View Full Version : Return of the chestnuts
Flush2wice
03-17-2008, 18:39
Blight resistant trees to be planted on National Forest land in VA.
http://www.charlotte.com/sports/story/539196.html
Ramble~On
03-17-2008, 19:22
It's about time!
I know that private efforts have been made in North Carolina and there have been seedlings planted.
It would be really nice to be able to walk beneath a stand of chestnuts before I die.
Even though they won't be "wild" "native" trees. Perhaps someday the shoots will develop an immunity.
I'd like to see more being done to save the hemlock.
I'm not sure what a "wild" chestnut might be or how what's being done is in some way unnatural. It seems quite proper to me.
Chinese chestnuts which evolved in the presence of Endothia parasitica developed resistance. American chestnuts could reasonably be expected to do the same over many generations. They could also loose the desirable characteristics they once had.
We might be about to have the best of both worlds. I'm all for it!
Hey, there R large specimens of Dutch Elm disease resistant varieties of American Elm along streets in Washington, DC so maybe one day, we will see specimens of native American Chestnuts once again gracing our forests!!!!
I, too, would like to see more than stump sprouts before I die. Might not happen though. Re: hemlocks--I have taken matters into my own hands. When I moved where I am now the 50 ft hemlock in the yard had adelgid. It has survived since 1996. I read an article about a hemlock researcher in Backpacker and searched Google for more info. The Bayer adelgid insecticide is sitting here awaiting the arrival of two more bottles. I am determined to save this one tree.
A UNC researcher we ran into in the NF this past summer told us about certain trees seeming to be more resistant to the bug than others. Mine seems to be one of those, and I am going to help it along.
Frau
|
Flush2wice
03-17-2008, 21:19
I, too, would like to see more than stump sprouts before I die. Might not happen though. Re: hemlocks--I have taken matters into my own hands. When I moved where I am now the 50 ft hemlock in the yard had adelgid. It has survived since 1996. I read an article about a hemlock researcher in Backpacker and searched Google for more info. The Bayer adelgid insecticide is sitting here awaiting the arrival of two more bottles. I am determined to save this one tree.
A UNC researcher we ran into in the NF this past summer told us about certain trees seeming to be more resistant to the bug than others. Mine seems to be one of those, and I am going to help it along.
Frau
|
Here is a good article about efforts to save the Eastern Hemlocks.
http://www.mountainx.com/news/2008/010908hemlocks
Ramble~On
03-17-2008, 22:04
I'm not sure what a "wild" chestnut might be or how what's being done is in some way unnatural. It seems quite proper to me.
Chinese chestnuts which evolved in the presence of Endothia parasitica developed resistance. American chestnuts could reasonably be expected to do the same over many generations. They could also loose the desirable characteristics they once had.
We might be about to have the best of both worlds. I'm all for it!
When I say "wild" I mean a native, natural...non engineered Castanea dentata. The seedlings being planted are the result of man and therefore aren't "wild". I am all for it, don't get me wrong. In 100+ years it seems that a resistance hasn't yet been in the cards. I feel that returning chestnuts is "proper" as well. The trees being planted however are not and will not be the American Chestnut that once was "wild".
Wild: Living in a state of nature and not odrinarily tame or domesticated.
I, too, would like to see more than stump sprouts before I die. Might not happen though. Re: hemlocks--I have taken matters into my own hands. When I moved where I am now the 50 ft hemlock in the yard had adelgid. It has survived since 1996. I read an article about a hemlock researcher in Backpacker and searched Google for more info. The Bayer adelgid insecticide is sitting here awaiting the arrival of two more bottles. I am determined to save this one tree.
A UNC researcher we ran into in the NF this past summer told us about certain trees seeming to be more resistant to the bug than others. Mine seems to be one of those, and I am going to help it along.
Frau
|
Hemlocks along the Occoquan trail seem to be rebounding a bit. Of course, it may just be a function of more favoralbe weather conditions...who knows?
When I say "wild" I mean a native, natural...non engineered Castanea dentata. The seedlings being planted are the result of man and therefore aren't "wild". I am all for it, don't get me wrong. In 100+ years it seems that a resistance hasn't yet been in the cards. I feel that returning chestnuts is "proper" as well. The trees being planted however are not and will not be the American Chestnut that once was "wild".
Wild: Living in a state of nature and not odrinarily tame or domesticated.
Since the potential life span of an individual chestnut tree far exceeds 100 years, the 100+ years you mention strikes me as a drop in a bucket evolutionarily.
The genotype(s) to which you refer are produced by employing conventional plant breeding techniques, not genetic engineering. I shouldn't need to point out trees grown in nurseries for planting on public forests are selected for desireable characteristics all the time.
If Earth warms enough, American and Chinese chestnuts may expand their ranges northward until they overlap. They would hybridize then as they do now. There are hybrid chestnuts growing wild no doubt planted by squirrels less than 100 yards from where I post.
I had several hybrid chestnut trees growing in my back yard as a child which my great-grandfather planted after WWII. Chestnuts which were plowed under regularly germinated and I gave away a number of those seedlings to others who enjoyed eating chestnuts.
One might call such trees naturalized at some point. Botanists often argue about what plants should be considered native. I'm less than certain how a 95% American chestnut would be considered anything other than a native species once established, especially since these trees will throw and accept pollen compatible with what you're calling native trees.;)
jersey joe
03-18-2008, 21:35
Good info...the chestnut tree will return...even if it does take another fifty years...
Ramble~On
03-18-2008, 22:11
Since the potential life span of an individual chestnut tree far exceeds 100 years, the 100+ years you mention strikes me as a drop in a bucket evolutionarily.
The genotype(s) to which you refer are produced by employing conventional plant breeding techniques, not genetic engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering). I shouldn't need to point out trees grown in nurseries for planting on public forests are selected for desireable characteristics all the time.
If Earth warms enough, American and Chinese chestnuts may expand their ranges northward until they overlap. They would hybridize then as they do now. There are hybrid chestnuts growing wild no doubt planted by squirrels less than 100 yards from where I post.
I had 5 hybrid chestnut trees growing in my back yard as a child which my great-grandfather planted after WWII. Chestnuts which were plowed under regularly germinated and I gave away a number of these seedlings to others who enjoyed eating chestnuts.
One could call such trees naturalized rather than native. Botanists often argue about what plants should be considered native. I'm less than certain how a 95% American chestnut would be considered anything other than a native species once established, especially since these trees will throw and accept pollen compatible with what you're calling native trees.;)
I simply stated my desire to walk beneath a stand of chestnut trees.
