I'll presume by "virus" you mean rose mosaic. There are other viruses of roses, but mosaic is the common one, and since you mention leaf markings, seems likely. You can't always tell that a rose does not have rose mosaic, since lack of symptoms doesn't mean anything. But if the right symptoms appear, they can be fairly diagnostic. There are four common symptom groups:
1. "mosaic," in which the leaf has patches of yellow or white, often delineated by a major vein, and covering anything from a tiny spot to nearly the entire leaflet.
2. Zigzag line patterns (most common) in which there is a yellow or white line on the leaflet, sigzagging every time it crosses a major vein.
3. watermarking, in which there is a very faint, fine, lacy-looking "watermark" on the leaf, like someone was doodling with a very faint marker of some sort -- a different shade of green on the green.
4. Vein banding, in which the major veins are white, yellow, or at least paler, on an otherwise green leaf.

None of these duplicates the symptoms of any nutrient deficiency. And if any of these clearly appears, there is a high probability that the plant has mosaic.

A google images search should turn up quite a collection of good pictures, as well as some iffy ones.

Depending on the strain of the virus, that, then, may or may not be the reason your plant is not performing well. Some varieties of rose, with some strains of mosaic, don't seem to suffer much, whereas others become quite severely affected.

Thank you so much for the response, Malcolm.

But I was actually thinking about my roses like Old Blush, that I have had for years, and it is not very large. I have tried to cut it back, fertilize it, and really take care of it, but it never gets over about 4 feet. Yet, others talk about how large it gets.

In my garden my 4 Martha Gonzalez also don't seem to have vigor. In their case I probably need to deadhead them, and find that a very difficult task. I wondered if there were other obvious signs of a virus that others know about and I don't. (Some take shears to Martha, but mine have so many depths of blooms that I would cut them back way too far.)

I also think that some of my blooms are much smaller than what other people have.

Sammy

I'm glad to see this post because I'm beginning to believe there is something wrong with my Cornelia (5 years old). In the 1st couple of years, I assumed the lack of vigor and discolored foliage was the result of poor soil/poor care, but after improving both, it is still plagued with pale leaves and sparse blooms. I'm considering replacing it with another Cornelia, but I'm concerned about planting any rose in that same spot. Is it safe to do that?
Molly

I would be so thrilled if my 'Old Blush' ever made it to four by four feet! I've yet to see either of mine exceed 2 X 2, and its not because of virus*, but simply because many roses don't get as large here as they would in SoCal or Florida.

And as Malcolm has pointed out, some roses perform well in spite of being infected with RMV. I have a specimen of Ralph Moore's 1952 climber 'Climbing Yellow Sweetheart' that clearly shows symptoms of RMV and yet it is one of the most vigorous climbers I grow, blooming non-stop and is otherwise a shining example of what a modern climber can and should be.

Paul
*I don't actually know its infection status; it may or may not have one or more viruses.

Sometimes you just have a weak plant, and another clone of the same rose will do better.

Often the problem is with the roots. If you remove a rose, look at them carefully. You might see signs of root rot or crown gall. If you do see a root problem, you probably shouldn't replant there, although some advocate replacing the soil. There could be competing roots from nearby trees, or a lack of drainage.

Sometimes roses just don't do as well in your location as others. Overly alkaline or acidic soil, climate, sun, etc. I'm with Paul and think that a four-ft Old Blush isn't bad. Even in Sacramento, which is a great place for Chinas and Teas, our Old Blush isn't much bigger.

I also agree with Paul that Rose Mosaid Virus doesn't necessarily affect growth. I have a 30-ft-wide 'Handel' covering a wall, which would stretch even further if it had room. Blooms nonstop. I shudder to think what it would be like if it were even MORE vigorous, but the mottled foliage would never win a prize!
Anita

very interesting thread. Sammy, i have felt that way many times that my roses don't seem to be performing up to what some literature says, but then i have some that far exceed what i read. I have also experienced a clone that just goes down hill and dies no matter what you do, and reluctantly buy a clone from a different vendor and it takes off and you wouldn't think it was the same rose. I quit even comparing my roses to each other because they all grow different and at different speeds. Still my biggest thrill is seeing new growth, because i know that they are doing fine when i see that.

Overly alkaline or acidic soil, climate, sun, etc. I'm with Paul and think that a four-ft Old Blush isn't bad. Even in Sacramento, which is a great place for Chinas and Teas, our Old Blush isn't much bigger.

*** I'd jump for joy if our Old Blush hit 4 ft.
It's grown here for 20 years, and sometimes it gets to 3 ft.
And it mildews, all the time, at a low level.
Anything that's pretty much in the Old Blush line has similar problems here -- while the RED Chinas are all great here.
I believe our extremely alkaline conditions are a factor in this.

