|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Corylus americana | American Hazel
ABBREVIATION :
CORAME
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
COAM
COMMON NAMES :
American hazel
Americam filbert
American hazelnut
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for American hazel is Corylus
americana Walt. [17,31]. Two subspecific taxa based on morphological
differences are found in southwestern Missouri and southeastern Kansas:
C. a. var. indehiscens Palm. & Steyerm. and C. a. forma missouriensis
(A. DC.) Fern. [18].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Milo Coladonato, August 1993
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Coladonato, Milo. 1993. Corylus americana. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Corylus americana | American Hazel
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
American hazel occurs from Maine west to Saskatchewan, south to eastern
Oklahoma, east to Georgia, and north through New England [5,17,31].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES19 Aspen - birch
STATES :
AL AR GA IL IN IA KS KY LA ME
MD MA MI MN MS MO NH NJ NY NC
ND OH OK PA RI SC SD TN VT VA
WV WI MB ON PQ SK
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ALPO BISO BLRI BUFF CATO CUGA
CUVA DEWA EFMO FODO GWMP GRSM
HOSP INDU MACA MANA MORR NATR
NERI OBRI PRWI ROCR SARA SHEN
SHIL VOYA WICR
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
14 Great Plains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K081 Oak savanna
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K099 Maple - basswood forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K101 Elm - ash forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
1 Jack pine
5 Balsam fir
12 Black spruce
13 Black spruce - tamarack
14 Northern pin oak
15 Red pine
16 Aspen
17 Pin cherry
18 Paper birch
20 White pine - northern red oak - red maple
21 Eastern white pine
22 White pine - hemlock
23 Eastern hemlock
24 Hemlock - yellow birch
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
26 Sugar maple - basswood
27 Sugar maple
30 Red spruce - yellow birch
31 Red spruce - sugar maple - beech
32 Red spruce
35 Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
39 Black ash - American elm - red maple
40 Post oak - blackjack oak
42 Bur oak
43 Bear oak
44 Chestnut oak
51 White pine - chestnut oak
52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
57 Yellow-poplar
58 Yellow-poplar - eastern hemlock
59 Yellow-poplar - white oak - northern red oak
60 Beech - sugar maple
62 Silver maple - American elm
76 Shortleaf pine - oak
78 Virginia pine - oak
108 Red maple
110 Black oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
American hazel is a dominant or codominant shrub in maple-basswood
(Acer-Tilia) forests of Wisconsin and Minnesota [12]. In Nebraska,
American hazel is a dominant shrub in the ecotone of forest and praire
[1,33]. It is a dominant understory species in jack pine (Pinus
banksiana), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), trembling aspen (Populus
tremuloides), and nothern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis) communities of
northern Wisconsin [4].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Corylus americana | American Hazel
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
The leaves, twigs, and catkins of American hazel are browsed by deer and
moose [11,24]. The nuts are eaten by small mammals, northern bobwhite,
ruffed grouse and other large birds, and deer [19.20]. Beaver eat the bark
[20].
PALATABILITY :
NO-ENTRY
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
American hazel has a fairly high protein and energy value. Percentage
composition (dry weight) of the nuts is as follows [32]:
crude protein 25.81
crude fiber 2.10
available protein 23.25
calcium 0.28
phosphorus 0.39
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
American hazel has been cultivated as an ornamental since 1798. It is
also commercially cultivated for nut production. The sweet nuts may be
eaten raw or ground and made into a cakelike bread [31]. The nuts were
used by Native Americans to flavor soups [16].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
American hazel often competes with hardwoods and pines for light and
moisture [25,27]. Because of shading and agressive growth, it has long
been recognized as a major deterent to the successful regeneration of
upland conifers [6]. American and beaked hazel (C. cornuta) are
responsible for much of the failure of red pine (Pinus resinosa)
regeneration in Minnesota [13].
American hazel can be controlled with herbicides [22,25].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Corylus americana | American Hazel
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
American hazel is a large, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub from 3 to 10
feet (1-3 m) tall [5,9]. It has a straight trunk with spreading,
ascending branches, and can form dense thickets. The leaves are 3 to 5
inches (8-12 cm) long. The male catkins are 8 inches (20 cm) long,
straight, slender, and regularly spaced along the upper stem. The
female flowers are tiny, almost completely enclosed by bracts, and near
the end of the twigs. The acornlike nuts are enclosed in two leafy
bracts [20,28]. The roots are typically in the upper 6 inches (15 cm)
of soil [6]. Some of the smaller roots run vertically toward the
surface and branch profusely into very fine laterals [34].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
American hazel reproduces both sexually and asexually. It begins
producing seed after the first year, and produces good seed crops
every 2 to 3 years. Seed dispersal is chiefly by mammals or birds [5].