I do. I also stated that these trees likely would not be "wild" "native" and by that I mean 100% American Chestnut. I think perhaps you should read post #2 again. In post #2 I simply, speak of how I feel it would be nice to walk beneath a stand of chestnut trees. In my lifetime for this to happen the trees would almost certainly be hybrids. The hybrids would most likely have been planted by man as part of a program to restore the chestnut. Forgive me, but in my opinion that does not give them a "wild" "native" status.
I feel I have been pretty thorough in attempting to spell this out for you.
I at no time have said or implied that I think what is being done is unnatural or improper. From your reply to my post (#3) it would seem that you feel perhaps I think what is being done is "unnatural" or "improper". I'm not sure where this notion came from.
To comment on your recent post..
I realize that 100 years is a drop in the bucket for the chestnut and I sincerely hope that the chestnut in time rebounds and thrives....I don't understand how that has anything to do with me wanting to be able to walk beneath a stand of chestnut before I die because for me 100 years is not a drop in the bucket.
The only genotype I refer to are the ones that I someday hope to walk beneath. As you point out (and I mention in post #2) they will be "produced by employing conventional plant breeding techniques" hence I do not refer to them as "wild" "natural" or "native".
"I'm less than certain how a 95% American chestnut would be considered anything other than a native species once established, especially since these trees will throw and accept pollen compatible with what you're calling native trees.;)"
95% American, 5% "other" when established would likely be considered a native species (in time) and that species would likely have a name and that name would not be Castanea dentata Fagaceae.;) I'm calling Castanea dentata a native tree. Horticultural variants, "cultivars" may one day be considered native and when that day comes...many, many years from now they will be growing on their own and will be "wild" but will they be "natural" ?
You are right when you say " I shouldn't need to point out trees grown in nurseries for planting on public forests are selected for desireable characteristics all the time." The trees you speak of here are the same trees that I do not consider to be "wild". Trees grown in nurseries and then planted in the forest in my opinion are not "wild" trees. You are welcome to debate this all you please but I seriously doubt you'll change my opinion on the matter. If you consider nursery raised trees that have been transplanted into the forest as "wild" & "natural" "native" more power to you. I respect your opinion as that. Please respect mine.
I hope that I will not need to seemingly defend my desire to walk beneath a stand of chestnuts ("wild" or otherwise) again in this thread.
Reply read. No further comment.
Wise Old Owl
03-18-2008, 23:49
Reply read. No further comment.
Yea not in our life time I agree, they are screwing up a experiment just down the road from me on this one... waste of time, Lofty goal huh...
NorthCountryWoods
03-19-2008, 05:41
I agree with Spiritwind....regardless of how long it takes for them to naturalize they will never be considered a "native" species.
My grandfather had a American Chestnut on his property in CT that Yale university used to come and hold botany classes under. It was partially blight resistant. Unfortunately, it came down in hurricane Gloria, and he sold the lumber to a furniture maker.
I learned recently that there is an experimental stand of chesnuts near our area in the Amherst/Nelson Co. area of VA, which yet another group has been developing. With all we know about about botany, genetics, bacteria, fungi and viruses, I am surprised it has taken to come up with viable trees. BUT, I reckon that just shows up how tough these pathogens are.
Blessed be those who do, and fund this work.
Frau
I learned recently that there is an experimental stand of chesnuts near our area in the Amherst/Nelson Co. area of VA
There's actually one outside the Mount Rogers visitor center (the one by Partnership shelter). The forestry guy pointed it out to me when we were talking.
Still that is sooo sweet.
Yea not in our life time I agree ...
I expect to live long enough to plant some of these trees when they become available in sufficient quantity. My preference would be to plant some along the AT in The Green Diamond with permission of course.
Some of ya'll apparently haven't read what I linked here (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=556730&postcount=15) several times before. See also this posting (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.3906795/k.48EF/Study_of_Chestnut_Trees_Begins.htm) to ATC's site.
With all we know about about botany, genetics, bacteria, fungi and viruses, I am surprised it has taken to come up with viable trees. BUT, I reckon that just shows up how tough these pathogens are.
Blessed be those who do, and fund this work.
Frau
It's taken as long as it has because of the number of backcrosses involved.
valleyfire
03-19-2008, 22:44
Very cool
There was an erroneous post earlier concerning botanical nomenclature. I didn't feel inclined to reply then, but now have a few minutes and I'd like to respond.
Most people may not care, but each plant known to man or at least science has a unique name which distinguishes it from all other plants. Sometimes several plants have the same common name or a single plant may be known by several names. It is therefore important each plant have a unique name associated with it.
Botanists are particular people who have precise names for everything and as might be expected they have detailed rules about naming plants which ensure each plant has only 1 official name. Such names are called binomials. This system sometimes called binomial nomenclature dates back to Linnaeus a Swede who was the 1st person to use it and wrote a book entitled Species Planatarum which attempted to name all known living things.
A binomial consists of 2 parts, a genus and a species. The proper name for American chestnut is Castanea dentata. The 1st name is the plant's genus or generic name, the 2nd, it's specific name or species. These binomials are ordinarily italicized or else underlined when this is not possible and the genus is always capitalized.
Ramble~On
03-21-2008, 06:53
Division, Class, Subclass, Order, Family, Genus, Species ?
Magnoliophyta
Magnoliopsida
Magnoliidae
Fagales
Fagaceae
Castanea
Castanea dentata ?
Nomenclature: the assignment of names to organisms
1. Common or Vernacular Names
2. Scientific Names
Scientific names have been standard since middle 1700s when Linnaeus published the monumental work mentioned in the above post by Shades of Gray. Linnaeus gave the generic name; species designation, a short description; and finally a single word set in italics. This was what Linnaeus termed the "trivial" name which was used as index. This lead to the practice of the generic name followed by the specific epithet for each plant, the combination constituting binomial nomenclature. "Castanea dentata"
Designation of a plant or tree consists of three parts (1) generic name (2) specific epithet (3) abbreviated or full name of the person(s) that origianlly published the name, description or later made changes.
I'm a rebel!
Just as I refer to Pawpaw for example as Asimina triloba Annonaceae..the family name isn't necessary.
This is the way I was made to learn dendrology and spelling counted. This habit is still with me. I apologize! I beg forgiveness! - No...wait a minute...no one cares!