Jeri

Hi Sammy,
You can have your soil tested by the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service.
I've tested locations for sunlight with strawberry plants--you can get a good idea of how sunny the spot is by the berry production. Perhaps there is a similar test plant for your area.

Here is a link that might be useful: OK State soil testing

Probably all "weak" rose plants have viruses or similar problems. One of the main vectors of viruses in garden plants is aphids.

The easiest way to identify virused roses is to go to a garden center and find their grafted roses from the usual large suppliers.

There, you have identified virused roses.

Various old garden roses have had a long time to become infected and may have multiple virues. Cleaning up a stock of a particular variety might result in a tremendous increase in vigor and production.

I'm hopeful that Malcolm Manners will jump in on this, but I'll go out on a limb and share what I learned at UC Davis - Mike Cunningham told me that aphids don't actually spread rose mosaic virus, and that the only way it spreads is by propagating infected material, either own-root or by grafting onto infected rootstock, or by root grafting. Malcolm has stated that root grafting is a unique situation, observed when plants are extremely close, so it's probably not an issue in a garden setting.

I don't think, either, that all weak rose plants are virused. Some are just inherently weak, or unsuited for your garden conditions.

Sorry to be contradictory!
Anita

"Probably all "weak" rose plants have viruses or similar problems."

I'm going to back Anita up on a few matters here. While its true that some rose varieties will underperform badly when infected with certain strains of virus (Prunus Necreotic Ringspot Virus is a particular culprit), this is not always true at all. Some roses suffer little or no health detriment from their infections. So to suggest that all weak or underperforming specimens are suffering from a viral infection will lead many people to the wrong conclusion.

"One of the main vectors of viruses in garden plants is aphids."

Thats not correct. The authorities on Rose viruses have all concluded that Aphids are not a transmission vector for RMV. The only significant transmission vectors are, as Anita stated, root grafting (a rather rare phenomenon) and grafting infected material onto uninfected material (rootstock to scion and vice versa)

If Aphids were a significant vector in virus transmission, then every rose in every garden would be infected within a year or two (possibly within weeks!), which clearly isn't the case.

"The easiest way to identify virused roses is to go to a garden center and find their grafted roses from the usual large suppliers.

There, you have identified virused roses."

While its often still problematic that some of the large commercial growers of bud grafted roses, especially the ones who produce the discount bagged bare-root plants, its incorrect to suggest that all roses to be found in garden centers are going to be virused. I've said it this way in previous discussions: If you insist on buying discount bagged roses produced by certain large rose farming companies, your risk of acquiring a virus infected specimen is significantly higher. It is not a guarantee that all plants of this type are virused, simply that the risk of getting one is much greater than buying from a source like Pickering Nurseries (I am citing only one example that comes to mind) who makes considerable effort to perpetuate clean nursery stock.

"Various old garden roses have had a long time to become infected and may have multiple viruses. Cleaning up a stock of a particular variety might result in a tremendous increase in vigor and production."

Now here is a statement I cannot argue with. It is a known issue with older roses that many (but not all) have acquired one or more viruses during their many years in our gardens and in commerce. Not all viruses have an effect on rose health, however. Specialists like Dr. Manners have done considerable work on rose viruses and the "cleaning" of some of the older cultivars, of which no virus free specimens have ever been found. I suspect that authorities like Dr. Manners would also point out that there are probably other factors involved in the apparent deterioration of some of the older cultivars, and genetic degradation (possibly an accumulation of detrimental mutations) may also play a role. Certainly, the removal of destructive viruses like PNRSV can often improve the health and vigor of a variety but virus may not be the sole factor for a loss of performance.

Rose virus is a touchy and complex subject, and I am far from an authority on the matter. However, I have been fortunate to have the guidance and teaching of many learned people who make this a focus of their study. I believe that everything I have stated here is true, to the best of my knowledge, and I certainly invite Dr. Manners to correct me if I am in error in any way.

Regards,
Paul Barden

I wasn't talking about viruses alone - that's why I posted "or similar problems" nor was I talking about rose mosaic virus alone.

You're saying it's unlikely that these supposedly inherently weak clones are being dragged down by virus infestations or other non-genetic factors originating outside the plant yet you also note that

>Specialists like Dr. Manners have done considerable work on rose viruses and the "cleaning" of some of the older cultivars, of which no virus free specimens have ever been foundVirus infestations are characteristic of other rose family cultivars like orchard fruits and Japanese cherries. These are also grafted or grown from cuttings, as are roses. They are also prone to sucking pests, as are strawberry plants which pick up viruses so fast they have to be replaced every few years or so to maintain optimum results.

