American
chestnut 2007 |
James
Parton |
Sep
10, 2007 09:30 PDT |
Hello, Elisa,
On my hikes here in WNC I commonly find American Chestnuts but
they are
usually small sprouts. Only in Cataloochee, in which I visited
10 days
ago, and on the MST between Ox creek rd & Rattlesnake Lodge
have I found
sizeable ones. I found several dead ones about 10 feet tall with
live
spouts at their bases and 2 live ones about the same size at
Cataloochee
( GSMNP ) One of the Chestnuts on the Mountains-To-Sea Trail up
to
Rattlesnake Lodge was about the size of the one you have found.
And it
too, appears healthy. I have read reports on the Internet of
even larger
chestnuts. One was reported at 70 feet tall! A small grove of 30
ft
trees was found in north Georgia also. Check out the websites of
TACF
and ACCF. Here are the links.
http://www.acf.org/
http://www.ppws.vt.edu/griffin/accf.html
James Parton
Elisa Campbell wrote:
|
ENTS,
This past Sunday I saw a chestnut tree, about 25-30 feet
tall, near
Walden Pond. Looked very healthy (currently)
Elisa |
|
RE:
American chestnut |
Will
Blozan |
Sep
10, 2007 12:04 PDT |
James,
Cataloochee has one 75' tall right off the road.
Will
|
RE:
Tuliptree-Vs Sycamore |
Will
Blozan |
Sep
10, 2007 12:05 PDT |
James,
There is no evidence that satisfies me that American chestnut
was the
biggest tree. No accurate records exist and unfortunately that
will always
be the case. I terms of volume, I think the same ranking we see
now would
still hold; live oak and tuliptree would have been the largest
hardwood
trees, followed by sycamore and then maybe American chestnut,
white or red
oak. Yellow buckeye would be a challenger for some of the next
rankings,
likely superseded by bottomland oak species. I have not seen
truly
voluminous chestnut logs in the forests. Sure, many have rotten
but judging
by the fast taper of the remnant logs they would never attain
the volume of
tuliptree, with its columnar trunk form. I think- in form and
dimensions-
that chestnut was a slightly larger version of northern red oak.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: James Parton [mailto:hawtho-@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:01 PM
To: ENTST-@topica.com
Subject: Tuliptree-Vs Sycamore
Ents,
What was the largest hardwood tree in colonial forests? It seems
that
most support the American Chestnut. But behind the chestnut
which was
larger between the Tulip Poplar & American Sycamore.
Historical
archives, mostly old logging records, seem to support both could
exceed
10 ft dbh.
James Parton |
Tuliptree-Vs
Sycamore-Back to James |
dbhg-@comcast.net |
Sep
10, 2007 15:05 PDT |
James,
I basically second what Will says,
although I think I would put the American sycamore on an even
basis with the tuliptree for reasons that more reflect my
personal experience with the species than rely on any additional
knowledge. In New England, the sycamore grows to a larger size
than Liriodendron. There is plenty of data to support that.
However, that is not the case in the southern Appalachians,
where plenty of data supports the preeminence of Liriodendron.
Elsewhere, the sycamores of the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi
River bottomlands can and could reach enormous proportions, but
then so can and could the tuliptrees. Data from places like the
Wabash River floodplain, an area explored by Robert Ridgeway in
the 1870s, gives us some of our best information. Ridgeway found
giants of both species. Still, it is unclear if some of the past
sycamore giants, anecdotally described, were single trees. I
think the great ones at Mount Carmel, IL, and Kokomo, IN were.
It is fun to speculate on giants
of the past, but searching the record books is an endeavor
fraught with risks. If we cannot trust American Forests to
substantiate the numbers they report in the National Register of
Big Trees , why should we trust old anecdotal sources? Of
course, there are photographs, but some of them are taken in
such as way to exaggerate the tree's apparent size. Back in the
mid-1990s, Will and I worked on a book entitled "Stalking
TheForest Monarchs - A Guide to Measuring Champion Trees".