And not that anyone cares I don't mind it and hope I'll cause no offense if I say something like Toxicodendron radicans Anacardiaceae is a really cool way of saying poison ivy and in my opinion nicer than simply "Toxicodendron radicans"...that's boring!
My sister studied dendrology at a different university and lucky her didn't have to memorize the family names and she didn't get dinged for spelling. I did. Having spent all that time I'm happy to continue my habit of using family names. I live at the doorstep of the GSMNP for good reason and enjoy strolling the hills reciting Latin to myself and others. We've got a few plants and trees here.
Simply, Latin is used to avoid complication with "local" names. What in another country may be known as the "Nut Oak" in America is called the "White Oak" but perhaps in farming communities in Pennsylvania it's called the "Field Oak".. all would recognize it as Quercus alba. If one were to call it Quercus alba Fagaceae...there would be no doubt which tree it was.
I'm not sure if the "erroneous post" was in reference to my post or not...my using the family name Fagaceae...it was not an error on my part, I claim full responsibilty, it was intentional, blatant.
I imagine that if I were to say something bold and witty like "The Sky is blue"....there would soon be a post to follow explaining that in fact the sky isn't blue...
I agree with the information presnted in the above post by shades of Gray.
Someday it'd be nice to stroll beneath a stand of chestnuts...really nice.
While I wait for the stand of trees to grow I can count on time well spent here in this thread..
I sincerely hope that the price of tea in China is not effected by any of this!
NorthCountryWoods
03-21-2008, 07:05
Even if the trees planted are an absolute genetic match they would be considered a native species, however they were still planted by man. Not dropped from another tree or composted thru a bear.
How long before they would be considered naturalized?
Division, Class, Subclass, Order, Family, Genus, Species. I hope the price of tea in China is not effected by any of this!
Thanks for listing the higher taxa. I was expected to spell too. Dendrology students who couldn't spell were almost as whiny as some AT hikers.
Maybe I'll post a few words on the 3rd item or authority, the abbreviated name of the person who published this plant's description.
I too hope posts here don't bear in any way on the price of tea in China and May the Good Lord above help us! if it impacts the price of petroleum products here, unless they go down, but I'm not holding my breath.;)
Maybe I'll post something later on naming hybrids too. I'm afraid of what this one might be called. I don't think wildlife, sawmillers, lumbermen or anyone in the field will care what these hybrid chestnuts are called or will be able to distinguish between 5th and 6th generations.
Trees gone wild. :banana
Very cool.
Even if the trees planted are [sic] an absolute genetic match they would be considered a native species, however they were still planted by man. Not dropped from another tree or composted thru a bear.
What if these trees produced nuts that were then planted by a squirrel or the seedlings were initially planted as nuts by squirrels trained for this purpose or alternatively by someone who's just a bit squirrelly?:-?
How long before they would be considered naturalized?
I suppose it would depend on who you choose to ask.
Jan LiteShoe
03-21-2008, 12:44
I, too, would like to see more than stump sprouts before I die. Might not happen though. Re: hemlocks--I have taken matters into my own hands. When I moved where I am now the 50 ft hemlock in the yard had adelgid. It has survived since 1996. I read an article about a hemlock researcher in Backpacker and searched Google for more info. The Bayer adelgid insecticide is sitting here awaiting the arrival of two more bottles. I am determined to save this one tree.
A UNC researcher we ran into in the NF this past summer told us about certain trees seeming to be more resistant to the bug than others. Mine seems to be one of those, and I am going to help it along.
Frau
|
It's heartbreaking to see a magnificent old tree succumb. Good luck with your tree, Frau.
You've probably already seen this tutorial from NC State:
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/notes/O&T/trees/note119a/note119a.htm
Good info.
Just a by-the-by, but it looks like the Bayer treatment might be a neo-nicotinoid, one of the chemicals implicated in the Colony Collapse Disorder of honey bees. I know the mentioned "Merit" is.
leeki pole
03-21-2008, 12:53
My forestry advisor on my tree farm says I have a Chestnut and a Dutch Elm in 4 protected acres, Federal watershed and refuge. Wonder how they survived? He doesn't know. One's thing for sure, they won't be touched.
Do you have an American elm with Dutch elm or are you trying to communicate you have a Dutch elm in America? The latter wouldn't be native, you know, unless it's American. Maybe we'd better stop using common names now if you want to have a serious dialogue.:D
Alligator
03-21-2008, 13:09
Do you have an American elm with Dutch elm or are you trying to communicate you have a Dutch elm in America? The latter wouldn't be native, you know, unless it's American. Maybe we'd better stop using common names now if you want to have a serious dialogue.:DSounds a little slippery to me.
NorthCountryWoods
03-21-2008, 13:16
I suppose it would depend on who you choose to ask.
Well it wouldn't be the first generation...correct?
I'm not sure if the "erroneous post" was in reference to my post or not...my using the family name Fagaceae...it was not an error on my part, I claim full responsibilty, it was intentional, blatant.
I knew it! You ought to be castigated, your dendrology credits revoked and your professor stripped of tenure. You obviously have no respect for the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and are a discredit to dendrologists everywhere!:(
leeki pole
03-21-2008, 15:20
Do you have an American elm with Dutch elm or are you trying to communicate you have a Dutch elm in America? The latter wouldn't be native, you know, unless it's American. Maybe we'd better stop using common names now if you want to have a serious dialogue.:D
Okay, so my ignorance is showing. I called my buddy and here's the scoop:
Castanea dentata
Ulmus americana
So I guess it is an American elm. Sorry, Shades. My bad. I was a geology guy in college, never too good with that biology stuff.;)
Are you claiming you struggled with paleobotany?
leeki pole
03-21-2008, 17:45
Are you claiming you struggled with paleobotany?
Oh, man you're calling me out. I understand dead stuff, it's the living and growing things that give me trouble. Fossils I can deal with.;) I'm counting on you to get me up to speed on the here and now.:)
I'd rather talk plant fossils, but I wouldn't want to take the thread off-topic.
Ramble~On
03-22-2008, 03:13
I'd rather talk plant fossils, but I wouldn't want to take the thread off-topic.
Yeah, what he said.
The sky is blue.
I think it is great that scientists are creating blight resistant chestnut hybrids. It would be wonderful to see the return of the mighty chestnuts and to be able to walk beneath them even though they would be cultivars.;)
Perhaps I'll post more about this later.
Ramble~On
05-04-2008, 15:29
I recently came across this article and thought it rather interesting considering the comments made by a poster to the thread.
