Evaluation of sites for the reestablishment of the American chestnut (Castanea dentata) in northeast Georgia, USA

  • Siyu Zhang
  • Pete Bettinger
  • Chris Cieszewski
  • Scott Merkle
  • Krista Merry
  • Shingo Obata
  • Xingyuan HeEmail author
  • Haifeng Zheng
Research Article



The American chestnut (Castanea dentata, hereafter called chestnut), a valuable tree species that was once common in the last century in the eastern USA, is currently nearly extinct due to blight. Many efforts have been made to develop blight-resilient seedlings of this species, and an associated challenge is to identify the most suitable sites for its restoration.


Our objectives were to identify the suitable sites for planting blight-resistant chestnut seedlings and the environmental parameters associated with the suitability assessment. Furthermore, we considered land ownership due to practical planning and management implications.


Our study area is located in northeast Georgia, USA. We used global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis to select four environmental factors, as criteria in multi-criteria decision analysis, to create suitability maps for chestnut reestablishment.


The results indicate that chestnut is sensitive to elevation, precipitation during the driest month (PDM), normalized difference of water index (NDWI), ground slope, and topographic aspect. Soil attributes did not play a significant role in determining the site suitability. Deciduous forests were the most suitable sites for chestnut reestablishment, while over 99% of the suitable sites fall within the federal lands. The occurrence of chestnut may be expected to increase in areas with high elevations and steep slopes.


This study identifies the most critical environmental variables in northern Georgia for assuring a successful reestablishment of chestnut with the new blight-resistant strains of this species. It also identifies silvicultural prescriptions that may help landowners with the reestablishment process and its success.


Multi-criteria decision analysis Criteria Land cover Topography Landowner 



We thank the three anonymous reviewers who provided valuable comments that improved the study methodology and the manuscript. An earlier version of this research with a partial methodology was presented at the 11th Southern Forestry and Natural Resource Management GIS Conference (Cieszewski 2018) with an associated abstract published in the proceedings (Zhang 2018).


Funding for this study was provided by Major International Joint Research Project sponsored by NSFC (41620104005), National Key R&D Program of China (2016YFC05003), Ecosystem Research Station Alliance, Chinese Academy of Sciences (KFJ-SW-YW026) and the UCAS Joint Ph.D. Training Program.


