It is, most time it does not impact the roses. it looks healthy!

Rose Mosaic shows its presence mostly in springtime. As the season progresses, the symptoms usually disappear on new growth. Usually, the effects of Rose Mosaic are just cosmetic, and are of no serious consequence.

Moses

Yes, that's Mosaic Virus.

While its true that many roses do reasonably well with virus in their tissue, its also true that virus makes roses less tolerant of freezing weather (they're more easily damaged) and they produce approximately 15% less bloom than the same variety would without virus in it.

That said, there's no reason to destroy the rose - it won't spread to other roses, and you'll probably be reasonably satisfied with its performance.

Unfortunately, its been "an industry standard" for decades to grow and sell roses budded to virused rootstock (meaning, the whole plant becomes virused), so its hard to avoid, frankly. Grafted roses are often infected with one or more viruses.

​​​​​Thank you all so much for your replies. They were all very informative and helpful! And sorry for my delayed reply.

Paul, I am quite tickled to receive your advice! May I ask you about one of your roses I have had my eye on? I've been torn about trying to grow Joyce Barden rose in my 6b/7a humid Northern Virginia climate. I have read a couple people struggled with significant black spot with it in this climate, but there are not many reviews and it it quite a stunning rose! What are your thoughts?

Looks like my Queen Elizabeth also has it. Bummer. It otherwise looks healthy and is growing well, however, i was considering moving it. Is the soil around it now infected? If i move it and place an own root uninfected rose there now, will that rose probably become infected because of the soil?

Thanks again for your insight and experience!

Candace

Don't worry about it. Don't listen to Henry.

Amen. Diane

Eh rose mosaic virus is everywhere, unless you want to spend an insane amount of money for rose mosaic free roses, I wouldn’t worry about it.

I didn’t mean that 30$ is too much, but some places charge upwards of 50$, that’s a little bit too much. Thirty dollars is a great price, and it’s great to invest in virus free plants.

It’s great that people want to invest in virus free plants, but it hurts me to see plants that that still have enough life in them to produce a few blooms thrown away. These roses are virused, but they still are super pretty, and if I can give them a second chance and spare a few square feet to save a living plant, then I will. They all deserve a chance to shine.

That's why I was wondering, additionally, if I know that a rose is virused, but I want to move it and replace it with a rose that I am pretty darn sure is not virused, would I be infecting the new rose by placing it in that spot with some of the same soil?

I do a lot of research on most of the roses I get, or are planning to get, and I highly value  a rose's vigor, hardiness, bloom quantity/quality, and health. I am new to gardening, but I want to use my limited resources to invest in productive and healthy roses in my black spot ridden small slice of heaven. 

I value the roses I have, and am not going to throw them out. Also, I wont necessarily write off buying a rose because it's on root stock or from a box store. Im not going to loose sleep over it, but I want to do what i can to keep my healthy own root roses healthy.

Can i plant plant an uninfected rose where an infected rose was and keep it virus free? 

Thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge! I do value all the information and opinions.

Paul is of course correct that virus free roses should be a goal of the rose industry and I admire the scientists working to test and treat roses and sell virus free roses. I would pay for that.

If a home gardener already has a plant like Candace does, I would hope she could realize this can be lived with and is not contagious to other plants. I think she could plant in the same spot without fear.

This Evelyn is virused. I grown it nearly 18 years. Do you think I'm going to remove it-haha? Diane

Nobody is suggesting removing and destroying virused specimens if they are meeting your expectations.

But its not unreasonable to expect the industry to (eventually?) do the right thing and clean up their production.

We are all with you that they should remove virused stuff! I just won't get rid of my virused plants.

It is RMV. My RMV rose was Spectra, and it was my favorite rose. About 8-years ago, after I had it in the ground about 12-years, I noticed it was struggling to grow tall and bloom a prodigiously as it had bloomed. I also noticed the mosaic leaves. The virus just got worse over time. I finally dug up my favorite rose, this spring. I am hoping when its replacement arrives which is similarly colored, that it will become my new favorite.

"I noticed it was struggling to grow tall and bloom a prodigiously as it had bloomed. I also noticed the mosaic leaves. The virus just got worse over time. I finally dug up my favorite rose"

It is inevitable that many (not all, but many) varieties will be negatively impacted by RMV infection and start to decline, their performance waning gradually, prompting their removal and replacement. I've seen it many many times: an infected plant struggles to grow and never achieves much, but when I find a virus free example of the same variety, its like night and day how much better it performs.

You don't have to get rid of your virused plants, GardeningTeenager. But you say you think "they" should remove virused roses. I've seen you say a few times that you like saving/rescuing those body bag roses because they deserve a chance and all that... And also that you don't want to spend so much money on roses. But another thing to consider is that while you're wishing that they would stop producing virused roses, you're encouraging those companies to continue to produce cheap virused roses by giving them your money. The more people buy them, the more will be produced. Corporations will do whatever they see people will pay for. People buy cheap roses, they continue to produce cheap roses. If you don't want to support such a practice, don't give them your money. The plants aren't the ones who have any influence in the matter, so while it's nice to think of it as "rescuing" them, really it just ends up encouraging more of them to be produced in the cheapest way possible.

