|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Castanea pumila | Allegheny Chinkapin
ABBREVIATION :
CASPUM
SYNONYMS :
Castanea alabamensis Ashe [4]
C. alnifolia Nutt. [8]
C. alnifolia var. floridana Sarg. [8]
C. ashei Sudw. [8,16]
C. floridana (Sarg.) Ashe [8]
C. ozarkensis Ashe [13]
C. ozarkensis var. arkansana Ashe [13]
SCS PLANT CODE :
CAPU9
COMMON NAMES :
Allegheny chinkapin
Ozark chinkapin
chinkapin
chinquapin
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for Allegheny chinkapin is
Castanea pumila (L.) Mill. (Fagaceae) [4,8,16]. This highly variable
species has a number of infrataxa which have sometimes been given
separate species status [4,10,11,32,33]. Johnson [10,11] and Tucker
[33] agree that most, and probably all, chinkapins should be treated as
a single species. Currently accepted varieties include the following:
Castanea pumila var. pumila
C. pumila var. ashei Sudw. [13,22] coastal chinkapin
C. pumila var. ozarkensis (Ashe) Tucker [10,13,34] Ozark chinkapin
Allegheny chinkapin and American chestnut (Castanea dentata) hybridize
to form C. xneglecta Dode [16].
LIFE FORM :
Tree, Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Janet Sullivan, March 1994
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Sullivan, Janet. 1994. Castanea pumila. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Castanea pumila | Allegheny Chinkapin
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
The range of Allegheny chinkapin extends from New Jersey and
Pennsylvania south to Florida and west to eastern Texas, eastern
Oklahoma, and southern Ohio [4,16]. Ozark chinkapin is limited to the
Ozark highlands of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, and has been
extirpated from most of Alabama by chestnut blight [10].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
STATES :
AL AR DE GA FL KY LA MD MS MO
NJ NC OH OK PA SC TN TX VA WV
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
BISO BITH BLRI CAHA CUGA CUIS
FOCA GWMP GRSM HOBE MANA OBRI
PRWI RICH ROCR SHEN
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
NO-ENTRY
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
K115 Sand pine scrub
SAF COVER TYPES :
43 Bear oak
52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
69 Sand pine
70 Longleaf pine
71 Longleaf pine - scrub oak
72 Southern scrub oak
75 Shortleaf pine
80 Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine
81 Loblolly pine
82 Loblolly pine - hardwood
83 Longleaf pine - slash pine
84 Slash pine
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Allegheny chinkapin is locally abundant as a low, clonal shrub on
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)-scrub oak (Quercus spp.) sand ridges and
hills that are burned frequently, and in open stands of planted pine on
ridges and hills. It is less frequent in sand pine (P. clausa)-oak
scrub [8]. Ozark chinkapin is often associated with chinkapin oak
(Quercus muehlenbergii) in white oak (Q. alba)-black oak (Q.
velutina)-northern red oak (Q. rubra) cover types [26].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Castanea pumila | Allegheny Chinkapin
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
Allegheny chinkapin wood is light, hard, close-grained, and durable. It
is used largely for fenceposts and fuel. It is not exploited for
commercial timber because of its small stature and scattered occurrence
[32,35].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Allegheny chinkapin nuts are excellent wildlife food and are consumed by
squirrels, chipmunks, opossums, white-tailed deer, bluejays, pileated
woodpeckers [31], red-headed woodpeckers [34], and many other birds
[4,31]. Allegheny chinkapin is usually not a primary wildlife food due
to its scattered occurrence [35]. It is, however, listed as an
important species in the diet of southeastern fox squirrels (including
five subspecies) [17]. White-tailed deer browse the foliage of
Allegheny chinkapin [34].
PALATABILITY :
In North Carolina, Allegheny chinkapin had a high utilization rate (81%
browsed) by white-tailed deer, even though it occurred in relatively low
abundance [36].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Chestnut (Castanea spp.) meats were reported to contain 2.9 percent
protein (fresh weight), 41 percent N-free extract, and 1.1 percent crude
fiber [20].
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Allegheny chinkapin (cultivar 'golden') has good potential for use in
revegetation of disturbed sites, particularly because of its wildlife
value and adaptability to harsh sites [9,10]. It is likely that many
planners hesitate to use it because of the threat of chestnut blight
infection.