What I find interesting is that they point out Castanea dentata as being a member of the Fagaceae family several times and they also refer to
"wild" trees. This poster seemed to have difficulty understanding what a "wild" tree was as opposed to one manipulated by man.
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~samcox/chestnut.htm
Mrs Baggins
05-04-2008, 15:54
I was born in Northern California in the Sierra foothills - Placerville. We had lots of chestnut trees on our street when I was kid there - 1960's. They were huge and dropped 1000's of chestnuts on the ground every year and we'd roast and eat them. I remember stepping on the spiny hulls in my bare feet. Are these the same trees you're talking about?? I haven't been back to the house in a long time so I don't know if the trees are all gone now.
Ramble~On
05-04-2008, 19:24
The native range of the chestnut in the US is almost entirely east of the Mississippi River.
The trees in California are likely European.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5348e/x5348e02.htm
Pedaling Fool
05-04-2008, 21:22
I read about this on a bulletin board at Neel's Gap.
Ramble~On
05-05-2008, 02:46
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_060518_chestnuts.html
A lonely stand that for some reason has dodged the blight offers up a lot of hope.
Ramble~On
05-25-2008, 16:14
There was an erroneous post earlier concerning botanical nomenclature. I didn't feel inclined to reply then, but now have a few minutes and I'd like to respond.
Most people may not care, but each plant known to man or at least science has a unique name which distinguishes it from all other plants. Sometimes several plants have the same common name or a single plant may be known by several names. It is therefore important each plant have a unique name associated with it.
Botanists are particular people who have precise names for everything and as might be expected they have detailed rules about naming plants which ensure each plant has only 1 official name. Such names are called binomials. This system sometimes called binomial nomenclature dates back to Linnaeus a Swede who was the 1st person to use it and wrote a book entitled Species Planatarum which attempted to name all known living things.
A binomial consists of 2 parts, a genus and a species. The proper name for American chestnut is Castanea dentata. The 1st name is the plant's genus or generic name, the 2nd, it's specific name or species. These binomials are ordinarily italicized or else underlined when this is not possible and the genus is always capitalized.
After conducting weeks of research the findings conclude that there is nothing at all wrong with listing the family name.
I hope to clear up this erroneous post issue by Shades of Gray.
One who is unable to understand the difference between wild, native trees and those produced by man may have difficulty understanding this as well.
Castanea dentata Fagaceae leaves no doubt which tree is being discussed.
While using the binomial is sufficient adding the family name is in no way "wrong".
If anyone actually desires to read the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, cut, paste and Google it. A link to it will come up on top. I provided a link to it in an earlier post, but edited it to remove the link since I figured few, if anyone at all, would ever care to read it.
There's already no doubt when only genus and species are indicated especially when the authority is included. To list the family is redundant although it might be helpful to some dendrology students. I simply memorized which genera belonged to each family.
As usual on this site, there's no supporting evidence for the previous post which would seem to require it were it not trivial since it deals with a fact that's not been established here except perhaps in the mind of the person who posted it.
sasquatch2014
05-25-2008, 21:42
that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet
What matter is what it is not what is is named by man.
musicwoman
05-25-2008, 21:53
Blight resistant trees to be planted on National Forest land in VA.
http://www.charlotte.com/sports/story/539196.html
OK, funny story: When I was in college, Chestnut trees lined the very quaint main street in town. My boyfriend and I were taking a walk on a cold day, and we decided to collect some of the chestnuts that had fallen and roast them ourselves (romantic, huh?). We went back to his house, heated up the oven, placed the chestnuts on a baking sheet, and went to watch TV while they roasted.
About 20 minutes later, we heard what sounded like firecrackers coming from the kitchen. He opened the oven door to see what was going on and was hit in the face with an exploding chestnut, and then dove to the floor as exploding chestnuts continued to come shooting out of the oven.
Apparently, you're supposed to split the chestnut before roasting which we didn't do.
Never tried to roast chestnuts again after that.:)
Ramble~On
05-26-2008, 07:14
If anyone actually desires to read the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, cut, paste and Google it. A link to it will come up on top. I provided a link to it in an earlier post, but edited it to remove the link since I figured few, if anyone at all, would ever care to read it.
There's already no doubt when only genus and species are indicated especially when the authority is included. To list the family is redundant although it might be helpful to some dendrology students. I simply memorized which genera belonged to each family.
As usual on this site, there's no supporting evidence for the previous post which would seem to require it were it not trivial since it deals with a fact that's not been established here except perhaps in the mind of the person who posted it.
Set the hook......reel...reel, reel....get the net boys I think this one's a keeper!
Shades...have you figured out what a wild tree is yet?
redundant...perhaps but likely not worthy of such long winded commentary...or calling for castigation...
Perhaps more is the fact that this might be something "different" from the way you do things...and..heaven forbid
Again I'll state my desire to one day walk beneath a stand of chestnut...wild or otherwise.
The sky is blue? - Perhaps I'll post more about this later.
Shades...have you figured out what a wild tree is yet?
I'll leave that up to you. Report back on your exhaustive research when you've completed it, would you?:sun
Ramble~On
05-26-2008, 16:06
When I say "wild" I mean a native, natural...non engineered Castanea dentata. The seedlings being planted are the result of man and therefore aren't "wild". I am all for it, don't get me wrong. In 100+ years it seems that a resistance hasn't yet been in the cards. I feel that returning chestnuts is "proper" as well. The trees being planted however are not and will not be the American Chestnut that once was "wild".
Wild: Living in a state of nature and not odrinarily tame or domesticated.
Let me help you with that...here is my reply back to you in post 7.
Sorry you have such confusion with this...happy to help.:sun
See http://www.ppws.vt.edu/griffin/accf.html if interested in planting some chestnuts.
I planted some along AT from Yellow Mt Gap up Big Yellow a few years ago. Also planted some in headwaters of North Harper Creek, Va Creeper trail and On west side of Holsten Mountain.
ATC has partnered with the American Chestnut Foundation to study the American chestnut along the A.T. (http://tinyurl.com/537bq4). This year, the Potomac A.T. Club is inventorying American chestnuts along its 240-mile stretch. Volunteers attended a day-long training earlier this month and will collect data on chestnuts over 3 feet tall within fifteen feet of the trail's center. They will also count "large trees" measuring over 25" in circumference. I participated in the superb training at Catoctin Park in Maryland May 10 as a volunteer and inventoried a stretch of the A.T. in northern Virginia yesterday. It was a real thrill to be a part of this program and getting to know this fascinating species in more depth. One observation: the American chestnut really seems to like growing in close proximity to mountain laurel (those of you who know my trail name will know why that is significant to me).
