Apparently you have a soil-bourne disease North American soils lack. If so, this is an excellent example of why international plant quarantines exist, and the restrictions on movement of soils are strictest of all.

(I neglected to add that this may be a nematode, rather than a "disease", although if it were a nematode I suspect by now it would have been identified as such.)

Be careful of your abbreviations. Most of the time on the forum RRD means Rose Rosette Disease. That is another dreaded problem for most of us in the Eastern US.

After conversations with a couple of highly respected English gardeners, I have come to believe that the existence of Rose Replant Disease is controversial. There is some thought that it is not an actual disease at all, but instead an exhaustion of the soil and destruction of the beneficial microbial life brought about by heavy fertilization, a common practice in rose growing.

If this is true, then you can plant a second rose where an older one was removed, provided the first rose did not die of a soil borne disease. Simply amend the soil generously with a good quality compost to restore the beneficial soil bacteria and fungi and top dress with an organic mulch. To keep it healthy, rely on good compost and the sparing use of organic fertilizers, when fertilizer is needed at all. Compost and mulch will supply most or all the needs of most roses, unless you are growing for competition and require perfection. Here I fertilize only once a year with alfalfa. I don't know if alfalfa is available to you -- I think it likes the soils of the American West.

You could experiment with one rose and see how this works in your own garden.

BTW, have you ever been to the gardens at Burton Agnes in Yorkshire? They have a lovely collection of campanulas that I think you would enjoy.

Rosefolly

Apples appear to behave similar to roses in a number of ways. This is what was reported for Apple replant disease in Washington State:

Title: Elucidation of the microbial complex having a causal role in the development of apple replant disease in washington.

Author: Mazzola M

Published in: Phytopathology (1998), volumn 88(9), pages 930-8.

ABSTRACT: "Systematic studies were conducted to elucidate the role of different soil microbial groups in the development of apple replant disease. Populations of targeted microorganisms were reduced by the application of semiselective biocides and soil pasteurization. Bacteria were not implicated in the disease, because application of the antibiotic chloramphenicol reduced soil populations of bacteria but failed to improve growth of apple transplants, while enhanced growth was achieved at pasteurization temperatures that did not alter attributes of the bacterial community recovered from apple roots. Populations of Pratylenchus penetrans were below the damage threshold level in eight of nine orchards surveyed, and nematicide applications failed to enhance apple growth in four of five replant soils tested, indicating that plant parasitic nematodes have a minor role or no role in disease development. Application of the fungicide difenconazole or metalaxyl enhanced growth of apple in all five replant soils, as did fludioxinil in the two soils tested. Soil pasteurization enhanced growth of apple and resulted in specific changes in the composition of the fungal community isolated from the roots of apple seedlings grown in these treated soils. Cylindrocarpon destructans, Phytophthora cactorum, Pythium spp., and Rhizoctonia solani were consistently isolated from symptomatic trees in the field and were pathogenic to apple. However, the composition of the Pythium and Rhizoctonia component and the relative contribution of any one component of this fungal complex to disease development varied among the study orchards. These findings clearly demonstrate that fungi are the dominant causal agents of apple replant disease in Washington state."

The full paper is available at:

http://apsnet.org/phyto/PDFS/1998/0629-01R.PDF

The paper has been cited by 58 more recent papers. They can be found at:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=18295961054132506448&hl=en&as_sdt=2000

Of particular interest (to me) is the following full paper that reports that adding a seed meal to the soil at planting may be useful for apple (If anyone tries it for roses, please let us know):

http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1094/PHYTO.2001.91.7.673

Here is a link that might be useful: seed meal paper

Sam McGredy, the rose breeder, said that you couldn't plant roses in an old raspberry patch. I suppose he thought of conditions in northern Ireland where he lived before moving to New Zealand.

Raspberries & blackberries are in the rose family, too.

Concerning the rose family subtopic, the following may be of interest:

The following article appeared in the 1960 Canadian Rose Annual pages 69-70. Of interest are the several crosses of roses with other members of the Rosaceae family.

For educational use only. This copy was made with a scanner. It is possible that critical errors could have been introduced. Please obtain a copy of the original before utilizing in experiments/articles.

Although the crosses at that time were sterile, it is possible that with modern techniques such as chromosone doubling fertile plants could be made.

