Does the American Rose Society have recommendations on rose rosette? I found articles on their website. When contacting the local society, it would appear they believe there are large numbers of herbicide damage being mistaken as rosette, and there is just no way to tell attitude. I was hoping to find someone besides myself, and the local extension to confirm to others that what is present is actually rosette. I thought if there was a rose expert I could recommend to my HOA to consult with maybe they would wake up. I viewed pictures of herbicide damage, and it looks different. The local extension agent knows the difference, and has seen the difference. My fear is others may take the it is just herbicide damage no worries here attitude. Another resident removed diseased bushes, I wanted to cry when I saw it, because I was so happy someone actually paid attention. Anyone know if you can get arrested from taking photos at public places considered private property such as shopping centers?

Great posts all. These chemicals are so dangerous and so many are so unaware or couldn't care less. Years ago my aunt's cat was diagnosed with sclerosis of the liver disease. She jokingly stated that her cat didn't drink. Her veterinarian asked if the cat went outdoors and told her that the disease probably developed due to exposure to her neighbors lawn that was treated by ChemLawn. My husband works for the utility company. They sprayed Roundup several years ago to kill some weeds at one of their job sights. NOTHING has grown there since. We use no chemicals in our yard but have very few honey bees although we do have lots of bumblebees. My crab apple tree had plenty of spring blossoms but has virtually no fruit due to lack of honeybees. We have no lawn, just flower beds and gravel paths on about 1/4 acre of our 1 acre lot. The rest is woods. I don't know if the lack of bees is due to our being in such a wooded environment or if there is something else going on. We have plenty of dragonflies and butterflies so it may be that honeybees like a more open area rather than dense woods. I bought Bayer 3 in 1 once and never used it when I reasoned that there was no way for the pesticide to distinguish the good bugs from the bad. I now deal with the insect damage if not too severe and try to manually kill the damaging insects when they start to overwhelm the plants. When you look at the seeming explosion of cancers in our generations, 1959, and later it's difficult to not question whether this is due to the fact that we are poisoning our food with this toxic arsenal. I know several women who have had breast cancer but don't recall any of my mother's friends being diagnosed with this disease in their 40's and early 50's. 2 of my 6 grandchildren are mildly autistic, one also suffers severe food allergies, a third was diagnosed with cancer at age 9 1/2. It really makes you wonder if the explosion of allergies, autism and cancer diagnosis is related to the explosive use of such toxic chemicals that contaminate our air, water and food. Massachusetts is considering passing GMO labeling laws so at least the shopper will be aware of whether the food they eat is GMO or not. Monsanto is now making GMO grass seed so soon even grass fed beef will not be safe from contamination. What is scariest though is the apathy and indifference among most people who either don't know or don't care about all of the toxins being introduced to our foods and water supplies. I recently purchased some David Austin roses from a nursery in NY. She recommended both disease and insect spraying. I might spray for disease if absolutely necessary but adamantly refused to spray for insects. Her anecdotal response was that she has plenty of insects around so she really couldn't believe that she was having an impact on the ecosystem. What would happen if we all felt this way? Sharon

Hi Pink Rose, In Florida it is common for our sandy soils to lack potassium, and the leaves in your photos look like potassium deficiency. The older leaves have spotting around the edges and the new leaves are light between the veins. You should try adding potassium. You can try potassium sulfate or potassium chloride. Sprinkle around the base of the plants and water it in, don't use too heavy a hand because you don't want to get the soil too salty, but in sandy soils, it is unlikely. The results show very quickly if this is the problem. The organic solution is greensand or wood ash. Don't use wood ash unless your ph is too low. If the problem is low potassium then you should use Greensand for long term control. The ultimate solution is organic material but this can take time. Have you tested your ph? You don't want to add lime unless you need it. The ifas extension literature says don't add lime unless your ph is less then 5.5. If it is greater than 6.5 then you may want to try sulfur. The recommended lime type is dolomite lime. I don't see a lot of mulch in your photos. In Florida, mulch is absolutely essentially to keep the organic material from being used up quickly, without mulch sandy soil will turn into beach sand. The color on the new growth could also indicate iron deficiency and the spots on the edge of the leaves could indicate some kind of stress. I think you should try the potassium and if the plants don't show real improvement in a week, take more photos and we'll try again.

I think it's too simplistic to say that there is inevitably competition for nutrients and rootspace and sunshine although it depends what you mean by growing optimally (and @daninthedirt did admit that may be acceptable). Now sure, if you're trying to grow some prize-winning tomatoes and nothing but those tomatoes, maybe the competition is harmful. And obviously two very heavy and dominant plants with high nutrient needs may compete to the (significant) detriment of both - but some combinations may work very well. It's not simple at all, it's not just competition - some plants need more or less sunlight, and partial shade from 'competing' plants may hardly affect some or even be beneficial. Some soil cover from other plants grown alongside might be beneficial. Plants don't generally use all of the nutrients in the soil, certainly not all at once, and they may have different needs at different parts of their growing cycle. The nutrient requirements are often described in terms where you look at which nutrient is the limiting factor (often nitrogen) - and for many of the nutrients and especially micronutrients, once they have 'enough' of that particularly input, adding more doesn't make any difference (and competition from other plants is not a factor); some plants bring their own nitrogen by fixing it at the roots. Likewise with root systems - root systems of different plants coexist all the time, and may even be beneficial to each other - helping soil nutrient exchange, drainage, tilth of the soil, etc. (Yes, of course, some root systems will outright compete with each other - you don't want to try to grow tomatoes in the dense woody root system of a big tree). Other things - microorganisms and fungi - are also present in healthy soil, and they're not all 'competing.' Now I'm not trying to push anything - just saying that 'competing for resources' is not necessarily the right way to look at it. It depends. In fact the limiting factor concept may apply well to most of the inputs - sun, nutrients, water - although water is probably the easiest to grasp, ie. once the plant has enough water it won't be affected by other plants taking more. I'm not a chemist but I think the way to look at nutrients in soil is not as if you're feeding a dog with a bowl of food (and the cat eating the dog's food is direct competition), but as a chemical solution - ie. as a percentage of the whole (the concentration), the total physical amount is not so much the issue because plants absorb nutrients differently. Some plant may grow best when (say) potassium availability is above X% (and below some other percentage); the difference to this way of looking at it is that the plant doesn't necessarily 'consume' all that much of the total potassium in its area, it absorbs enough and grows best by chemical exchange when the potassium concentration is in its optimal range (the plant's processes to absorb chemicals work best in that range of concentration, regardless of how much it actually physically needs in weight or volume terms). As long as the other plants don't outright consume so much that they throw off the concentration, it's not really a limiting factor. Note, I'm using potassium here a bit randomly - nitrogen is I think a bit more complicated, both because some plants require a fair bit and that nitrogen is more volatile and not as persistent in the soil. This is obviously a simplification as there are concepts like availability, the nutrients aren't in a liquid solution (soil is quite complex and heterogenic) even if overall it acts like a solution, may be partially/loosely bound to other chemicals, tied up by microbes, water is the most common solvent so moisture affects all of the above, aeration of soil matters too, etc., etc.