Jessica you will probably get a variety of answers so I suggest reading some to find what you think is the best answer for you. Locally Extensions services based on info from Texas A&M agricultural research says you can replant in 10-14 days. RRD is carried by a mite that will vacate a rose once it starts to die. If you have gotten all the roots out then you can replant. Since the mites blow in the wind and can be carried a long way you may or may not have damage to other roses in your yard. If you had any diseased KO that had canes touching other roses and you didn't take them out you should watch the other roses for disease very carefully. In addition to the mites blowing in the wind they walk from cane to cane.

Roundup can pass through a connected system. But despite Henry's repeated quotes of various scientific articles (usually related to edible annual herbaceous plants unrelated to roses or seedling growth in farmland) there is no real evidence that any transfer from roots to soil to roots in the sort of application we're talking about, can really harm an adjacent hardwood bush like a rose, not to mention a huge established shrub like the one we are discussing. People have been 'surgically' removing garden plants using roundup for ever. Most of it is bound rapidly to the soil (to the extent that cutting a stub and powdering with a little dirt before 'rounduping' greatly diminishes the efficacy of the herbicide) and what little may or may not end up in the rizosphere from where some may or may not be absorbed by adjacent roots has not shown any harmful effects under field conditions. Now we have discussed this repeatedly before and I'm sure Henry will come up with yet a few obliquely related articles stating that traces of roundup or the results of its decomposition in the soil have mean identified in adjacent plants (and I have no reason not to believe this) but the field experience of millions of gardeners and farmers shows you can roundup a bush with the cut and apply method with no noticeable harmful effects to the adjacent ones. If there was a problem we would know about it through collective knowledge and word of mouth even if we didn't undestand the mechanics of it. I don't challenge what the linked articles are describing, I'm challenging Henry's crude interpetation and his arbitrary chain linking of them, which is grossly exaggerating to say the least. I'm sure Henry understands very well what he's reading but when someone is on a mission anything goes. There, I have vented off. PS I have never ever sprayed roundup or any other herbicide in my garden for weed control and I don't intend to, but I have used roundup on cut stems and stubs of small bushes and large trees repeatedly when it was the only viable solution to get rid of the plant for whatever reason. PS2 In the above I don't mean to recommend the roundup method for the particular RRV suspicion problem at hand. Firstly I have no knowledge or experience of RR disease and secondly I wouldn't do it myself out of fear of passing the herbicide through a possibly connected root system which, even if it doesn't kill the mother plant, it may cause symptoms similar to RRD which, for obvious reasons, would defeat the purpose of the original effort to save the mother plant..... I just commented on the use of roundup to kill individual plants.

The virus, unless it was in the graft, comes onto the foliage through mites. It works its way down the cane to the bud union, or roots in that case. No I just got rid of the whole thing, and am still looking for the smaller roots. I really dont think the hairy roots are that much to worry about, but its hard to get all the roots. In my case it was not in the grafted canes yet. If it is an old rose, you might want to replace soil anyway. The concern about roots might be that multiflora can grow from a small root, and many grafted roses in the NE and Canada are on multiflora. Every body is trying to go own root as much as possible because of the infection in MF.

Google translation of a German paper presented at a meeting. "Infection of roses with viruses with special attention to the Rose rosette virus and Ilarviren Virus-suspicious symptoms such as checks, chlorotic ring spots and line patterns, partly in combination with growth spills and death-related symptoms, have been observed for several years in the rosaceae of a varietal collection. The cause is a variety of plant viruses, which can infect roses. Various viruses (Tomato ringspot virus, Tomato ringspot virus, Tirolo mosaic virus, Tomato ringspot virus) are commonly found as virus complexes in different combinations Roses are most widespread (Milleza et al., 2013). In Germany, the Raspberry ringspot nepovirus (RpRSV) was recently detected in roses of Mainau Island (Bargen et al., 2015). In addition, other viruses have been described in roses, including the Rose rosette virus (RRV, genus Emaravirus), which is widely distributed in the United States, causing considerable loss of yield in all areas of rosaceae cultivation (Babu et al., 2016). Leaf samples of various varieties including tea hybrids, climbing roses, foribunda or polyanthoses with the above-mentioned symptoms were examined for a virus infection by means of DAS-ELISA or RT-PCR method using genus-specific oligonucleotides in connection with sequencing of the PCR products. In the study of 8 rose samples of different varieties with virus-suspicious leaf symptoms, infection with RRV could be detected by the use of generic (Elbeaino et al., 2013) as well as by RRV-specific oligonucleotides (Laney et al RT-PCR can be excluded. Further results of this study on the detection of Ilarviruses are presented and discussed. http://www.schoenmuth.de/Posterdok/Posterdokumentation-PM2016/2016-PST-Halle/2016-PST-Posterabstracts/Posterabstract-PST2016-122a-Stummer_28z.pdf A second link indicates that no rose rosette virus was found. Again from a Google translation: "For a number of years, a variety of virus-suspicious symptoms have been observed in the rose stands of a rose collection in Germany. They are manifested by checks, chlorotic ring spots, and lines (Fig. 1), partly in connection with growth spills and deaths. A variety of plant viruses are to be considered for the infection of roses, a. Various ilarviruses such as, For example, Apple mosaic virus (ApMV), Prunus necrotic ringspot virus (PNRSV) or Tobacco streak virus (TSV) (Milleza et al., 2013). Furthermore, the Raspberry ringspot nepovius (RpRSV) was recently found on the island of Mainau in Germany. (Bargen et al., 2015). Another major virus that infects roses is the rose rosette emaravirus (RRV). It is widespread in the United States and leads there to considerable losses in income in all areas of the cultivation of roses (Babu et al., 2016). The aim of this study was to detect plant viruses, which could be the cause of the observed disease symptoms on the roses. The emphasis was on the detection of Ilar- and Potyviren as well as of RRV. Ilarviren Detection of PNRSV and potyviruses (Table 1) in the ELISA • Confirmation Ilarvirus infection with RT-PCR (Fig. 2) • No detection of potyviruses with RT-PCR • Identification of ApMV in "Pelé" and PNRSV types in the tea hybridomas " Promise "," Climbing New Yorker "and" Parade "by sequencing selected products of the Ilarvirus PCR • Exclusion of the infection with RRV of 8 rose samples of different varieties with chlorotic ring spots, graying or oak leaf patterns as no products in either category or RRV Specific PCR • No detection of the tested viruses in several symptom bearing roses" Also see Table 1. http://www.schoenmuth.de/Posterdok/Posterdokumentation-PM2016/2016-PST-Halle/2016-PST-Posters/Stummer-DPST2016-Poster.pdf