Green, love that Cream Abundance; gotta get me one. I've always had good results with direct planting of HT, floribunda, and shrub bands straight into the ground. All but maybe 4 or 5 of the 75 bands I planted into a new bed last year survived a brutual winter here, with January temps of -22F for several days. The only protection they had was a layer of oak mulch and leaves that had blown in. My Vintage bands have put on quite a bit of new growth since being planted the first of May. Some are blooming, and I noticed today that a few newbies are even putting forth new basal breaks. I like to get them settled in and growing well before their first winter. It's working well for me so far. -terry

Seil and Henry, Also missing is how many tried removal at first sighting. Most people waffle. And unsaid is the class/classes of roses that the folks grow. From speaking to that group, I'd guess that the majority grow modern roses because they are rose show centric. I've had little luck saving Hybrid Teas and Floribundas but very good luck saving older roses and shrub roses. Unfortunately there's nothing in the scientific (or otherwise) rose literature about basic differences in rose classes, pretty much you either read about exterior appearances or differences at the genetic level.

Title: Evaluation of rose germplasm for resistance to Rose rosette disease Danielle Novick and Thomas A. Evans, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, U.S.A. "Rose rosette disease (RRD) is a lethal disease of roses (Rosa spp.) caused by Rose rosette emaravirus and vectored by the eriophyid mite Phyllocoptes fructiphilus. It is one of the most devastating diseases of landscape roses, producing aesthetically disfiguring symptoms within months and eventually killing the plant. Unfortunately, there is no known resistance among commercial rose cultivars and the few rose species that have demonstrated resistance are not ideal candidates for introgression of resistance genes into commercially viable cultivars. This study hopes to identify rose genotypes that merit consideration as candidates in a breeding scheme for resistance to RRD. A total of 151 genotypes are being screened in an ongoing field trial at the University of Delaware in Newark, DE. In addition to high natural disease pressure, the field has received multiple augmentations since its establishment in May 2015. Augmentation consisted of using twist ties to affix symptomatic shoots of RRD-infected Rosa multiflora to actively growing shoot tips of target roses. The vector preferentially feeds on symptomatic tissue, so augmentation artificially enhanced vector populations. Any roses that developed symptoms were subsequently tested by RT-PCR to confirm the presence of RRV. Thus far 85 genotypes have been verified as susceptible to RRD. The study will continue through 2018 and any roses remaining symptom-free will be assayed to confirm the absence of viral replication." http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/PHYTO-107-7-S4.1

I'm not sure of the specifics, but here's how I see RRD affecting roses -- both to further the spread of the virus, and also to result in the eventual demise of the rose. In the animal world, there are numerous examples of various parasite species causing changes in their hosts which facilitate the spreading of the parasite. I remember some examples of infected fish being attracted to swimming erratically near the surface, which makes them more obvious to avian predators. The parasite spends its second stage of life within the birds, so affecting the fish in this way would be an evolutionary advantage to those parasites. I think something similar is going on with RRD. The virus seems to trigger the rose to produce exuberant soft new growth which doesn't seem to mature. This is the type of growth which is most attractive to pests which feed on sap, so symptomatic growth would actually be sought out and fed upon more readily than asymptomatic normal growth. By creating an attractive and easy source of food, the virus is capable of spreading more easily. Of course, viruses aren't capable of thinking this through, but those viruses capable of engendering such physiological changes in plants which facilitate infection of new plants would also have an evolutionary advantage. Now, I don't know how RRD infected roses do in frost-free climates, but where Winters are real, those never-maturing soft RRD-infected growths would be decimated by the cold. Each year, an infected rose would have less and less live wood, and infected cells would be "forced" by the virus to continue producing this type of growth. Eventually, the reserves would be drained, and the rose dies. I'm not completely sure, but what I've seen of RRD-infected roses seems to indicate to me that the infected growth isn't really capable of photosynthesis -- or, at least, not to the degree of producing more food than is consumed by producing that type of growth. Just as a plant which produced blooms in lieu of producing leaves would eventually starve to death, my thoughts are that in frost-free climates, RRD-infected roses would similarly starve to death. But without Winter-kill, this would likely take longer. :-) ~Christopher