When declining yields of rhubarb clones used for forcing in sheds in the UK was investigated over 30 viruses were isolated. Cleaned up stocks had about triple the vigor etc. of those still infected.

Please read the entire message in context. I believe I address all of your concerns in that post. :-)

I don't think you're "getting" what I said either. And I've reiterated once already.

No wonder there is so little activity here relative to what it could be, with a very high turnover and lots of "lurking".

I am finding the posts to be quite interesting, but I really don't get it. I think that in this situation it must be the reason that there are lurkers. I intend to read the posts again to see what I may have missed, but I don't quite understand about viruses.

If a virus is transmitted through grafting, then own root might be safer. But own root needs to get started somewhere, and if the materials are not sterile, then they may be virused.

Then again viruses may not be that bad, and the rose may grow quite well even when virused. Mine was an earlier Razzle Dazzle that looked great for years and years, but often the leaves had funny markings.

The entire question arose from my being concerned that some of my roses are not as large as they should be, and I have found out that the size of my Old Blush isn't that bad.

I appreciate your responses, and this is the beginning of a set of questions that I have.

Someone mentioned aphids, and I wonder about my Wooly hackberry aphids. They are almost gone now, and the lad;y beetles are also almost gone, but I wonder what damage they did before they left.

SAmmy

If a virus is transmitted through grafting, then own root might be safer. But own root needs to get started somewhere, and if the materials are not sterile, then they may be virused.

*** The new seedling is not virused.
If it is not grafted to infected material, it does not become virused.
If it IS grafted to infected material, it will become virused.

Sammy -- Take note about the aphids, that they are not a vector for virus in roses.
(Of course, they're crummy anyhow!)

What happened with many of the Old Roses which are in fairly wide commerce,
is they went through the hands of a nursery which propagated by
budding onto infected Dr. Huey rootstock.
So any cultivar which went through their hands (and remember, almost
no one offered the old roses) came out of the adventure virused.

Does that help any???

OH! And for us in mild California, viruses may NOT be that much of a problem.
But for those who have harsh winters, generally speaking, virused roses
have a strike against them to start with, and so may not survive bad winters.

Jeri

"I wasn't talking about viruses alone - that's why I posted "or similar problems" nor was I talking about rose mosaic virus alone."

I'm all ears. What do you regard to be a "similar problem" related to viruses. Seriously.

"You're saying it's unlikely that these supposedly inherently weak clones are being dragged down by virus infestations or other non-genetic factors originating outside the plant yet you also note that"

And you will please note that I have used words like "can be", "might" or "possibly" to indicate that not all factors are completely known nor understood. It is speculation that clonal degradation may be partly due to detrimental accumulated mutations, and I stated it as such. I also said that some clones do benefit from treatment to remove viral infections, since we know that some cultivars suffer from health effects due to viruses. I only mentioned PNRSV as one example but do note that several times I referred to viruses, plural.

As for Aphids, if Dr. Manners says that Aphids have not been shown to be a vector for virus transmission in Roses, thats good enough for me. If Aphids were a significant vector for transmission, every garden rose would be infected in a very short period of time, and clearly this is not the case. If you honestly believed Aphids to be a vector for viruses in roses, then when you stated "The easiest way to identify virused roses is to go to a garden center and find their grafted roses from the usual large suppliers." you should also have said that we could all point to our own gardens with sweeping gestures and say "Here too you will find a spectacular collection of virused roses."

My Old Blush is about 8 years old and it is 4 feet tall....I have never considered it to be a bad plant.

I was happy to learn that insects would not spread the Mosaic virus in my garden.A few of my roses do show the Mosaic virus but I have not been able to find any RMV virus free (or at least potentially-hopefully virus free) replacements for them. The ones I have been able to replace have been stronger and they are in the same type of soil and exposure. I think it is worth seeking out replacements when you can. For the ones I can't replace....I am enjoying them as they are. Some are quite vigorous anyway. I try to buy virus free own root now and so far I have not been dissapointed.

Question...if a cutting is rooted from a plant that has RMV, does the new plant have RMV?
-terry

Terry, Yes it does.
Olga

Terry, yes.
Olga is correct.

That's why, when you see someone say that a rose is virus-free, BECAUSE IT IS OWN ROOT, you should call them on it.

They're either ignorant of the facts, or they are scammin'.

Take it further.
You will see statements that a rose is virus-free "because it was imported from England."
Well, guess what.
We exported Virus to England.
It didn't spread as widely there, because their industry did things differently,
BUT there are virused roses in England.