ATC, the American Chestnut Foundation, and PATC will be having a ceremony celebrating the project on National Trails Day (Saturday, June 7) at ATC HQ in Harpers Ferry. We'll have two hikes during the day and speakers at 2:30. There will be more information on our web site shortly.
Hope to see those of you interested in the American chestnut there!
Laurie Potteiger
Patrickjd9
05-26-2008, 20:41
I intend to get some Chestnut trees of a resistant strain (hybrid or natural) started at our house in Montgomery County, MD (about 50 miles east of the trail) before we retire and move on (10-15 years off).
Let me help you with that...here is my reply to you back in post 7.
Sorry you have such confusion with this...happy to help.:sun
The problem with your help in this instance is it reinforces misinformation provided earlier. I pointed out to you then, these resistant trees which are being developed are produced though conventional plant breeding techniques and are not engineered. The term genetic engineering has a particular meaning to someone who's knowledgeable about plant genetics and one cannot make up one's own definitions or one makes no sense when one posts.
Many years ago, I asked a plant physiology professor to reconsider how he graded my response to one of his test questions. I pointed out I knew what I was talking about even though I didn't use a term correctly. He told me scientists need to have terms which have a shared meaning if they have any hope of communicating with their peers or the public and learning how to use these terms is one of the primary purposes of an introductory course.
I thought about what he told me for moment and told him he was absolutely right and resolved to be more careful with words from that point forward. It was a valuable lesson I have not forgotten.
I hope that I will not need to seemingly defend my desire to walk beneath a stand of chestnuts ("wild" or otherwise) again in this thread.No need to be melodramtic. There was no need to defend your desire to walk among chestnuts the frist time. No one attacked it.
The only thing someone asked about was your apparent assertion that the trees are not Americn Chestnuts. They are.
There are plenty of American Chestnuts left. They simply don't live long enough to grow very large because of the disease.
The Chinese Chestnut resists the disease.
A large number or American chestnuts weres cross pollenated with Chinese chestnuts.
Preogeny were tested for disease resistance, and the most resistant trees were pollenated with American chestnuts. This gave a tree that was 3/4 American CHestnut. Again, the most disease resistant trees were selected for further pollenation, but this time a main criteria was shape of the tree. Trees shaped like American CHestnuts (tall) were selected rather than Chinese (short and wide).
These selected trees were pollenated again with American chestnuts, giving a 7/8 American tree.
At this time, rather than again pollenating with a 100% American tree, several 7/8 trees were pollenated to widen the gene pool.
Then it was back to pollenating with American stock.
When a 15/16 American/Chinese tree was achieved, about the ony genes it had from the Chinese tree were the genes to make it disease resistant.. These trees were again pollenated with other 15/16 blends for additional gene pool variations.
They could have gone on to a 31/32 or a 63/64 tree, but the 15/16 tree was identical to American CHestnuts (except for the disease resistance). It is not possible to tell the 15/16 trees from an original American Chestnut except for the fact that the 15/16 trees will not die after a few years.
They will be planted in the forests and will be wild trees.
A similar gene-strengthening process was done a few years ago with the timber wolf. The wolves are also wild.
Depending on your age, you may never walk in a grove of mature American Chestnuts, but your children will.
How do I know all this? At Trail Days, the American Chestnut Foundation had a booth. I took their half day tour of the groves in which the research is being done. Last year they harvested 20,000 15/16 nuts which were planted.
A good start to a new Chestnut Forest.
One who is unable to understand the difference between wild, native trees and those produced by man may have difficulty understanding this as well.The trees being grown were not produced by man.
You are confusing genetic engineering with plant husbandry.
NorthCountryWoods
05-27-2008, 14:19
The trees being grown were not produced by man.
You are confusing genetic engineering with plant husbandry.
No, but they are being planted and/or manipulated by man = not wild.
But we all agree that the return of the chestnut is a good thing?
Don't make me get the saw.
No, but they are being planted and/or manipulated by man = not wild.
Would posters who are so stuck on wild please explain to the rest of us what difference it makes whether a seed is planted by a squirrel or man?
Ramble~On
05-27-2008, 22:15
Would posters who are so stuck on wild please explain to the rest of us what differrence it makes whether a seed is planted by a squirrel or man?
It would seem the only one having any problem with anything Shades is you. This goes way back to my initial (seemingly innocent) post to this thread. Read your response to my post.
Did I say I was against anything? Or that what was being done was unnatural?
I am all for the CHESTNUT...regardless of method. I never stated anything otherwise...
My initial post
"It's about time!
I know that private efforts have been made in North Carolina and there have been seedlings planted.
It would be really nice to be able to walk beneath a stand of chestnuts before I die.
Even though they won't be "wild" "native" trees. Perhaps someday the shoots will develop an immunity.
I'd like to see more being done to save the hemlock."
Your Response
"I'm not sure what a "wild" chestnut might be or how what's being done is in some way unnatural. It seems quite proper to me.
Chinese chestnuts which evolved in the presence of Endothia parasitica developed resistance. American chestnuts could reasonably be expected to do the same over many generations. They could also loose the desirable characteristics they once had.
We might be about to have the best of both worlds. I'm all for it!"
If I am to walk beneath a stand of chestnut before I die they likely will not be "wild", "native" trees - meaning that they did not occur on thier own, in nature without the help, aid or assistance of man. Does that make any sense to you ?
Perhaps it would be better if Shades of Gray would provide his definition of "wild"
Ramble~On
05-27-2008, 22:31
The problem with your help in this instance is it reinforces misinformation provided earlier. I pointed out to you then, these resistant trees which are being developed are produced though conventional plant breeding techniques and are not engineered. The term genetic engineering has a particular meaning to someone who's knowledgeable about plant genetics and one cannot make up one's own definitions or one makes no sense when one posts.
Many years ago, I asked a plant physiology professor to reconsider how he graded my response to one of his test questions. I pointed out I knew what I was talking about even though I didn't use a term correctly. He told me scientists need to have terms which have a shared meaning if they have any hope of communicating with their peers or the public and learning how to use these terms is one of the primary purposes of an introductory course.
I thought about what he told me for moment and told him he was absolutely right and resolved to be more careful with words from that point forward. It was a valuable lesson I have not forgotten.