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Allegheny chinkapin nuts are sweet and palatable, considered better
tasting than those of American chestnut (Castanea dentata), and have
been bartered and sold commercially [28]. Allegheny chinkapin may be of
value for breeding blight-resistant chestnuts with good-tasting nuts [10].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Allegheny chinkapin has been variously reported as very susceptible to
chestnut blight [34], moderately resistant to chestnut blight [28], and
almost completely resistant to chestnut blight [35]. The disease has
been blamed for the extirpation of Allegheny chinkapin from most of
Alabama, and as having severely reduced populations in the Ozarks. It
is considered a threat to Allegheny chinkapin in Texas [28]. Campbell
and others [3] placed Allegheny chinkapin on a list of species which are
rare in Appalachian Kentucky, because there are fewer than 10 records of
Allegheny chinkapin for the region. They speculated that Allegheny
chinkapin has decreased in abundance because of fire suppression and
chestnut blight [3]. Roedner and others [24] included Ozark chinkapin
in a checklist of rare plants of the Ozark Plateau, Missouri, and
reported it as endangered due to chestnut blight. It has been
considered for inclusion in the Federal Register [19].
Allegheny chinkapin is a host to oak wilt [25].
In central Louisiana, an all-aged loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)-shortleaf
pine (P. echinata) stand was selectively harvested in 1958 for pines,
and in 1959 and early 1960 for hardwoods. The stand had not
experienced any fires since the early 1940's. Allegheny chinkapin was
listed with a group of species whose importance value increased after
overstory removal, from 1960 to 1970 [2].
Allegheny chinkapin is listed as susceptible to the following
herbicides: 2,4,5-T, bromacil, dicamba, picloram, and silvex. It may
resprout after herbicide treatment [1].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Castanea pumila | Allegheny Chinkapin
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Allegheny chinkapin is a native, deciduous, rhizomatous large shrub or
small tree [8]. Mature heights range from 6 to 65 feet (2-20 m)
[4,7,8,32,35]. The bark of trunks is smooth with shallow furrows [35].
The stems of young shoots are pubescent to densely tomentose. The
flowers are axillary catkins [8]. The involucre is a spiny bur 1 to 1.4
inches (2.5-3.5 cm) long, containing a nut which is 0.28 to 0.8 inch
(7-20 mm) long [28].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Allegheny chinkapin reproduces readily from seed. It is monoecious,
self-incompatible, and wind pollinated [8,10]. Allegheny chinkapin
cultivar 'golden' seedlings may produce nuts as early as the second or
third growing season. Nut crops are not large until the fourth or fifth
year. Six-year-old plants produced 1,200 to 1,500 nuts per plant.
Seeds planted in the fall show good germination (> 90%); seeds stored
over the winter tend to dry out and germinate at much reduced rates
(< 50%) [9].
Allegheny chinkapin sprouts vigorously from the stump after top-kill
[28]. It spreads from the rhizomes, forming thickets or colonies [8].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Allgeheny chinkapin occurs in xeric to mesic, thin or open mixed woods
on dry, rocky, sandy, or loamy soils [4]. It is typically found on
well-drained stream terraces, dry pinelands and sandhills, and disturbed
sites such as railroad rights-of-way, powerline clearings, fence and
hedgerows, pine plantations, and old fields [4,8,10,35]. Ozark
chinkapin is typically found on dry uplands in deciduous or mixed
woodlands, but also on cliff margins, talus slopes, and rocky ridges.
Allegheny chinkapin grows well on almost all soil textures except heavy
clay soils [9].
Allegheny chinkapin ranges in elevation from sea level to about 4,455
(1350 m) in the southern Appalachians [4].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Allegheny chinkapin is not highly shade tolerant, and occurs in open
woods and disturbed areas [8]. It is not competitive where overstory
trees begin to form a closed canopy; it is easily replaced by more
shade-tolerant species [10]. In Florida, it is a member of the
mid-successional pine (Pinus spp.)-oak (Quercus spp.)-hickory (Carya
spp.) type. It is also a member of communities that remain seral
because of disturbances such as fire [15].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Allegheny chinkapin flowers from April to July, depending on latitude
[4]. The ripened nuts are available from September through November [31].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Castanea pumila | Allegheny Chinkapin
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Allegheny chinkapin forms extensive clones where it has been burned over
annually or at short intervals. It occurs in burned-over longleaf
pine-oak scrub and sand pine-oak scrub, and other disturbed sites [8].
Fire benefits Allegheny chinkapin by removing or reducing shade-tolerant
competitors and opening the overstory [10].
The bear oak (Quercus ilicifolia) type is a disturbance maintained type
in which Allegheny chinkapin is listed as an associate. It is
restricted to poor, dry sites which have been disturbed in the recent
past mainly by heavy cutting, fire, or both. It is favored by
disturbance at frequent but not necessarily regular intervals [5].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Castanea pumila | Allegheny Chinkapin
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Allegheny chinkapin is probably easily top-killed by most fires.
Allegheny chinkapin was a member of the understory of a cut-over
pine-hardwood stand that was prescribed burned to control hardwoods.