  1. Aaheim A, Chaturvedi RK, Sagadevan AA (2011) Integrated modelling approaches to analysis of climate change impacts on forests and forest management. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 16(2):247–266Google Scholar
  2. Andow DA, Zwahlen C (2006) Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecol Lett 9(2):196–214Google Scholar
  3. Bauman JM, Keiffer CH, McCarthy BC (2014) Growth performance and chestnut blight incidence (Cryphonectria parasitica) of backcrossed chestnut seedlings in surface mine restoration. New For 45(6):813–828Google Scholar
  4. Bettinger P, Fei S (2010) One year’s experience with a recreation-grade GPS receiver. Math Comput For Nat Resour Sci 2(2):153–160Google Scholar
  5. Bettinger P, Merry K, Cieszewski C (2016) The importance of mapping technology knowledge and skills for students seeking entry-level forestry positions: evidence from job advertisements. Math Comput For Nat Resour Sci 8(1):14–24Google Scholar
  6. Black BA, Foster HT, Abrams MD (2002) Combining environmentally dependent and independent analyses of witness tree data in east-central Alabama. Can J Forest Res 32(11):2060–2075Google Scholar
  7. Boroushaki S, Malczewski J (2008) Implementing an extension of the analytical hierarchy process using ordered weighted averaging operators with fuzzy quantifiers in ArcGIS. Comput Geosci 34(4):399–410Google Scholar
  8. Brown CE, Bailey BG, Saunders MR, Jacobs DF (2014) Effects of root competition on development of chestnut and oak regeneration following midstory removal. Forestry 87(4):562–570Google Scholar
  9. Burke KL (2011) The effects of logging and disease on American chestnut. For Ecol Manag 261(6):1027–1033Google Scholar
  10. Burnham CR (1988) The restoration of the American chestnut: mendelian genetics may solve a problem that has resisted other approaches. Am Sci 76(5):478–487Google Scholar
  11. Cieszewski C (2018) Overview of the 2017 11th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference. Math Comput For Nat Resour Sci 10(1): 13–14.Google Scholar
  12. Clark SL, Schlarbaum SE, Saxton AM, Hebard FV (2012) Nursery performance of American and Chinese chestnuts and backcross generations in commercial tree nurseries. Forestry 85(5):589–600Google Scholar
  13. Clark SL, Schlarbaum SE, Saxton AM, Hebard FV (2016) Establishment of American chestnuts (Castanea dentata) bred for blight (Cryphonectria parasitica) resistance: influence of breeding and nursery grading. New For 47(2):243–270Google Scholar
  14. Clark SL, Schweitzer CJ, Schlarbaum SE, Dimov LD, Hebard FV (2009) Nursery quality and first-year response of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) seedlings planted in the Southeastern United States. Tree Planters’ Notes 53(2):13–21Google Scholar
  15. Convertino M, Muñoz-Carpena R, Chu-Agor ML, Kiker GA, Linkov I (2014) Untangling drivers of species distributions: global sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of MaxEnt. Environ Model Softw 51:296–309Google Scholar
  16. Dalgleish HJ, Nelson CD, Scrivani JA, Jacobs DF (2015) Consequences of shifts in abundance and distribution of American chestnut for restoration of a foundation forest tree. Forests 7(1):4Google Scholar
  17. D’Amico KM, Horton TR, Maynard CA, Stehman SV, Oakes AD, Powell WA (2015) Comparisons of ectomycorrhizal colonization of transgenic American chestnut with those of the wild type, a conventionally bred hybrid, and related fagaceae species. Appl Environ Microbiol 81(1):100–108Google Scholar
  18. Diamond SJ, Giles RH, Kirkpatrick RL, Griffin GJ (2000) Hard mast production before and after the chestnut blight. South J Appl For 24(4):196–201Google Scholar
  19. Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K, Ford CR, Foster DR, Kloeppel BD, Knoepp JD, Lovett GM (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3(9):479–486Google Scholar
  20. Fontana V, Radtkeb A, Fedrigottib VB, Tappeinera U, Tasserc E, Zerbeb S, Buchholzd T (2013) Comparing land-use alternatives: using the ecosystem services concept to define a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Ecol Econ 93:128–136Google Scholar
  21. Gauthier M-M, Zellers KE, Löf M, Jacobs DF (2013) Inter-and intra-specific competitiveness of plantation-grown American chestnut (Castanea dentata). For Ecol Manag 291:289–299Google Scholar
  22. Gilland KE, Keiffer CH, McCarthy BC (2012) Seed production of mature forest-grown American chestnut (Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh). J Torrey Bot Soc 139(3):283–289Google Scholar
  23. Hebard FV (2006) The backcross breeding program of the American Chestnut Foundation. J Amer Chestnut Foundation 19:55–77Google Scholar
  24. Homer C, Dewitz J, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Coulston J, Herold N, Wickham J, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States—representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81(5):345–354Google Scholar