:-? Ah, WHO is doing this "conventional plant breeding" if you like that term over "engeering" and what misinformation did I provide?
You mention "being developed"...curious...but is that something along the lines of engineering ?
The results of these trees "being developed" are they "wild" or "native" as the Chestnuts were up to 1905 ?
Ramble~On
05-27-2008, 22:58
Would posters who are so stuck on wild please explain to the rest of us what differrence it makes whether a seed is planted by a squirrel or man?
Depends on where that seed came from...did you pick it up in the "wild"?
Was it a "native" seed ? Or....was the seed you speak of "manipulated" in some way by man?:-? Was the parent tree that this seed came from 100% "native" and "wild" as in it came from the forest where it and it's kind had been living for centuries without the assistance of mankind? 100% American Chestnut
Regardless of whether a squirrel, pink bunny rabbit or you or I plant it...it's still the result of man's "assitance" - Sorry...argue all you want.
I Sincerely hope that the cross pollination efforts are a smash success..I hope that a blight resistant hybrid is created and the chestnuts return. I'd love to plant as many as I could...I'd welcome the efforts or squirrels and pink bunny rabbits...but
(this is the part Shades of Gray has trouble with) they would not be the mighty chestnut ("wild" "native") that once was...
-Sorry Shades..I know this is a tough one to grasp. Even if it were possible to breed the trees back to 99.99999% American Chestnut...would they be 100% American Chestnut ?
Regardless...I hope to one day walk beneath them....even though they would NOT be "wild" "native" trees.
I take your 3 posts to mean it doesn't make any difference whatsoever whether these seeds are planted by squirrels or man. It would also appear you wouldn't think it makes any difference whether the pollen transfer is done by a scientist, amateur or the wind. Thank you very much for your replies.
....Regardless...I hope to one day walk beneath them....even though they would NOT be "wild" "native" trees.
Well they might be. There are wild groves of chestnuts still existing. They either escaped the blight, or are naturally immune to the infection.
If so, purists might want these immune trees to "naturally" spread until they repopulate their former range. I think this might possibly occur over a span of many thousands of years, though the development of the eastern megalopolis might prove to be a formidable barrier.
But I think a little help from humans might be in order to speed the process. If we simply planted a few "wild" trees here and there, their progeny would spread until we had a forest of young trees and eventually, the return of the mature chestnut forest, yea, even a "wild and natural" chestnut forest.
Humans remain part of the natural systems. A few decades ago humans sprayed the northern Maine spruce-fir forest to kill the budworm that was killing the forest. Does this mean that the trees that survived are no longer wild and natural? I suggest they are as wild and natural as ever.
A few days ago a few people tried unsuccessfully to relaunch a whale that had beached itself in Maine. Had they succeeded, would that have meant that the whale was no longer wild and natural?
A few years ago I planted several elm trees that had been bred from trees naturally immune to Dutch Elm Disease. These three seedlings are not wild and native to this area, perhaps. But if the experiment succeeds and they grow tall and their progeny repopulates the surround woodlands, I'll think of them as wild and native -- well maybe not me, personally, but my progeny, maybe.
Weary
The wildlife that will benefit from the return of the Chestnut won't care how it is restored. I enjoy looking for trees while out hiking. Saw a bunch this weekend. Nothing over 10' though. I've only seen trees bearing fruit a few times. The last time was on the Pinhoti Trail in Alabama.
Perhaps it would be better if Shades of Gray would provide his definition of "wild."
Shades of Gray does not find the definition of the word wild to be of any consequence in this context.
Truth be told, there isn't a forest here in the east that hasn't been manipulated by humans. Native Americans extensively managed the forests here before Columbus ever thought about sailing to the New World. Read Changes in the Land: English Colonists and Americans in New England by William Cronin.
Ramble~On
05-28-2008, 03:12
I take your 3 posts to mean it doesn't make any difference whatsoever whether these seeds are planted by squirrels or man. It would also appear you wouldn't think it makes any difference whether the pollen transfer is done by a scientist, amateur or the wind. Thank you very much for your replies.
WOW ! VIOLA ! You figured that out...Correct! It wouldn't matter whether the seeds were planted by a furry, pink bunny...if they are "man produced" seeds with a fraction mixed here and a fraction mixed there...(who is mixing?) Interesting how you dodged answering where the seed is coming from..you seem to do a lot of dodging. Pollen transfer resulting from wind or bees or pink bunnies wouldn't result in man made trees now would it...it also wouldn't result in 100% American Chestnut either.
If you take coffee and add cream to it..you no longer have black coffee -how can you claim the creamer got in there "naturally" and how in the world are you going to explain to anyone that in time the solution is going to return to the original black coffee prior to you adding the cream? Yeah..you'll dodge answering this one too
Native Americans planted, they cleared and if they cross pollinated species for a desired effect that's great but the same would hold true for the result of the cross pollination. It would be a man-made whatever.
More than wildlife would benefit from the return of the chestnut..
~Shades: what false information did I provide ? Why the dodge?
You continue to dodge providing your definition of wild...why
~ Weary: I posted a link a few posts back about such a stand.
Humans sprayed the trees in Maine but did they blend two species together? The sprayed trees were still the same trees.
They tried to relaunch a whale---it would have been the same whale..
Yes, if it had survived it would have been a wild and natural whale...but if they had crossed the whale with a percentage of another species of whale...would the result be wild and natural?
Same holds true for the Chinese/American being cross pollinated by man
Again...I am all for the chestnut...all trees for that matter and going back to my original post I mentioned that I wished more were being done for the Hemlock.
I've gone round and round with Shades of Gray over the differece of "wild" trees and those being cultivated.
I stand by my initial post to this thread and I will not consider a tree that has been blended with another species one and the same as the trees that once grew over so much of the east coast. Will I welcome them and cheerish them - hell yeah! But they will never be the wild trees that once were.
-Yes, there are stands that offer hope and those stands are still 100% American Chestnut...managing these trees with a husbandry program with other seemingly blight resistant 100% Chestnuts could one day produce
a blight resistant tree. Would these be wild and native... of course they would. Could they do it on their own - I hope so.
Whoa Bear
05-28-2008, 09:31
I'm pretty sure that foresters and plant biologists, I'm neither, divide up species into the following categories. Native (plants that were here before we got here such as oak and pine), Invasive (plants that were brought from somewhere else and are taking over the habitat of native species, kudzu is a prime example), and Ornamentals (plants that are brought from elsewhere or bred for flowers or leaf color such as Japanese Maple). Beyond that there is no distinction for wild, or man made, or cultivated.