What Magpie said: you are voting with your wallet, so choose carefully. Buying the worst possible product only encourages the continued production of that product.

Back when I was "in the industry", the Texas producer "Certified Roses" meant to many of us "Certified Virused", because they knew they were producing virused plants, and they didn't care. I'm sure they still don't.

So, you're paying a company like that to not give a sh*t about your rose growing experience.

I never thought of it that way....

well now I'm convinced that I probably should look for better quality plants. Maybe that's why my virused ones die back so much!

It's okay. I hope you don't feel attacked or anything. I never thought of anything like that either as a teen. The allure of cheap anything is that it allows you to forgo patience: you don't have to save up as long to afford what you want/need. But if you are able to have a little patience while you save up a bit more, you can use that money to get the product you want AND support the companies that better align with your values and the direction you'd like the industry to go. There's only so much we can do as consumers, but where we spend our (extra) money is within our control.

Thank you for understanding!

It's just so odd how this virus spread so much throughout the industry. It only spreads through grafts so it must have been put in a virused rootstock then grafted to new plants spreading it. Are there any recorded cases of a plant's immune system fighting it off?

"it must have been put in a virused rootstock then grafted to new plants spreading it."

Most of the "discount" growers are using 'Dr. Huey' as rootstock, because it works well with almost any variety they want to graft to it, and its ridiculously easy to propagate. However, these companies re-use the same plants of 'Dr. Huey' year after year, and most of them started out with virus in them. So most (or all) stock plants of 'Dr. Huey' are virused to start with, and when you graft a clean scion to the "Dirty Huey", you get a virused plant every time.

I expect that at nurseries like Certified, 100% of their parent Huey stock is virused. Because they produce the cheapest plants in the industry, they don't have the budget to clean up their inventory and start over with virus indexed Huey, nor do they have any motivation to do so, since millions of people buy their plants every year.

That said, you do what makes you happy. Not every rose succeeds, but the ones that do are a win. Its also worth noting that some roses cannot be found anywhere as virus-free, because when they were introduced decades ago, ALL the plants produced were grafted to virused stock, so every existing specimen found today is virused also. Case in point would be Moore's beautiful 'Climbing Yellow Sweetheart'. It was long presumed extinct until it was found in someone's yard 20+ years ago, but of course, it is virused. So now, every specimen in existence is virused too. It would be nice if this had been avoided by more careful production protocols.

Teenager, what is your plant hardiness zone?

"It is inevitable that many (not all, but many) varieties will be negatively impacted by RMV infection and start to decline, their performance waning gradually, prompting their removal and replacement. I've seen it many many times: an infected plant struggles to grow and never achieves much, but when I find a virus free example of the same variety, it's like night and day how much better it performs."

This is precisely my experience.

That said, about 2-weeks ago I was visiting my elderly parents who live 1,500 miles distant in Tucson. Dad regards me as the family rosarian. It was his parents that got me interested in roses, and dad is no slouch when it comes to growing roses in his Arizona environment. However, I noticed he had RMV in Queen Elizabeth. I know that rose has been in the ground at least 10-years. He did not want to shovel prune it because it is a good producer. I think that is a logical choice in his Arizona climate, and given his advance age, it makes good sense, mostly because of climate, which tamps down the adverse effects of RMV.

The other thing he asked me about was why he had little red roses coming up :) amongst two of his roses. He said he likes the color. So I lobbied mom, showing her the pics of Dr. Huey's growth habit. She didn't think they need a burgeoning wide and spreading climbing rose. Fortunately, Dr. Huey was cut back to the ground.

I have seen many fine specimens of 'Queen Elizabeth' that displayed obvious evidence of RMV infection, and yet the plants were strong and "healthy" and bloomed with abandon. Some varieties are barely touched by the infection. Others are totally ruined by it.

So when did this virus first show up? And where did it come from? Does it grow in other plants like roses? Did it jump from another plant to a rose?

@GardeningTeenager

RMV is not one single virus, its a family of viruses. The most common version is PNRSV (aka Prunus necrotic ringspot virus), and it was (so the story goes) introduced into roses decades ago when folks were experimenting with grafting roses onto Shirofugen Cherry plants. The Cherries were infected with PNRSV and so the scion material became infected also, and from there, it was spread.

I can't find documentation of this on the web, but I am pretty sure its out there somewhere.

Rifis, I don't believe he posted on this thread. I was confused by the comment as well and did a little digging, and I looks like he has commented on other threads regarding RMV. Someone correct me if I'm wrong? I would be interested in his opinion as well.

• Sheila z8a Rogue Valley OR
  9 days agoDon't worry about it. Don't listen to Henry.Like | 3

• Diane Brakefield
  9 days agoAmen. DianeLike | 1
  

I’ve just read all of Paul’s useful comments, and I’d like to know what Henry said.

He may have deleted his comment after Sheila’s recommendation (which received 3 “likes”).

Does anyone remember what he posted?

And Diane, your Evelyn is breath taking!

I've seen Henry mention PNRSV here before.