  25. Jacobs DF (2007) Toward development of silvical strategies for forest restoration of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) using blight-resistant hybrids. Biol Cons 137(4):497–506Google Scholar
  26. Jacobs DF, Dalgleish HJ, Nelson CD (2013) A conceptual framework for restoration of threatened plants: the effective model of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) reintroduction. New Phytol 197(2):378–393Google Scholar
  27. Jactel H, Branco M, Duncker P, Gardiner B, Grodzki W, Langstrom B, Moreira F, Nethere S, Nicoll B, Orazio C, Piou D, Schelhaas MJ, Tojic K (2012) A multicriteria risk analysis to evaluate impacts of forest management alternatives on forest health in Europe. Ecol Soc 17(4):52Google Scholar
  28. Jiang Y, Wang T, de Bie CAJM, Skidmore AK, Liu X, Song S, Zhang L, Wang J, Shao X (2014) Satellite-derived vegetation indices contribute significantly to the prediction of epiphyllous liverworts. Ecol Ind 38:72–80Google Scholar
  29. Keever C (1953) Present composition of some stands of the former oak-chestnut forest in the southern Blue Ridge Mountains. Ecology 34(1):44–54Google Scholar
  30. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1(2):95–108Google Scholar
  31. Kwong CK, Bai H (2003) Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE Trans 35(7):619–626Google Scholar
  32. Liu S, Cieszewski C (2009) Impacts of management intensity and harvesting practices on long-term forest resource sustainability in Georgia. Math Comput For Nat Resour Sci 1(2):52–66Google Scholar
  33. Lüdtke N, Stefano P, Martin B, Broomhead DS, Joshua K, Montemurro MA, Kell DB (2008) Information-theoretic sensitivity analysis: a general method for credit assignment in complex networks. J R Soc Interface 5(19):223–235Google Scholar
  34. Lutts RH (2004) Like manna from God: the American chestnut trade in southwestern Virginia. Environ Hist 9(3):497–525Google Scholar
  35. Malczewski J (2006) GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20(7):703–726Google Scholar
  36. Malczewski J (2010) Multiple criteria decision analysis and geographic information systems. In: Ehrgott M, Figueira J, Greco S (eds) Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 142. Springer, Boston. Google Scholar
  37. McCament CL, McCarthy BC (2005) Two-year response of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) seedlings to shelter wood harvesting and fire in a mixed-oak forest ecosystem. Can J For Res 35(3):740–749Google Scholar
  38. McEwan RW, Keiffer CH, McCarthy BC (2006) Dendroecology of American chestnut in a disjunct stand of oak chestnut forest. Can J For Res 36(1):1–11Google Scholar
  39. Merkle S, Andrade G, Nairn C, Powell W, Maynard C (2007) Restoration of threatened species: a noble cause for transgenic trees. Tree Genet Genomes 3(2):111–118Google Scholar
  40. Newhouse AE, Oakes AD, Pilkey HC, Roden HE, Horton TR, Powell WA (2018) Transgenic American chestnuts do not inhibit germination of native seeds or colonization of mycorrhizal fungi. Front Plant Sci 9:1046Google Scholar
  41. Nordström E-M, Eriksson LO, Öhman K (2010) Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: experience from a case study in northern Sweden. For Policy Econ 12(8):562–574Google Scholar
  42. Paillet FL, Rutter PA (1989) Replacement of native oak and hickory tree species by the introduced American chestnut (Castanea dentata) in southwestern Wisconsin. Can J Botany 67(12):3457–3469Google Scholar
  43. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421(6918):37–42Google Scholar
  44. Post KH, Parry D (2011) Non-target effects of transgenic blight-resistant American chestnut (fagales: fagaceae) on insect herbivores. Environ Entomol 40(4):955–963Google Scholar
  45. Rhoades CC (2007) The influence of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) on nitrogen availability, organic matter and chemistry of silty and sandy loam soils. Pedobiologia 50(6):553–562Google Scholar
  46. Rhoades C, Loftis D, Lewis J, Clark S (2009) The influence of silvicultural treatments and site conditions on American chestnut (Castanea dentata) seedling establishment in eastern Kentucky, USA. For Ecol Manag 258(7):1211–1218Google Scholar
  47. Rieske L, Rhoades C, Miller S (2003) Foliar chemistry and gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), herbivory on pure American chestnut, Castanea dentata (Fam: Fagaceae), and a disease-resistant hybrid. Environ Entomol 32(2):359–365Google Scholar
  48. Roth B, Farrell E (2016) Mapping American chestnut habitat in Maine: discovery of the tallest American chestnut tree in North America. For Source 21(2):12.Google Scholar
  49. Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 32(7): 841–55.Google Scholar
  50. Saaty TL (1987) How to handle dependence with the analytic hierarchy process. Math Model 9(3):369–376Google Scholar