While no specific figures on Allegheny chinkapin mortality were given,
the author stated that two fires top-killed 90 percent of the hardwood
stems under 1 inch (2.54 cm) in diameter, and set back hardwood
succession. Larger stems (1 to 5 inches in diameter [2.54-12 cm])
experienced much lower mortality: 27 to 36 percent top-kill [27].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Allegheny chinkapin sprouts vigorously following top-kill by fire [12].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Castanea pumila | Allegheny Chinkapin
REFERENCES :
1. Bovey, Rodney W. 1977. Response of selected woody plants in the United
States to herbicides. Agric. Handb. 493. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 101 p. [8899]
2. Blair, Robert M.; Brunett, Louis E. 1976. Phytosociological changes
after timber harvest in a southern pine ecosystem. Ecology. 57: 18-32.
[9646]
3. Campbell, J. J. N.; Taylor, D. D.; Medley, M. E.; Risk, A. C. 1991.
Floristic and historical evidence of fire-maintained, grassy pine-oak
barrens before settlement in southeastern Kentucky. In: Nodvin, Stephen
C.; Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and
cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990
March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station: 359-375. [16656]
4. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern
United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p.
[12764]
5. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
6. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
7. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New
York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
8. Godfrey, Robert K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern
Florida and adjacent Georgia and Alabama. Athens, GA: The University of
Georgia Press. 734 p. [10239]
9. Henry, Donald S.; Gilbert, Charles. 1983. Golden chinquapin provides
food for wildlife. American Nurseryman. 157(9): 71-73. [8097]
10. Johnson, George P. 1987. Chinquapins: taxonomy, distribution, ecology
and importance. Northern Nut Growers Association: 78th annual report.
[Hamden, CT]: 58-62. [22510]
11. Johnson, George P. 1985. Revision of Castanea sect. Balanocastanon.
Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. [Pages unknown].
Dissertation. [24045]
12. Johnson, George P. 1989. Revision of Castanea sect. Balanocastoanon
(Fagaceae). Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 69: 25-49. [24222]
13. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of
the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume
II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie
Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]
14. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
15. Kurz, Herman. 1944. Secondary forest succession in the Tallahassee Red
Hills. Proceedings, Florida Academy of Science. 7(1): 59-100. [10799]
16. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native
and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]
17. Loeb, Susan C.; Lennartz, Michael R. 1989. The fox squirrel (Sciurus
niger) in Southeastern pine-hardwood forests. In: Waldrop, Thomas A.,
ed. Proceedings of pine-hardwood mixtures: a symposium on management and
ecology of the type; 1989 April 18-19; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SE-58. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 142-148. [10271]
18. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
19. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University Press. 362 p. [12914]
20. National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United
States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
772 p. [1731]
21. Petruncio, Mark; Lea, Russ. 1985. Natural hardwood regeneration in the
southern Appalachians. In: Shoulders, Eugene, ed. Proceedings, 3rd
biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1984 November 7-8;
Atlanta, GA. General Technical Report SO-54. New Orleans, LA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment
Station: 178-182. [7389]
22. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of
the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
23. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
24. Roedner, Beverly J.; Hamilton, David A.; Evans, Keith E. 1978. Rare
plants of the Ozark Plateau...a field indentification guide. St. Paul,
MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station. 238 p. [16452]
25. Riffle, Jerry W.; Peterson, Glenn W., technical coordinators. 1986.
Diseases of trees in the Great Plains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-129. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 149 p. [16989]
26. Sander, Ivan L. 1990. Quercus muehlenbergii Engelm. chinkapin oak. In:
Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics
of North America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 697-703. [13974]
27. Silker, T. H. 1957. Prescribed burning in the silviculture and
management of southern pine-hardwood and slash pine stands. In: Society
of American Foresters: Proceedings of the 1956 annual meeting; [Date of
conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Washington, DC:
Society of American Foresters: 94-99. [15279]
28. Simpson, Benny J. 1988. A field guide to Texas trees. Austin, TX: Texas
Monthly Press. 372 p. [11708]
29. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
31. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,
their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
32. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
33. Tucker, Gary E. 1975. Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis (Ashe) Tucker,
comb. nov. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings. 29: 67-69. [24236]
34. Hunter, Carl G. 1989. Trees, shrubs, and vines of Arkansas. Little Rock,
AR: The Ozark Society Foundation. 207 p. [21266]
35. Brown, Russell G.; Brown, Melvin L. 1972. Woody plants of Maryland.
Baltimore, MD: Port City Press. 347 p. [21844]
36. Lanner, Ronald M. 1980. Avian seed dispersal as a factor in the ecology
and evolution of limber and whitebark pines. In: Dancik, Bruce;
Higginbotham, Kenneth, eds. Proceedings, 6th North American forest
biology workshop; 1980 August 11-13; Edmonton, AB. Edmonton, AB:
University of Alberta: 15-48. [1404]
Index
Related categories for Species: Castanea pumila
| Allegheny Chinkapin
|
 |