We did a lot of research, but what we turned up often didn't
jive with what we saw in the field. Today, both Will and I
expect that what we see is in many respects a window to the
past. Absolute sizes may have been greater, but comparisons of
species to one another of what we see today probably gives us a
good indication of size rankings in the past and present. For
instance, today, the white pine is unquestionably tallest
conifer in the Northeast. It seems to be the lar
gest, albeit not by much. I believe that it held those
distinctions in colonial times. The white pine's competitor, the
eastern hemlock, get to be big trees in the Northeast, but over
all, not quite as large as the white pine. So to summrize, Will
and I believe that the relative size rankings for these two
species applies to the past as well as the present.
We don't have a mountain of data
on American chestnuts like we do on Liriodendroon. But Will's
observation that, as a species, the American chestnut tapers
more rapidly than Liriodendron is an extremely important one and
certainly hold up from old photos. The fast taper points to the
principal reason that several years ago, he and I took off on a
course, following Bob Van Pelt's lead, of trunk modeling. We
were forced to conclude that using CBH as the primary determiner
of size just wasn't hacking it - certainly not in settling the
question of which species of tree is overall the largest - I
mean really the largest. Trunk modeling is a path
from which there is no turning back for us. But, alas, it is
very labor intensive. However, we are starting to make headway
on some shortcuts. I think we have to let the data
steer us and I think Will is on top of the relative comparison
methodology.
Bob
|
RE:
Tuliptree-Vs Sycamore |
Randy
Brown |
Sep
10, 2007 20:02 PDT |
Back in the early 90's I visited a grove of mature trees in
Northern
Michigan (The 'Magnificent 7'). My impression
at the time was that
they were some of squatest hardwoods I'd ever seen. The
largest ones
were 3 dbh but perhaps 40' tall (eyeball estimate, take with
large grain
of salt).
Sadly, the blight was just starting to hit the grove, with one
large
tree giving up it's last gasp at the time I was there. So I
imagine
they are all dead/ reduced to sprouts by now. There were some
attempts
to introduce hypo-virulence, but the people I talked to at the
time
weren't optimistic.
As far as seeing pictures of surviving chestnuts here's a good
page:
http://www2.volstate.edu/jschibig/resurrectingthechestnut.htm
|
American
chestnut question |
Will
Blozan |
Sep
11, 2007 15:46 PDT |
ENTS,
The current strategy to "restore" American chestnut to
the wild by crossing
with non-native resistant trees doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps I just
don't understand the goal of the efforts. If it is to restore
them to the
wild I can only imagine it will fail. If it is to simply place
trees in the
forest to grow that will work. However, that is not a natural
forest and as
such will not restore the ecological role of the tree. A planted
tree in a
forest is not restoration. Here is the problem: the trees will
not produce
progeny resistant to the blight. There are vastly more pure
American
chestnuts out there that will contaminate the epic genetic work
done to
date. It will fail from the get-go. I feel all this effort will
be wasted if
the goal is to return the tree to the forest. Yes, you can plant
a resistant
chestnut and it will live but it will not produce more resistant
trees and
reclaim its former glory.
The chestnut blight fungus needs to get the modification, not
the tree.
Am I seeing this wrong?
Will Blozan
President, Eastern Native Tree Society
President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.
|
RE:
American chestnut question |
James
Parton |
Sep
11, 2007 21:16 PDT |
Will,
One organization has dedicated itself to developing a blight
resistant
all-american chestnut. The ACCF. TACF is the one that is working
to
develop a resistant hybrid. What you say makes sense, maybe they
are
going at it a bit backward. Maybe they should work on the blight
fungus
first. Do you think the hemlock will face the same fate as the
chestnut?
I have to look to find living chestnut trees where large ones
once
existed. That 75 ft one you mentioned is a find indeed! However
the
hemlock lacks the ability to grow back from sprouts. But it
seems that
the adelgid can be controlled on a small scale by using
chemicals. Are
they any treatment available that can kill or slow the blight
fungus on
a given chestnut tree?