As far as the production of seeds goes in VA volunteers at the research stands cover the flowers of the chestnut trees and then artificially pollinate them with pollen from disease resistant trees. The seeds are then collected and grown. the idea is to get to an chestnut that is 99.9% American with just enough Chinese in it to provide the resistance.
Humans have been managing forests in the Americas for so long that I would not call anything around here truly wild. In fact some of the forests with the poorest health in the east are the wilderness areas that no one manages.
NorthCountryWoods
05-28-2008, 14:56
I'm pretty sure that foresters and plant biologists, I'm neither, divide up species into the following categories. Native (plants that were here before we got here such as oak and pine), Invasive (plants that were brought from somewhere else and are taking over the habitat of native species, kudzu is a prime example), and Ornamentals (plants that are brought from elsewhere or bred for flowers or leaf color such as Japanese Maple). Beyond that there is no distinction for wild, or man made, or cultivated.
As far as the production of seeds goes in VA volunteers at the research stands cover the flowers of the chestnut trees and then artificially pollinate them with pollen from disease resistant trees. The seeds are then collected and grown. the idea is to get to an chestnut that is 99.9% American with just enough Chinese in it to provide the resistance.
Humans have been managing forests in the Americas for so long that I would not call anything around here truly wild. In fact some of the forests with the poorest health in the east are the wilderness areas that no one manages.
Bingo!
I think everybody would like to see the chestnuts return regardless of the method. Combine that with our love of internet wars and you've got a contender for stupidest argument on this forum.
I've gone round and round with Shades of Gray over the differece of "wild" trees and those being cultivated.
Shades of Gray isn't going "round and round" with you except in your imagination and that of your audience. He's here to provide useful information for those who want to learn something. He's not interested in being a party to your faux argument or responding to your every post and soon will cease acknowledging you at all.
I think everybody would like to see the chestnuts return regardless of the method. Combine that with our love of internet wars and you've got a contender for stupidest argument on this forum.
I don't know what you see as an argument or stupid. I expect your attention has been focused excessively upon Spiritwind's more recent posts and you have been unduly influenced by them.
You should focus your reading more upon the linked documents where the majority of the more carefully prepared and useful information is found.
Well they might be. There are wild groves of chestnuts still existing. They either escaped the blight, or are naturally immune to the infection.Unfortunately, these trees are not the giants of old. They grow, flower, and produce nuts that grow more trees, but they do not grow to maturity.
While it is possible that a strain might develop immunity, perhaps by cross-breeding (via bees and the wind, Spiritwind, before you get your knickers is a twist) with similar species, but the plant husbandry efforts are so spectacularly successful the problem will be solved long before thousands of years.
Now if they could just cross breed kudzu with the grass on my side lawn that has cost me a fortune trying to keep it (barely) alive. The death-desiring genes of my lawn would eradicate kudzu in a couple years.
Unfortunately, these trees are not the giants of old. They grow, flower, and produce nuts that grow more trees, but they do not grow to maturity.
Some photos of the giants of old.
Some photos of the giants of old.Awesome pictures. Amazing trees.
Ramble~On
05-29-2008, 03:56
Shades of Gray isn't going "round and round" with you except in your imagination and that of your audience. He's here to provide useful information for those who want to learn something. He's not interested in being a party to your faux argument or responding to your every post and soon will cease acknowledging you at all.
I don't know what you see as an argument or stupid. I expect your attention has been focused excessively upon Spiritwind's more recent posts and you have been unduly influenced by them.
You should focus your reading more upon the linked documents where the majority of the more carefully prepared and useful information is found.
:)
Shades of Gray is going "round and round" and his above post is proof..interesting he should quote that passage and dodge the rest of the post. He's good at that and not so good at backing information he presents up with facts.
I'll focus my reading where I please- Thank You.
I linked to some of those documents- Thank You.
I find it interesting that you would mention that anyone should focus their reading to the linked documents perhaps you should read posts #38 and # 40...just maybe if you'd read the article by Sam Cox (linked in post 38)you would find multiple references to wild chestnuts...seems I'm not the only one using the term.
As for the "more recent" it seems you try to dodge the issue past and present...reading the thread might help.
You claim you are here to "provide useful information to those who want to learn something" I am here to learn and I have asked questions which continue to be dodged. You have claimed that I have posted false information. I've asked you what false information I posted and you've dodged that question. You've dodged sharing your definition of wild.
I think throughout this thread I've shared what I meant by "wild" "native" in my opening post. Am I to believe that you do not differentiate between the native trees which I refer to as "wild" "native" and the trees that are being crossed with Chinese Chestnut. This has been my issue with Shades of Gray since his first post--plain and simple.
I agree to disagree with anyone who considers an American/Chinese hybrid one and the same as a 100% American Chestnut- PERIOD!
Ramble~On
05-29-2008, 05:13
The problem with your help in this instance is it reinforces misinformation provided earlier. I pointed out to you then, these resistant trees which are being developed are produced though conventional plant breeding techniques and are not engineered. The term genetic engineering has a particular meaning to someone who's knowledgeable about plant genetics and one cannot make up one's own definitions or one makes no sense when one posts.
Many years ago, I asked a plant physiology professor to reconsider how he graded my response to one of his test questions. I pointed out I knew what I was talking about even though I didn't use a term correctly. He told me scientists need to have terms which have a shared meaning if they have any hope of communicating with their peers or the public and learning how to use these terms is one of the primary purposes of an introductory course.
I thought about what he told me for moment and told him he was absolutely right and resolved to be more careful with words from that point forward. It was a valuable lesson I have not forgotten.
Did you actually learn a lesson though ??? Are you more careful with words?
Forgive me for not making sense to you...but I think perhaps that may be the issue.
Who said anything about genetic engineering - I didn't. I'm simply trying to convey that a difference exists between wild trees and those "being developed"...and they are being developed BY MAN. Forgive me but I have a problem considering these "developed" trees one and the same as a wild tree. I have used the term engineered and you prefer to use "developed".
Call them what you will but they are not -WILD. So...do tell - what misinformation did I provide earlier ?
Will a dictionary be required for my use of the term engineered?
From my point of view this is a stupid arguement..but the arguement is about some people considering a developed tree one and the same as the wild, native trees that have been here for centuries.