  51. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Tarantola S, Campolongo F (2005) Sensitivity analysis for chemical models. Chem Rev 105(7):2811–2828Google Scholar
  52. Schwarz G, Alexander R (1995) Soils data for the conterminous United States derived from the NRCS State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Open-File Report 95-449Google Scholar
  53. Servadio JL, Convertino M (2018) Optimal information networks: application for data-driven integrated health in populations. Sci Adv 4(2):e1701088Google Scholar
  54. Shafer CL (1999) National park and reserve planning to protect biological diversity: some basic elements. Landsc Urban Plan 44(2–3):123–153Google Scholar
  55. Shan Y, Bettinger P, Cieszewski C, Li R (2009) Trends in spatial forest planning. Math Comput For Nat Resour Sci 1(2): 86–112.Google Scholar
  56. Singh LK, Jha MK, Chowdary VM (2017) Multi-criteria analysis and GIS modeling for identifying prospective water harvesting and artificial recharge sites for sustainable water supply. J Cleaner Prod 142:1436–1456Google Scholar
  57. Sinuany-Stern Z, Mehrez A, Hadad Y (2000) An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. Int Trans Operat Res 7(2):109–124Google Scholar
  58. Stanturf JA, Gardiner ES, Shepard JP, Schweitzer CJ, Portwood CJ, Dorris LC Jr (2009) Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests across a treatment intensity gradient. For Ecol Manag 257(8):1803–1814Google Scholar
  59. Steiner KC, Westbrook JW, Hebard FV, Georgi LL, Powell WA, Fitzsimmons SF (2017) Rescue of American chestnut with extra specific genes following its destruction by a naturalized pathogen. New For 48(2):317–356Google Scholar
  60. Stephenson SL, Ali MBHB, Rollins AW, Furches MS, Atherton KR (2017) Ectomycorrhizal fungi associated with American chestnut at a site in Tennessee, USA. Castanea 82(1):2–7Google Scholar
  61. Tindall JR, Gerrath JA, Melzer M, McKendry K, Husband BC, Boland GJ (2004) Ecological status of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) in its native range in Canada. Can J Forest Res 34(12):2554–2563Google Scholar
  62. Tulowiecki SJ, Larsen CP (2015) Native American impact on past forest composition inferred from species distribution models, Chautauqua County, New York. Ecol Monogr 85(4):557–581Google Scholar
  63. Uribe D, Geneletti D, del Castillo RF, Orsi F (2014) Integrating stakeholder preferences and GIS-based multicriteria analysis to identify forest landscape restoration priorities. Sustainability 6(2):935–951Google Scholar
  64. Vahidnia MH, Alesheikh AA, Alimohammadi A (2009) Hospital site selection using fuzzy AHP and its derivatives. J Environ Manag 90(10):3048–3056Google Scholar
  65. Van Drunen SG, Schutten K, Bowen C, Boland GJ, Husband BC (2017) Population dynamics and the influence of blight on American chestnut at its northern range limit: lessons for conservation. For Ecol Manag 400:375–383Google Scholar
  66. Vandermast D, Van Lear DH, Clinton B (2002) American chestnut as an allelopath in the southern Appalachians. For Ecol Manag 165(1–3):173–181Google Scholar
  67. Wang GG, Knapp BO, Clark SL, Mudder BT (2013) The silvics of Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh., American chestnut, Fagaceae (beech family). Gen Tech Rep SRS-173. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang H, Prisley S, Radtke P, Coulston J (2011) Errors in terrain-based model predictions caused by altered forest inventory plot locations in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. Math Comput For Nat Resour Sci 3(2):114–123Google Scholar
  69. Welch AJ, Stipanovic AJ, Maynard CA, Powell WA (2007) The effects of oxalic acid on transgenic Castanea dentata callus tissue expressing oxalate oxidase. Plant Sci 172(3):488–496Google Scholar
  70. Zahedi F (1986) The analytic hierarchy process—a survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces 16(4):96–108Google Scholar
  71. Zhang S (2018) Geospatial assessment of potential American chestnut (Castanea Dentata) reestablishment—presentation summary. Math Comput For Nat Resour Sci 10(1):30Google Scholar
  72. Zyoud SH, Kaufmann LG, Shaheen H, Samhan S, Fuchs-Hanusch D (2016) A framework for water loss management in developing countries under fuzzy environment. Exp Syst Appl 61(C):86–105Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siyu Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pete Bettinger
    • 3
  • Chris Cieszewski
    • 3
  • Scott Merkle
    • 3
  • Krista Merry
    • 3
  • Shingo Obata
    • 3
  • Xingyuan He
    • 1
    Email author
  • Haifeng Zheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Northeast Institute of Geography and AgroecologyChinese Academy of SciencesChangchunChina
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Warnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations