Hi Lucy, Thanks for your answer! I don't see how to post a photo - could you tell me how? As of today it's improving - quite a few new buds and leaves, counted at least 16 that bursted out between this morning and midnight - pretty exciting bc it looked dire a few days ago! I've always watered from top - never left soggy. Temperature has been between 72-80 F, maybe a tad more due to faulty ac.. After posting the initial message I added a second platter with water below (under the drainage tray) for humidity - appears it may be helping.. Just checked the bottom of the pot and noticed that there is indeed one root poking out now (wasn't there 6 weeks ago). Should I repot? Or would that be too stressful now? Late March: IMG_0333.JPG August (starting to revive after very sudden leaf drop): IMG_0695.jpg IMG_0696.jpg IMG_0697.jpg

Yup, leaf miners. Not much you can do if you plan to eat the lemons. It doesn't hurt the tree, just looks unsightly. You may be interested in using citrus fertilizer specifically for citrus plants as it contains many trace minerals that are unique to the proper growth of the tree.

My first thought is to agree with Fruitnut. Looks like herbicide damage from a phenoxy herbicide--2,4-D, MCP, and Dicamba are probably the most commonly used and one of these is probably in weed and feed. These herbicides can release vapors which will affect the foliage on sensitive plants even if you didn't contact them directly, and quite often light damage will show up in new growth while existing growth at the time of application will show little sign of damage. Glyphosate can also result in mis-shapen growth and chlorosis on new growth after minor exposure. When applying herbicides to your lawn, do it when there is a very light breeze(not wind) that is expected to continue until the herbicide has been neutralized or washed into the ground for breakdown by the soil. If it is dead calm, vapors or mist can form and stay in your yard. A light breeze will dilute this with fresh air so it is non damaging. Some trees are just extremely sensitive to these herbicides and need to be given a wide berth when applying and don't leave the empty application equipment near the tree, either--for sensitive trees, if you can smell it, so can the tree.

Concerning whether plant viruses are systemic (i.e. is the entire plant infected). In 1995 Davis reported in a reviewed scientific publication that: "The California Grapevine Certification Program has been based on two assumptions about leafroll disease in grapevines: that the disease does not spread significantly in the field in California and that the viruses that cause the disease are evenly distributed in infected vines. Careful testing of the Foundation Plant Materials Service vineyards at Davis using a new ELISA test suggests that these assumptions are not true. Changes in the California Grapevine Certification Program are underway as a result of this new information." ( http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v049n01p26&abstract=yes ). From the abstract one can click on the "Full Text" PDF to examine the full paper (you may have to hold down the control key). The following is a quote from the full paper: page 28 "The results revealed that for a few of the tested vines, samples collected from one side'were ELISA positive while the opposite side tested negative. These results suggest that in some vines GLRaVs are not distributed uniformly.". Is this still considered to be accurate? The following 2008 newsletter states: Page 37 "The R&C Program was guided at the outset by two assumptions about grapevine leafroll disease. The existing state of scientific knowledge at the time was that grapevine leafroll viruses spread only by grafting healthy stock with infected stock and did not spread naturally in vineyards. (Golino et al., 2002; Goheen et al.,1959). The second assumption was that the viruses that caused leafroll disease were evenly distributed through infected vines. (Rowhani and Golino, 1995). New technologies and many deteriorating vines later proved both assumptions inaccurate." ( http://fps.ucdavis.edu/WebSitePDFs/Newsletters&Publications/GrapeNewsletterOct2008.pdf ) ------------------------------------------ The key 2000 Mourey et.al. paper that documented uneven virus distribution in roses is at: http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1094/PHYTO.2000.90.5.522 It gives a reference to a 1998 paper that they summarize as stating: "virus distribution in the plant is often heterogeneous (1)." It also states: "ELISA test of cuttings. Six to eight single-node cuttings (approximately 5 cm long) of healthy and PNRSV-infected Anna and Lnidas plants were excised in the medial zone of floral stems at anthesis. Basal ends of the cuttings were dipped into 0.5% (wt/wt) ï¢-indole butyric acid. To protect them against fungal infection, they were treated with 800 mg of pyrimethanil (SCALA; AgrEvo, Berlin) per liter. Cuttings were cultivated in perlite in a heated glasshouse (minimal temperature 25°C) at 80% relative humidity. After 15 days, the rooted cuttings were transferred to a culture room at 22°C with a 16-h photoperiod. For each cutting, leaflets from the axillary leaf were tested by ELISA when cuttings were removed from the mother plant. Young shoots grown from the axillary buds of each cutting were tested by ELISA when they were 2 to 5 cm long." Table 1 in the paper tells the number of days after the mother plants were tested that the leafed out cuttings were tested (30 to 86) and the number of samples (48 to 76). In the conclusion section they state: "A total of 89% (59 out of 66) of Anna stems was entirely PNRSV negative when axillary shoots from these stems developed after the decapitation of the floral stem, after the development of cuttings, or grown in vitro were tested by ELISA. ELISA tests of leaves from these stems were all negative. Since IC-RT-PCR conducted in parallel on all the explants from three (out of seven) of these stems also were negative, we suspect that these stems were virus free, even if they belonged to infected plants, or that the viral titer was very low in the stems." Please notice the conservative word "suspect" and the conservative statement "or that the viral titer was very low in the stems." In my experience this is the normal way of stating results as scientists realize that our interpretations and experimental methods are not normally "absolutely definitive". -------------------------------- How could this information be useful to a rose gardener? First an example. If one finds that a branch that shows signs of RRD, the RRD literature suggests that if one cuts off the branch at the ground level that the plant "may" be saved. I have followed this advice and saved several important plants. Now, if a rose grower finds virus type symptoms on one branch; the older "Rose Virus" literature is telling him/her that it is futile to try to save the plant by either cutting off the diseased branch or by taking a cutting from a distant branch for a new start. I suggest that the literature should state that at present there is some scientific evidence that one "may" be able to obtain a virus free plant from cutting starts. And, by analogy to RRD, possibly cutting off the infected care at root level may save the plant. Here is a link that might be useful: 2000 Mourey et. al. rose virus paper