Here is the link to the ACCF webpage. http://www.accf-online.org/
James Parton.
|
RE:
American chestnut question |
Randy
Brown |
Sep
12, 2007 05:29 PDT |
Will,
According to my reading from the ACF literature I'm pretty sure
you are
mistaken. First, the remaining trees in general
don't live long enough
to flower and produce nuts. This is compounded by the fact that
chestnuts must cross pollinate with another tree to produce
fertile
nuts. The end result is that the natural reproduction rate of
native
chestnuts is practically zero (go back to that 75' tree in
catalochee
and you may be heartened by seeing lots of burs, but pry them
open and
you'll probably find malformed, infertile nuts inside, If you
-don't-,
start looking for another nearby tree). That's
why you see so much
hand pollenating going on in link I posted. The remaining trees
are
simply too widely spaced to naturally cross-pollinate each
other.
Also if you read through the ACF literature, they assert that
the
hybrids should breed true for resistance. In fact they are
concerned
with loosing the regional genetic variety of the native trees
across
it's range. That is the focus of the state chapters to locate
surviving
trees and cross them with the resistant trees from Meadowview
[their
main breeding farm] to help capture the regional variety of the
chestnut
in each state.
To read more:
http://acf.org/r_r.htm
Best Regards,
Randy Brown
|
RE:
American chestnut question |
Will
Blozan |
Sep
12, 2007 05:51 PDT |
Randy,
Thanks for the corrections. However, I should have given a
regional context
to my question since it was based on what I have seen around the
southern
Appalachians, primarily the Smokies. My question was just that-
I have not
looked into it but it arose yesterday in a conversation with a
representative of CAMCORE. I just wanted to get it out there.
On the mesic ridges dominated by northern red oak and northern
hardwood
associates, chestnut is quite common and can be found to reach
the canopy,
flower, and reproduce (I have eaten them). They also can be
found near most
balds and ridge tops where they have the light resources to grow
fast enough
to retain tight bark and mature to fruiting age or size (not
sure we know
what this is..). In these areas- and there are lots of them-
there is bound
to be native chestnut pollen saturating (though a small amount,
I know) the
air unless huge amounts of resistant trees are planted at
considerable cost
and mechanical intervention. I still don't know how they can
breed true
resistance but I will look into it when I get some time.
I also feel flowering and reproducing American chestnut is far
more common
than we think. I did a study in the mid-nineties in GRSM in
which I cored
recently killed American chestnut sprouts. They were not hard to
find and
were up to 16" diameter. Regardless of size, all of the
sprouts I cored were
the second flush from the first presumed kill in the 1920's.
I'm sure you have seen this page...
http://www.nativetreesociety.org/species/american_chestnut.htm
Will
|
RE:
American chestnut question |
Lee
E. Frelich |
Sep
12, 2007 06:45 PDT |
Randy, Will:
Whether we should restore genetically altered trees to natural
areas is an
interesting questions that needs to be debated. We now have
disease
resistant elms, and are working on butternut (butternut canker)
and
chestnut (chestnut blight). Soon we will face the same question
for the
ashes as emerald ash borer moves across the landscape. The
latest
susceptibility map for sudden oak death gives a high
susceptibility rating
for the southern Appalachians (red oak and related species could
be wiped
out, we aren't as sure about white oak). Hemlock (wooly
adelgid), balsam
fir and fraser fir (balsam wooly adelgid), aspen and maple
(Asian
Long-horned beetle), and others are also threatened.
Either we will have to accept trees bred for resistance to
diseases and
pests, or there will not be many species in our forests in the
future. As
Jerry Franklin told me recently, 'God help us in the Pacific
Northwest if
we start knocking off species like you are out east, because we
don't have
many species to begin with' . I would argue that the same is
true in the
northeastern U.S. as compared to the southern Appalachians,
which still
have a lot of species to stock the forest, even after all these
diseases
and pests make their way through. In Minnesota there will a
pretty slim
list of species once the boreal species move out due to global
warming and
exotic diseases and pests take their toll. Basswood looks really
good at
this point--its tolerant of droughts, heat waves, and has no
exotic
diseases on the way.
Lee
|
RE:
American chestnut question |
Joshua
Kelly |
Sep
12, 2007 08:09 PDT |
Will, Randy,
Unless the breeding has produced blight resistance that is a
dominant trait,
I don't see how the bred resistance will persist on a landscape
level
either. If the trait is dominant, then no problem, but there is
enough
chestnut pollen around - in the Southern Blue Ridge anyway - to
ensure
widespread mixing of the bred and native genome.
Like Will, I see hundreds of chestnut sprouts every time I go in
the woods,
especially on ridges. I also see the 6" to 12"
diameter skeletons on many
of those root systems, that probably got large enough to produce
pollen.
They don't have to be healthy enough to produce viable seeds,
which takes a
much larger energy investment. Planted Asian chestnuts are also
something
to think about. I have seen trees in western NC that seem to be
feral
hybrids of Asian and American chestnut.
Very interesting discussion. I do think that sexual reproduction
is the
best way for Amercian chestnuts to evolve resistance, even if
the resitant
trait is lost in F1 trees, there could be other novel
combinations of genes
that promote resistance.
Josh
|
RE:
American chestnut question |
Willard
Fell |
Sep
12, 2007 10:21 PDT |
When I was in School up in Athens in the center of the GA
Piedmont, the
chestnut was fairly common in the richer woodland sites. I even
saw a
few that had a little size to them before the blight got them,
but this
was over 30 years ago. I have never run across any sprouts or
evidence
of them growing in the SE GA Coastal Plain. According to Little
they
occur down into SW GA, FLA Panhandle over to So. Miss.
Chinkapin is not uncommon down here in SE GA on into north FLA,
both
Alleghany (pumila) and the dwarf alnifolia. Most of these
succumb to the
blight before they get too large and much of the pumila are of
sprout or
sucker origin.
-----Original Message-----
From: tuce-@msn.com
[mailto:tuce-@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:16 AM
To: ENTST-@topica.com
Subject: RE: American chestnut question
ENTS, How far south was the growing range of
the American Chestnut?
Larry |
RE:
American chestnut question |
James
Smith |
Sep
12, 2007 15:32 PDT |
Didn't the European chestnut suffer the same fate as the
American tree?
And didn't it spontaneously develop a virus that kills the
invasive
blight, but which is specific to the European species and not
transferable to the American chestnut?
Or am I misinformed? |
RE:
American chestnut question |
Randy
Brown |
Sep
12, 2007 19:18 PDT |
Lee,
Any thoughts on Lee Klinger's position that SOD is an
opportunistic
disease attacking trees weakened by soil acidification?
http://www.suddenoaklife.org/
I haven't done any reading on the subject to speak of, but the
pictures
sure -seem- compelling. I imagine the real proof of the pudding
is to
ask his percentage of failures.
As far as replacing susceptible species with 'resistant' ones.
I'll
stick my neck out with a few random thoughts:
I can see there being a trade-off between how well the
'resistant' tree
resembles the native susceptible one. In the example of the
chestnut
I've read that people first tried outright replacement by
importing
Chinese and Japenese chestnuts, but these didn't compete well in
a
native forest setting, made poor timber trees, etc. The
hybrids hope
to solve that by creating a tree that is 15/16th American. The
question
being, what are we sacrificing in that last 1/16th?
A few guesses:
Local Adaptation? The state chapters hope to interbreed local
trees to
cover this area.
Loss of genetic diversity that may be needed to cover the
unknowns of a
time span greater than human civilizations? Would
we be better off to
let natural selection 'solve the problem for us'? It might take
longer
than a human life time but you'd still have 'all natural' trees.
Though
if you take this position you risk extinction, and I'd think any
reasonably credible pretender would be better than that.