Jeri

That's what I thought; just wanted to make sure I was right in my thinkin'. Thanks, Olga & Jeri.
-terry

what an interesting discussion here.

Could someone please confirm whether my roses are infected with a virus?

Rose A:
Late Spring(2 years in a row), rose "A" shows this strange markings. However, this rose is very vigorous. Only the new leaves are infected.
{{gwi:320900}}

Rose B::
Every late Spring (2 years in a row), rose "B"'s new leaves show up tiny speckles - I don't think they are caused by leaf hoppers because the bottom side looks fine, only the top side is infected. Another vigorous rose.
{{gwi:320901}}

Rose C:
Obviously this is a sign of Mosaic Virus (zig-zag pattern). Three years in a row - the flowers are smaller and poorly formed. No longer vigorous.
{{gwi:320903}}

I'm starting believe that there are different strains of virus. Another question: as a customer, are we entitle for a "refund" if our roses are infected with a virus?

#1 looks like physical damage of some sort.
#2 might be virus, but I'd have to say thats inconclusive.
#3 is definitely RMV, probably PNRSV. Classic watermarking.

Baldo has posted some useful photos of RMV symptoms in roses, and the bottom photo shows damage that looks somewhat like your top photo:

Here is a link that might be useful: Baldo's photos of RMV in roses

are we entitle for a "refund" if our roses are infected with a virus?

*** Did the vendor guarantee them virus-free?????

When I received virused plants from a breeder who advertised virus-free plants, all I got when I contacted them was yelled-at.

Jeri

The following links may help bring the reader up-to-date on rose virus research:

http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS-92-12-1706B
-----------------------------------------
http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS-92-4-0508
----------------------------------------
The following link
http://www.sipav.org/main/jpp/abst.htm
has 2 papers that may be of interest. The first is titled:
"MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION AND DETECTION OF A TRIPARTITE CRYPTIC VIRUS FROM ROSE "

and the second is titled:
"PLANT RESISTANCE RESPONSES TO VIRUSES "

The second one is of interest because, apparently, some people feel that every exposure results in an infection.
-------------------------------------
The following is a little earlier paper
http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS.2004.88.1.86C?prevSearch=articletitlefield%3A%28roses%29
but it illustrates another virus that attacks roses.
------------------------------------------------
Is SLRSV in the U.S.? See:
http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS.2004.88.5.575A?prevSearch=articletitlefield%3A%28strawberry%29
-----------------------------------------
Please note that SLRSV is a nematode transmitted virus so even places like Florida and southern California may not be protected against it (other viruses that are pollen, sap, or aphid transmitted may show very low rates of transmission in hot climates due to the virus being mainly in the below ground parts of the plant and/or being quickly degraded by the heat).

This has been a fascinating thread. I need to re read again when I have a little more time.

A question about a rose in our garden that I know is virused. Although they seem healthy they show the classic watermarking that Paul refers to at some point every summer. They are two roses that were here when we moved in. Unnamed. But wonderful. Very tolerant of the transplanting I have done over the years, quick to recover and great re bloom. I know that because of the virus eventually they will decline so my question is if I propagate them next year will be it be a great while before the plants created from cuttings start to decline? I just want to keep them going as long as possible.

Thank you.

Kate

katefisher, it would depend upon whether your visus strain is a "weak" strain or a "more virulent" strain. It would also depend upon what other "challenges" your rose meets. ("challenges" could include drought, heavy blackspot, root damage, lack of sufficient sunlight, etc.)

I know that because of the virus eventually they will decline so my question is

*** I don't think it is certain that they WILL decline.
In my mother's backyard, there is a rose which she dug from my
grandmother's garden, before that house was sold off.
(She thought it was Queen Elizabeth. It's not, but that's irrelevant).
My grandmother died in the late 1970's, and the rose was planted at some
point between 1955 and maybe the late '60's.
It's surely virused, but you know, it's doing pretty well.
If that house is ever sold, I'll probably dig it up, and bring it here.

Jeri

"What happened with many of the Old Roses which are in fairly wide commerce,is they went through the hands of a nursery which propagated by budding onto infected Dr. Huey rootstock. So any cultivar which went through their hands (and remember, almost no one offered the old roses) came out of the adventure virused."
____________________________________________________________

I didn't know it could be traced back to a single company. Wow. What a shame. Is this company still in business? Have they cleaned up their act?

In addition to that interesting tidbit this has been an extremely helpful thread. I've learned a lot.

>>> I didn't know it could be traced back to a single company.

*** You mis-understand!

EVERY company in the U.S. which produced budded roses
contributed, over time to the spread of the problem.

