral infection stimulates host metabolism by competing and utilizing the host ribonucleic acid polymerases for ita viral replication."

i.e. The virus infection may be causing the rose to grow better.
-----------------------------------------------
The following non rose paper may be of interest:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6203748

Explanation of the sympols:
(VT) I assume that (VT) means heat treated since I found this using heat treatment as a key work. The abstract is not clear. (My literature search service says the full paper can be down loaded but when I try it states that it is too new and has not been uploaded yet.)

(V) is virused infected.

(VTR) is virused reinfected.

Just to highlight one of the observations:
"V plants produced big tubers that weighed more than those from VT plants."

Taoseeker, in roses, with mosaic, I've never seen a reduction in productivity in a heat-treated plant. Sometimes there is no noticeable difference, but often (especially those that were said to be degenerated), there is a marked increase in vigor. Of course that may have nothing to do with the mosaic, since heat therapy removes a lot of viruses and/or viroids that may be there and otherwise symptomatic. Peace was a good example -- we have Peace that is as vigorous and colorful as people remember it, from the 1940s.

Malcolm

It would be interesting to try a heat-treated Peace, as I know it well. Do you know if old hybrid teas like Ophelia and Mme Butterfly has been treated? I heard years a go that there was some clones of these roses that did't flower as much as others. I think Paul Neyron was mentioned as one of them too.

Yes, all of those have been heat-treated. I don't grow Ophelia (Davis has it), but I do have the other two, and we did the heat therapy on Paul Neyron.

If heat causes the plant to develope a resistance to heat in the future, maybe someone should try the opposite for northern gardens - purify from virus by cold treatment:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD1-4VKK6VW-1&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235185%232009%23999859996%23972061%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5185&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=10&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=28785e54138f21a4389e686d9eb1eec2

This 2007 paper gives more specific information and a comparison with heat treatment:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d7324543323w3k41/

Taoseeker, in case you miss it one of the authors of the first low temperature paper is now at the "Department of Applied Biology, P.O. Box 27, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland".

Upon further reading of the first paper It appears that the low temperature technique will not increase cold resistance. At high temperatures the plant reactions speed up (normally double every 10 degrees) so the plant can modify. At low temperature the reactions slow down:

A quote from their paper:

"Cryopreservation at ultra-low temperatures prevents metabolic activities and allows plant materials to be stored with genetic alteration (17)."

Correction to the last quote:

The "with" should be changed to "without".

"Cryopreservation at ultra-low temperatures prevents metabolic activities and allows plant materials to be stored without genetic alteration (17)."

I can add that they state in the conclusion section:

"Futhermore, the use of vitrification protocols and optimized regeneration of shoots should minimize the risk of inadvertent genetic changes in treated plants."