The arguement has never been whether or not it should not be done.
-Veteran..thank you for posting those photos..the first is in many books and I have often wondered what the forests would have looked like. I am fortunate to live close to the Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest and other pockets of old growth. I have yet to photograph an old growth tree and do it justice.
You haven't taught me anything and little to others thus far. Your crusade is all about creating WhiteBlaze drama and your imaginary dispute.
If you want to see a tree of the stature in the photos posted by veteran, you can. It just won't be an American chestnut. I have a white oak near my home likely over 400 years old I visit often. I've mentioned this tree here before. It's an experience I enjoy and I hasten to point out I live in a house made mostly of wood.
Trees like the oak I mentioned are expensive to maintain and in some ways a waste of lumber, but some of each kind should be retained as long as practical nevertheless. Their value exceeds the cost required to maintain them up to a point and in time that point comes.
The argument has never been whether or not it should not be done.
I never argued to that effect as you well know. Thank you once again for your post and the opportunity to point out what I just did.
I agree to disagree with anyone who considers an American/Chinese hybrid one and the same as a 100% American Chestnut- PERIOD!
Like I posted earlier, it doesn't matter.
Ramble~On
05-30-2008, 00:10
:-? Interesting.
You have dodged so many questions, claimed that I have provided misinformation and now it seems you are trying to change the subject. You claim that it doesn't matter to you.
It's nice you visit an oak tree and live in a wood house..that is wonderful!
I never considered myself to be here to "teach" anybody anything..I'm here to learn and to share ideas and information...it would seem that you are closed to others ideas and consider yourself to be some sort of "teacher".
You have taught me only that you are unable (or unwilling) to distinguish a wild tree from one produced by man.
I differentiate between wild trees and those produced by man. I don't call that a crusade...in fact, I'd call it a fact.
Since you are not going "round and round" about this though..I am the one causing this WhiteBlaze drama that you speak of and you are what ? innocent of the same?.
One day I hope to be able to walk beneath a stand of Chestnut...regardless of how they came to be.
I have been quite amused and entertained by this thread - Thank You for providing me the opportunity to post all that I did thus far.
I live where I do because of the scenery, hiking options open to me, the old growth areas. I consider myself a nature nut.
There are so many concerns though for these forests...disease, insects and greedy politicians who view a forested mountain and think to themselves...."Wow! look at all that revenue!"
If I were on a crusade I would want that crusade to be about protecting public lands and the wild living things that call them home.
Unfortunately, these trees are not the giants of old. They grow, flower, and produce nuts that grow more trees, but they do not grow to maturity......
Not the grove I'm talking about. The trees predate the arrival of the blight. Some are a couple of 100 years old, maybe older. I've seen the grove, but the details are hard to know. People studying the phenomenon don't tell us much for fear of attracting the idle curious, who might then bring the blight to this tiny corner of Maine.
Weary
Ramble~On
05-30-2008, 11:56
My understanding is that only 1% of the trees survived uneffected and it is these trees that offer the biggest hope. It is pretty understandable why these stands of trees would be protected.
Growth rate...this article offers some interesting info.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040331003418.htm
I've linked information provided by Penn State before. Click on Chestnut Growers (http://chestnut.cas.psu.edu/Default.html); there's plenty to explore.
Work to Resurrect American Chestnut (http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1350578/work_to_resurrect_american_chestnut/index.html)
This unassuming tree, planted last week at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello in Albemarle County, went into the ground carrying the heavy weight of hope.
This tree is one-sixteenth Chinese chestnut, and scientists think that may confer a genetic resistance to the fungus that has devastated chestnuts in American woods.
It's hardly more than a spindle, a slender 5-foot-tall tree that hasn't yet leafed out for spring.
It's an American chestnut backcross, bred to resemble its all-American forebears, which dominated Eastern forests until a sweeping blight wiped them out in the early to mid-20th century.
Hiking in the Smokies over Labor Day weekend we found quite a few chestnuts lying on the ground. Some were in the fruit; some had already popped out. I didn't know what the fruit looked like for sure. Now I do.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=27433&c=553
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=27434&c=553
Tipi Walter
09-03-2008, 08:00
Hiking in the Smokies over Labor Day weekend we found quite a few chestnuts lying on the ground. Some were in the fruit; some had already popped out. I didn't know what the fruit looked like for sure. Now I do.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=27433&c=553
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=27434&c=553
Uh, that looks like buckeye. Mature chestnut seedpods are prickly like a cactus. BTW, on my last backpacking trip I was leaving Bob Bald when I ran into Dr. Hill Craddock from Univ of Chattanooga and cohorts under a mature chestnut tree with a 30 foot ladder they humped up from Wolf Laurel. With him were some graduate students, Ross and Alberta Broadway, and another guy famous in the chestnut world. He was on television recently talking about his TN chestnut farm.
They were bagging and tagging pollen and various other things, and showed me what a nut pod looks like and how the blight scars up the trunk like a big hatchet cut. Here's some fotogs of that trip:
One of the Chestnut Mountain Boys
Close up
Ross Broadway surveying the work--he's an expert on the area and loves chestnuts
GF Little Mitten by a big chestnut stump on Rocky Flats trail in the Citico
BTW, on my last backpacking trip I was leaving Bob Bald when I ran into Dr. Hill Craddock from Univ of Chattanooga and cohorts under a mature chestnut tree with a 30 foot ladder they humped up from Wolf Laurel. With him were some graduate students, Ross and Alberta Broadway, and another guy famous in the chestnut world. He was on television recently talking about his TN chestnut farm.
They were bagging and tagging pollen and various other things, and showed me what a nut pod looks like and how the blight scars up the trunk like a big hatchet cut. Here's some fotogs of that trip:
Dr. Craddock is a super nice guy. He has test plots of American Chestnuts at the botanical garden where I live in the Caretaker's cabin. ATC is looking for volunteers to gather data on the American Chestnut. I believe LaurieP posted something about that here previously. It's a great way to get involved, and learn more about the forests that the trail passes through.
Uh, that looks like buckeye. Mature chestnut seedpods are prickly like a cactus.
Alas, you are right. My dim memory of horse chestnut hulls from when I was a child was that they were prickly, so I assumed these were American chestnuts. (There were certainly plenty of American chestnut sprouts in the area--and I CAN identify the leaves with certainty.)
Thanks for the correction.
Marta
Nearly Normal
09-03-2008, 19:46
Don't eat buckeyes. All parts of the tree are poison.