In the case of Old Roses, there was really only one company selling them, for many years.
Their roses were grown budded, as was everything at the time.
The virus was spread by budding onto infected rootstock, so those cultivars were infected along with everything else.

That company did not create the problem, and they are probably no more to blame than a company whose hybridizer created 'Mister Lincoln,' and budded that onto virused rootstock (Swim & Weeks, and Conard-Pyle). Or which created 'Queen Elizabeth' (J&P) and budded that onto virused rootstock.

The difference is that roses were probably NOT infected with RMV in the mid-19th-Century. They only acquired that gift when they were budded onto virused rootstock for modern reproduction.

Everyone did it that way.

Jeri

The problem might go back into the 1800's.
Some obscure papers (as in newspapers) in the early 1800s advised people on how to make bigger rose blooms by exarching and endarching them into fruit tree stems. The history of viruses in fruit trees goes back a long time.
IF those roses were grafted onto other plants in Rosaceae that had viruses, that would have gotten the virus into rose stocks. An additional method of tranfer would be root to root transmission, also well known in other memeber of Rosaceae.
I have a book with some photographs of rose production in the early part of the 20th century. Perhaps the strangest photo shows labeled buds of seven different roses (all of them much loved OGRs) ALL BUDDED ONTO THE SAME CANE of a multiflora- talk about a way to share problems from one cultivar to another.

The cryptic virus in the paper that Henry linked to is also an eyeopener. The scientists got a rose that they assumed was of seed origin with no, nada, nil chance of contact with any other roses....and it was sick with Rose Rosette....and danged if they couldn't isolate RRD from it, but got another virus, instead. And this virus came from ?????.
If you are 'into' rose viruses, you also need to read the paper on Rose Spring Dwarf, which has been finally characterized AS a virus by the folks as UC Davis. Dr. Golino told me that had an extremely talented post Doc who did the work. The abstract for that is linked below.

Here is a link that might be useful: RSD, a luteovirus

From the same publication, some info about tests.

Here is a link that might be useful: PNRS and ApMV

A great abstract about transmission tests.

(the link is only to the abstract, your library should be able to get you a copy of the article from your local university library.)

Here is a link that might be useful: Transimission of Rose Mosaic Viruses

Concerning when roses viruses were first reported in roses, see:

http://home.roadrunner.com/~kuska/when_was_rose_mosaic_virus_first.htm

The information from Davis that Ann referenced was presented at a meeting in September, 2005. In 2006 they presented the following at a meeting:

"May 2006 meeting:
"Debora Golino (UC-Davis) (with written report) has been documenting the spread of grapevine leafroll disease in the Napa Valley since 2002. The disease is spreading but slowly. Rose mosaic disease is associated with several viruses, but primarily Prunus necrotic ringspot virus and Apple mosaic virus. After three years, there is no evidence of pollen or seed transmission of these two viruses. Mechanical transmission with mechanical trimmers and root grafting appear to be the major routes of virus transmission."

http://www.lgu.umd.edu/lgu_v2/pages/reportMeet/6824_min.doc.

-------------------------------------------------

Concerning the use of Roundup to test for root to root transmission, see:

http://www.rosehybridizers.org/forum/message.php?topid=13673#13673

Here is a link that might be useful: Davis 2006 meeting report

I'm no expert on these issues, but I have found a couple times that transplanting a rather wimpy rose that just doesn't seem to be performing up to par "cures" the problem. I don't know why, but I moved a couple underperforming roses and then they performed fine. So in those cases, I don't think any kind of virus was involved--although I thought a virus was causing the problem before I moved the roses.

Odd thing is that I have sometimes planted a new rose in the spot occupied formerly by the underperforming rose that got moved, and the new rose seems to be performing fine.

I have no explanation for this phenomenon, but you might try moving the questionable rose and see if it improves--before giving it up as a lost causes due to virus.

Kate

***Everyone did it that way.***

Ahhh, I see. I did misunderstand.

Ann Said: The problem might go back into the 1800's.

*** Yeah, actually, I think it probably DOES. It seems likely to me that some fool tried to graft a rose onto a fruit tree, don'tcha think? (Or fruit onto a rose?)

But it didn't spread throughout the industry overnight.
The date I've heard is around 1920 -- that by THAT time, it was pretty much all over.

So I think it's likely that there were still virus-free roses in the mid-to-late 1800's -- particularly the cultivars that were older, at that time.
At least, you've got a chance of that, with an old Tea Rose from a very old cemetery.
And very LITTLE chance with my grandmother's rose from the '50's or '60's (which IS demonstrably virused, btw).

Jeri