Title: Hybridizing Limitations

Author: Roy E. Shepherd, Medina, Ohio

"It is somewhat difficult to realize that the Rose family (Rosaceae) contains approximately 100 widely distributed and diversified genera of trees, shrubs and herbs. It includes among others, and in addition to roses,
such well known and dissimilar subjects as the Spirea, Blackberry, Raspberry, Plum, Peach, Apple and Strawberry. Modern botanists have attempted to place a few of these in other families or to establish entirely new ones, but their endeavors have not been universally accepted.
Plant breeders have also made numerous attempts to cross different genera of the family in the hope that distinct and valuable plants may result, but nothing of great importance has been produced. Improvement
within a genus has been accomplished, however, by crossing one member with another and to these endeavors we must credit the great variety of apples, roses, etc., that we grow to-day.
There is considerable evidence to support the thought that Nature has created several inter-genera hybrids in the past, but man's accomplishments in this field have been comparatively few. Many persons believe that the
nectarine, for example, resulted from a man made cross of the peach and the plum, but it is more probable that it is a sport, or mutation, of the peach as nectarine seeds often produce peach trees and vice versa.
Although several members of the Rose family have genital organs of similar anatomy Nature has established certain laws that prevent their inter-breeding. Were it not for these restrictions we might have a conglomerated assortment of freak plant material with little practical or
esthetic value. On the other hand, there are many combinations that could give us something worth while if they could be effected. Perhaps, however, we should be satisfied with the rose as we now enjoy it, and not anticipate an apple tree bearing rose blossoms or a rose bush on which the blooms were followed by large luscious peaches. In all seriousness though there is a distinct possibility that science may eventually find means of effecting crosses that have failed previously, and inter-genera crosses within the Rosaceae group may become a reality. They should at least be interesting.
The writer has succeeded in budding a rose on to an apple branch and in crossing a rose with a member of the blackberry family, but the bud remained dormant and the seeds did not germinate. Dr. J. H. Nicolas, formerly
Research Director for Jackson and Perkins, was more successful as he raised three seedlings of a cross between an apple and a rose. They were similar to the latter in general appearance but showed evidence of apple influence in
the bark, foliage, and in the peculiarly colored double apple-like blossoms.
The latter, incidentally, were somewhat similar to those produced by Bechtels Crab but not as well formed or as large. The plants were barely remontant and after blooming they were inactive until fall when a second spurt took place. Further experience with Rose x Apple and Rose x Hawthorn crosses gave similar results and all proved to be sterile. They were therefore valueless for use as parents in further breeding along this line.
Yes, Nature is quite insistent that man does not make 'hash' of her children, and perhaps we should be content with the beautiful supply of plant material she has given us. The ever-present challenge to create plants
that are distinct from all others is so great, and intriguing, that man will probably continue to attempt crosses that now seem almost impossible; and who can say that he will not eventually succeed? Unfortunately plants have a tendency to transmit undesirable characteristics more readily than they do the desirable ones, and these hoped for inter-genera hybrids would probably produce blooms and fruits of inferior quality.
Insofar as roses themselves are concerned we still possess considerable unexplored possibilities within the genus. There are 333 somewhat distinct species of roses recorded in Modem Roses V, and but eight of these have
contributed to the major types of garden roses. Surely the other 325 have some potential and this should undoubtedly be explored before we spend time on intergenera exploration."

hugely interesting stuff. Rosefolly, I do believe you are right that it is a symptom rather than a disease per se but I do grow a lot of vegetables and have had to practice a strict rotation as there is a build up of nematodes and pests such as eelworm when a vegetable such as potatoes are grown persistently in the same place. Henry, this is certaqinly true for fruit as I do know it is not advisable to replant a cherry, for example, where another prunus has been grown. As for interspecies hybrids, Henry, I quite agree. If there is any doubt that the hand of meddling man may be in error, check out the hideous laburnum/cytisus cross - a frankly revolting mass of dirty pink and horrid yellow leguminous 'flowers'. Anyway, Peter Beales recommends planting new roses in a cardboard box filled with good clean loam, maybe added myccorhizae, and sinking the box into the old earth. I am going to try this andput my faith in rosefolly's recommendation of plenty of organic matter and a good organic fertilizer - probably just the old blood, fish and bone - it has never let me down yet.
Another eye-opener for me is growing roses on their own roots - this is something we simply never hear about over here. It is absolute orthodoxy that roses are budded onto a different rootstock. Well I know this is uneccessary, with species roses as I grow burnet roses, rosa primula, R.canina and R.moyesii from cuttings with no difficulty so I shall be embarking on a regime of semi-ripe cuttings this summer and seeing what happens.Many thanks for the advice. cheers, suzy

On the other hand, there are quite a few intergeneric orchid hybrids created by deliberate human hybridizing of orchids. There's also a human-created intergeneric hybrid of wheat (genus Triticum) and rye (genus Secale), known as "Triticale". It's quite rare for intergeneric hybrids to be successful, but it does happen very occasionally.