Candace, Paul is the expert. Henry spews nonsense. Don't go down the rabbit hole.

Let's not be negative... We should all show respect for each other, and as long as Henry doesn't attack he is perfectly ok IMO to post here. He's just expressing his opinion. Paul and I both have different opinions and we do things different, but both of us have mutual respect for each other's opinions.

The problem is that Henry has a LONG history of contributing a lot of less than helpful speculative science that he sources from published papers, and rarely does any of this actually translate into useful information for real world gardeners.

Of course anyone is welcome to say whatever they want on a forum, but after many many years of witnessing spectacularly unhelpful information being disseminated here, its hard not to brace oneself for a fresh tsunami of alarmist "data" that almost always ensues when RMV is discussed here.

Fact: some GardenWeb readers have ingested some of this RMV "data" and panicked, removing and destroying their roses, fearing an imminent (imaginary) catastrophe. That is not an optimal experience, and IMO is to be avoided.

I see gloves are off, but what did he say?

Surely the forum members can judge for themselves the accuracy of what was posted.

Does not anyone who liked Sheila’s comment or invoked a religious utterance remember?

@rifis (zone 6b-7a NJ)"Surely the forum members can judge for themselves the accuracy of what was posted."

Oh, absolutely. But the unfortunate fact is that it has often happened that some people have been misled by certain statements posted about viruses in roses, and then made poor decisions that were overreactions and unnecessary. IE: removing and destroying all of their roses, fearing that one virused plant would spread disease to all their roses. (In a garden setting, 99.995% of the time casual transmission does not happen)

So, if some of us choose to put "warning buoys" around some statements that occasionally get posted here, its to warn less experienced growers that some statements discuss scenarios and possibilities that are often taken from virus research papers, some of which is VERY general and not applicable to roses. (H has in the past posted material gleaned from research papers that have absolutely nothing to do with viruses found in Roses, and people have often misinterpreted this data and reacted in panic)

Those of us who prefer to warn readers about H's posts have nearly twenty years of experience with this scenario, and its not at all about attacking anyone - its about letting readers know that there is a high likelihood that some of the content H posts is not going to be helpful to those who are seeking information about the common viruses found in roses, like PNRSV, and in fact some of this "data" is likely to be very misleading and will potentially cause some folks to get panicky. I see no reason we shouldn't put such data into context, with the goal of helping readers "judge for themselves" what is useful information, and what is not.

Thank you for the clarification, Paul.

Another question: I would like to avoid buying a rose that has rose mosaic virus. Given what is discussed here, and my limited experience, is it safe at assume that most own root roses are virus free and that many, if not most, grafted roses, particularly from big box stores, are viruses? I understand that an own root rose can be propagated from a virused plant and that there are indeed root stock in this world that are not virused. But how do you go about acquiring nonvirused roses given industry practice and the practicality of finding a specific rose, assuming a nonvirused clone exists?

@candace z6b VA

There's no way to know for certain what you're buying. If you buy from a company that states they certify virus free plants, then odds are very good you'll get clean plants.

If you buy $3.99 "body bag" specials at generic box stores, the odds are very very good that you'll receive either virused plants, mislabeled plants, and often both.

Buying own root plants is no guarantee that you're receiving clean plants, its true. If cuttings are taken from a grafted, infected plant, all the resulting specimens will be virused, guaranteed. There are MANY roses in commerce that were infected with RMV the second they were introduced, and the odds of finding a clean specimen is close to zero (unless one of the virus cleanup labs has "cleaned" the plant and reintroduced it).

"how do you go about acquiring nonvirused roses given industry practice and the practicality of finding a specific rose, assuming a nonvirused clone exists?"

Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it?! Its a huge challenge, definitely. It appears that Heirloom Roses in St. Paul, OR still guarantees virus free plants, so that would be a reasonable place to start. (though admittedly they charge extraordinary prices for their product, but its expensive to maintain an own root catalog of virus free specimens, so....)

I guess it all comes down to cost: how much are YOU willing to pay to obtain a specific variety and get one guaranteed to be clean? Myself, I think its worth it to spend $50 for a certified virus free rose if its a cultivar I really want, and expect to spend years cultivating into a noteworthy specimen. I wouldn't bother investing my time and energy (which after 5-10 years is a MUCH bigger investment than the original purchase price) on a $5 bargain bagged rose that will almost certainly never reach its intended potential. But that's just me, and my decision-making.

Im pretty mew to roses and have been reading this forum for a year. Thank you all for your knowledge, especially Paul. I have a few of your roses in my driveway, more arriving this week and I’m *very excited about them.

Can someone explain how the virus doesnt spread to other roses? With dahlias and DMV when I see signs of virus I immediately chuck the plant bc it can be spread by mites and thrips etc. But if I read correctly this is not the case with RMV?

Why do you think it is RMV? The one cane that is bigger than the others? I always thought the telltale sign was canes covered in thorns.

That's a different virus, rose rosette disease.

Rose mosaic is a different virus. It just affects the leaves and cold hardiness and vigor. I've personally never seen it cause twisted growth like rose rosette.