Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 441–455 | Cite as

Evaluating the ecological niche of American chestnut for optimal hybrid seedling reintroduction sites in the Appalachian ridge and valley province

  • H. P. GriscomEmail author
  • B. W. Griscom
Article

Abstract

This study examines the ecological niche of American chestnut (Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh) and the latest blight resistant American chestnut × Chinese chestnut (Castanea mollissima Blume) hybrids. Planted seedlings of chestnut, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.) and chestnut oak (Quercus prinus L.) were subjected to two levels of light and two soil types in parallel field and greenhouse studies. The field study took place in the Appalachian ridge and valley province of Virginia. Growth and survival were quantified after three growing seasons. The interaction between light levels and topographic position (soil type) was significant for growth rates in the field and greenhouse. Species were significantly different from each other although hybrid varieties were not significantly different from each other or from pure American chestnut. Tulip poplar showed the greatest growth rates under all treatments in the field. Both tulip poplar and chestnut had the greatest growth rates in large gaps within mesic, mid and lower slope (MML) sites in the field. In contrast to growth, optimal conditions for survival differed among species. Tulip poplar had the greatest survival (71%) within large gaps in MML sites while chestnuts and oaks had the greatest overall survival (64%) in small gaps within xeric, upper slope and ridge (XUR) sites. In the greenhouse, tulip poplar did not outperform chestnut. Discrepancies in field and greenhouse studies were accounted for by uncontrolled factors, such as rodent predation. We conclude that optimal sites for planting American chestnut hybrids are in small gaps located within XUR sites.

Keywords

Restoration Seedling performance Experimental gaps Competition Greenhouse 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided by a grant from the Jeffress Memorial Trust Foundation. Infrastructure support was provided by James Madison University. Many students assisted with planting and measuring seedlings. We would like to especially thank Mark Hudy for access to his land and infrastructure support. We would also like to thank Dr. Fred Hebard of the American Chestnut Foundation for providing the hybrid seeds. Special thanks to Mark Ashton for reviewing drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Anagnostakis SA (1987) Chestnut blight: the classical problem of an introduced pathogen. Mycologia 79:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bigelow SW, Canham CD (2002) Community organization of tree species along soil gradients in a north-eastern USA forest. J Ecol 90:188–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolgiano C (1998) The Appalachian forest: a search for roots and renewal. Stackpole Books, MechanicsburgGoogle Scholar
  4. Burke K (2011) The effects of logging and disease on American chestnut. For Ecol Manag 261:1027–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapin FS III (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diskin M, Steiner K, Hebard FV (2006) Recovery of Castanea dentata characteristics following hybridization and backcross breeding to restore blight ravaged C. dentata. For Ecol Manag 223:439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellison AE, Bank MS, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K, Ford CR, Foster DR, Kloeppel BD, Knoepp JD, Lovett GM, Mohan J, Orwig DA, Rodenhouse NL, Sobczak WV, Stinson KA, Snow P, Stone JK, Swan CM, Thompson J, Von Holle B, Webster JR (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 9:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grime JP, Jeffrey DW (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 11:1169–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gurney KM, Schaberg PG, Hawley GJ, Shane JB (2011) Inadequate cold tolerance as a possible limitation to American chestnut restoration in the northeastern United States. Restor Ecol 19:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Howard TG, Goldberg DE (2001) Competitive response hierarchies for germination, growth, and survival and their influence on abundance. Ecology 82:979–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huston MA (1994) Biological diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacobs DF (2007) Toward development of silvicultural strategies for forest restoration of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) using blight-resistant hybrids. Biol Conserv 137:497–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobs DF, Severeid LR (2004) Dominance of interplanted American chestnut (Castanea dentata) in southwestern Wisconsin, USA. For Ecol Manag 191:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacobs DF, Selig MF, Severeid LR (2009) Aboveground carbon biomass of plantation-grown American chestnut (Castanea dentata) in absence of blight. For Ecol Manag 258:288–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keddy PA (1989) Competition. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keever C (1953) Present composition of some stands of the former oak-chestnut forest in the southern Blue Ridge Mountains. Ecology 34:44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latham RE (1992) Co-occurring tree species change rank in seedling performance with resources varied experimentally. Ecology 73:2129–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loehle CG (1988) Problems with the triangular model for representing plant strategies. Ecology 69:284–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loftis D (2005) Planting trials with C. dentata in southern Appalachian forests. In: Steiner KC, Carlson JE (eds) Restoration of American chestnut to forest lands-proceedings of a conference and workshop. The North Carolina arboretum. Natural resources report. National Park Service, Washington DC, pp 167–172Google Scholar
  20. McCament CL, McCarthy BC (2005) Two-year response of C. dentata seedlings to shelterwood harvesting and fire in a mixed-oak forest ecosystem. Can J For Res 35:740–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McEwan RW, Keiffer CH, McCarthy BC (2006) Dedroecology of American chestnut in a disjunct stand of oak-chestnut forest. Can J For Res 36:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McNab HW (2003) Early results from a pilot test of C. dentata seedlings under a forest canopy. J Am Chestnut Found 16:32–41Google Scholar
  23. Merkle HW (1906) A deadly fungus on the American chestnut. Annual report, vol 10. NY Zool Soc, Bronx, pp 97–103Google Scholar
  24. Morrissey RC, Jacobs DF, Seifert JR, Fischer BC, Kershaw JA (2008) Competitive success of natural oak regeneration in clearcuts during the stem exclusion stage. Can J For Res 38:1419–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morrissey RC, Jacobs DF, Davis AS, Rathfon RA (2010) Survival and competitiveness of Quercus rubra regeneration associated with planting stocktype and harvest opening intensity. New For 40:273–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pacala SW, Canham CD, Silander JA, Kobe RA (1994) Sapling growth as a function of resources in a north temperate forest. Can J For Res 24:2172–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paillet FL (2002) Chestnut: history and ecology of a transformed species. J Biogeogr 29:1517–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 Bot 67:3457–3469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 258:1211–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rieske LK, Rhoades CC, Miller SP (2003) Foliar chemistry and gypsy moth Lymantria dispar (L.), herbivory on pure Castanea dentata (Fam: Fagaceae), and a disease resistant hybrid. Environ Entomol 32:359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Royo AA, Carson WP (2008) Direct and indirect effects of a dense understory on tree seedling recruitment in temperate forests: habitat-mediated predation versus competition. Can J For Res 38:1634–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Russell EWB (1987) Pre-blight distribution of Castanea dentata (Marsh.). Borkh. Bull Torrey Bot Club 114:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shipley B, Keddy PA (1994) Evaluating the evidence for competitive hierarchies in plant communities. Oikos 69:340–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spurr SH, Barnes BV (1980) Forest ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Tripler CE, Canham CD, Inouye RS, Schnurr JL (2005) Competitive hierarchies of temperate tree species: interactions between resource availability and white-tailed deer. Ecoscience 12:494–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. USDA (1982) Soil survey of Rockingham County, Virginia. US Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Vandermast DB, Van Lear DH, Clinton BD (2002) American chestnut as an allelopathy in the southern Appalachians. For Ecol Manag 165:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walters MB, Reich PB (2000) Seed size, nitrogen supply and growth rate affect tree seedling survival in deep shade. Ecology 81:1887–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whittaker RH (1975) Communities and ecosystems, 2nd edn. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.James Madison UniversityHarrisonburgUSA
  2. 2.The Nature ConservancyArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations