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likely superseded by bottomland oak species.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 

Will,

I took some time to do some reading at the acf web site and think I
found some useful answers.

1) "Swampage" with native pollen.

According the paper linked below (Page 14), resistance is controlled by
2 or 3 incompletely dominant genes. A pure cross of 'acf resistant'
trees is expected to breed true for resistance. Crosses with native
trees are expected to have an intermediate level of blight resistance,
so even in a case of complete 'swampage' a useful level of blight
resistance will make it into the progeny.

Quicky charts:
http://acf.org/PR/backcross%20chart.pdf
http://acf.org/PR/breeding%20chart2006.pdf

Paper on the subject:
http://chestnut.cas.psu.edu/Meetings/NPS/proceedings/_2_07-Hebard%20manuscript%20on%20TACF.pdf


2) How common are surviving trees?

I did find this paper that attempted to survey for surviving chestnut.
Look on page 4 and the smokies immediately pops out as a 'hot spot'.

http://chestnut.cas.psu.edu/Meetings/NPS/proceedings/_2_05-McWilliams%20manuscript.pdf


I guess I based my comments on my personal experience in Ohio (hard to
find anything over 2" diameter, not that I've spent as much time in
woods as you have) and the general feeling I got from my reading. Just
from browsing the paper it looks like survival is pretty spotty. It
looks like you are probably right, but only in specific areas.

I also found this paper from the ACCF that discusses integrated control
of blight. They did mention that site quality does moderate the
severity of blight.

http://chestnut.cas.psu.edu/Meetings/NPS/proceedings/_2_08-Griffin%20manuscript_v2.pdf


I found these links from this site:

http://chestnut.cas.psu.edu/NPS.htm#Hebard

- Randy