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

Too much heat and not enough water would probably be showing browning after wilting of rhododendron growth. Without a picture, I would guess insect. If you lived in the east, rhododendron midge would be a possibility, aphid and white fly can also cause distorted new growth. Have you checked undersides for any visible signs of insect?

This may contradict some of your comments already posted, but I've had great luck for the last three consecutive years forcing my bulbs to bloom for Xmas and Lunar New Year. I followed Maria's advice by uprooting the bulbs, washing off the roots, cutting off all the leaves, and placing the bulbs in the veggies compartment of the fridge to sleep for 8 weeks. Then I took them out, cleaned up the bulbs and the dried roots, and replanted them in good soil. For 2007, 2008 and 2009... three years in a row, I always have had blooms on the bulbs I forced. I reported the results on this forum in 2008 but I cannot find the old thread. This year, I'm having two bulbs in the fridge and will take them out end of this month for their timed bloom in mid-December. I shared the tips with blogger friends in Malaysia and already one of them also has had success. You can read about his story in the link below. Another friend is also working on the tips at the moment and awaiting blooms. Thanks for reading my story. Xuan

My guess would also be a nutritional deficiency, and I agree with the repot, though it would be better if you waited to repot until June, when the plant should make the fastest recovery. Keep in mind, a repot is much more extensive than simply potting up. Between now and then, I would: * Flush the soil very thoroughly the next time the plant needs water and fertilize with a soluble synthetic fertilizer with a 3:1:2 NPK ratio. RATIO is different than %s. 24-8-16, 12-4-8, 9-3-6 are all 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers. I highly recommend Foliage-Pro 9-3-6 because it contains all the nutrients essential to normal growth in a favorable ratio (to each other) which can be very important - especially so if you're using a soil that forces you to water in small sips to avoid root rot or suppressed root function due to soggy soil conditions. * Fertilize regularly with appropriate doses. We can figure that out once we know what you'll be using and figure out how close you can come to watering correctly. For best growth and vitality, make sure that when you repot, it's into a soil that allows you to flush the soil of accumulating salts at will. You'll be at a turning point in your ability to maintain healthy plant material consistently once you understand how much influence excess water retention has in limiting your plants, and how much easier it is to grow things when you can water properly. The ability to water correctly is also a key element in your ability to take and maintain precise control over nutritional supplementation (fertilizing). Questions? Al