Randy
|
RE:
American chestnut question |
Randy
Brown |
Sep
12, 2007 19:59 PDT |
Here's a quick and dirty range map from acf's wbe site:
http://acf.org/Chapters.htm
From the ACF
FAQ:
http://acf.org/Q&A.htm#11
"There are a series of viruses that attack the blight
fungus in Europe,
rendering it incapable of causing severe cankers on European
chestnut.
This seems to indicate that these hypoviruses have made blight a
relatively minor disease on European chestnut. In the United
States,
despite extensive efforts over the past 30 years, the same
viruses have
not resulted in a significant decrease in blight severity on
American
chestnut, especially in forested settings. However, pure stands
of
American chestnut located in orchard settings have been
protected from
blight to the extent that they continue to live and produce
nuts.
Unfortunately, those trees are too disfigured by blight cankers
to
produce sound timber. Additionally, the disfiguring cankers
quite likely
would make those American chestnut incapable of competing with
other
tree species in forest settings.
The reasons are not entirely clear why hypoviruses give good
control of
blight in Europe but not the United States. It is known that
there are
many fewer strains of the blight fungus in Europe than in the
United
States and that hypoviruses spread much more easily within
strains than
between strains. Thus, cankers on European chestnut initiated by
virulent strains of the blight fungus are much more likely to
become
infected with hypoviruses. Additionally, European chestnut is
slightly
less susceptible to blight than American chestnut, which would
make
cankers persist longer on European
chestnut, increasing chances for hypoviruses to invade them.
Finally, European chestnut trees tend to grow in fairly pure
stands,
without competition from other tree species. Competition may
weaken
American chestnut trees, increasing blight severity to the point
where
trees die before hypoviruses can act."
|
RE:
American chestnut question |
Lee
E. Frelich |
Sep
13, 2007 06:41 PDT |
Randy:
There is not enough data there top decide whether SOD only
attacks weakened
trees, and we don't know if the treatment helps the tree by
helping remove
the pathogen directly, or by allowing the tree to defend itself.
And you
are right, what about the failures?
Some of what he says on the website is good information--there
are a lot of
dieback situations around the world where the pathogen is
opportunistic,
but there are also exotic pathogens and pests that kill very
healthy trees
(Elm disease, Hemlock adelgid, etc.). Also, dieback is not only
on acidic
sites. The door Peninsula in WI has a lot of dieback of many
species of
trees on limestone soils.
Regarding the 15/16 natural tree, its better than no tree. A
species that
has to undergo natural selection for several centuries in
response to an
exotic disease introduced by people is probably no more natural
than a
15/16 tree bred for resistance.
Lee
|
Re:
American chestnut question |
Randy
Brown |
Sep
15, 2007 07:36 PDT |
Will,
According to my reading from the ACF literature I'm pretty sure
you
are mistaken. First, the remaining trees in
general don't live long
enough to flower and produce nuts. This is compounded by the
fact
that chestnuts must cross pollinate with another tree to produce
fertile nuts. The end result is that the natural reproduction
rate
of native chestnuts is practically zero (go back to that 75'
tree in
catalochee and you may be heartened by seeing lots of burs, but
pry
them open and you'll probably find malformed, infertile nuts
inside,
If you -don't-, start looking for another nearby tree). That's
why
you see so much hand pollenating going on in link I posted. The
remaining trees are simply too widely spaced to naturally cross-
pollinate each other.
Also if you read through the ACF literature, they assert that
the
hybrids should breed true for resistance. In fact they are
concerned
with loosing the regional genetic variety of the native trees
across
it's range. That is the focus of the state chapters to locate
surviving trees and cross them with the resistant trees from
Meadowview [their main breeding farm] to help capture the
regional
variety of the chestnut in each state.
To read more:
http://acf.org/r_r.htm
Best Regards,
Randy Brown
|
RE:
American chestnut question |
Randy
Brown |
Sep
18, 2007 04:58 PDT |
|