Vegetative Reproduction: The most important mode of reproduction of
American hazel is from rhizomes [6]. The large, woody rhizomes are 4 to
6 inches (10-15 cm) below the surface. Rhizomes give rise to new shoots
1 to 2 feet (30-60 cm) from the parent plant [34].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
American hazel occurs along streams, hedgerows, meadows, woodlands,
roadsides, and forest margins. It grows best on rich, moist,
well-drained soils [20,31,34]
Common understory associates of American hazel include shagbark hickory
(Carya ovata), raspberry (Rubus spp.), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra),
chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianum),
eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), and dogwood (Cornus spp.)
[1,2,10].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Faculative Seral Species
American hazel is shade tolerant [33]. It can grow under a light
intensity of 15 percent or less; even as low as 1 percent [1]. It is a
mid-seral species, and is usually absent in old-growth forest
communities [2].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
The flowers of American hazel are formed in the summer and open the
following spring, before the leaves emerge. By late summer or early
fall, the fertilized flowers develop into fruits [5].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Corylus americana | American Hazel
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Low- to moderate-severity fires top-kill American hazel [7]. It
survives fire by sprouting from rhizomes [7,10].
The underground roots and rhizomes can survive low- to moderate-severity
fires when the humus is moist. They are relatively shallow, however,
and are vulnerable to fire when the humus is dry and combustible [6].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Corylus americana | American Hazel
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
The aerial portions of American hazel are easily killed by spring and
summer fires [7].
On four oak savanna restoration sites in Minnesota, annual fires reduced
the frequency of American hazel from 65 percent on unburned plots to 39
percent on burned plots. Although annual burning increased the density of
hazel stems, stems on burned sites were shorter and smaller than stems
on unburned sites [3]
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
American hazel sprouts from rhizomes following fire [6].
A volume equation for determining biomass, growth response, and woody
density for American hazel following fire has been developed [8].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
In areas where fire has been excluded, a heavy density of American hazel
has developed, suppressing desirable tree species and contributing to
fuel buildup [10,21].
Repeated summer fires inhibit the ability of American hazel to sprout by
exposing and damaging underground stems and roots and exhausting stored
food reserves. Single fires may eliminate American hazel if humus is
sufficiently dry to be completely consumed [6].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Corylus americana | American Hazel
REFERENCES :
1. Aikman, John M. 1926. Distribution and structure of the forests of
eastern Nebraska. University Studies. 26(1-2): 1-75. [6575]
2. Alban, David H.; Perala, Donald A.; Schlaegel, Bryce E. 1978. Biomass
and nutrient distribution in aspen, pine, and spruce stands on the same
soil type in Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 8: 290-299.
[16911]
3. Axelrod, A. N.; Irving, F. D. 1978. Effects of prescribed fire on
American hazel at the Cedar Creek natural area in Minnesota. Restoration
and Management Notes. 1(2): 14. [2850]
4. Bockheim, J. G.; Jepsen, E. A.; Heisey, D. M. 1991. Nutrient dynamics in
decomposing leaf litter of 4 tree species on a sandy soil in
northwestern Wisconsin. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21:
803-812. [14999]
5. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Corylus L. hazel, filbert. In: Schopmeyer,
C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United
States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 343-345. [7594]
6. Buckman, Robert E. 1964. Effects of prescribed burning on hazel in
Minnesota. Ecology. 45(3): 626-629. [12204]
7. Buckman, Robert E. 1965. Silvicultural use of prescribed burning in the
Lake States. In: Proceedings--Society of American Foresters meeting;
1964 September 27 - October 1; Denver, CO. Washington, D.C.: Society of
American Foresters: 38-40. [8749]
8. Buckman, Robert E. 1966. Estimation of cubic volume of shrubs (Corylus
spp.). Ecology. 47(5): 858-860. [18746]
9. Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the
Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p. [12766]
10. Clark, James S. 1990. Twentieth-century climate change, fire
suppression, and forest production and decomposition in northwestern
Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 20: 219-232. [11646]
11. Dalke, Paul D. 1941. The use and availability of the more common winter
deer browse plants in the Missouri Ozarks. Transactions, 6th North
American Wildlife Conference. 6: 155-160. [17044]
12. Eggler, Willis A. 1938. The maple-basswood forest type in Washburn
County, Wisconsin. Ecology. 19(2): 243-263. [6907]
13. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
14. Eyre, F. H.; Zehngraff, Paul. 1948. Red pine management in Minnesota.
Circular No. 778. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 70 p.
[12177]
15. 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]
16. Gilmore, Melvin Randolph. 1919. Uses of plants by the Indians of the
Missouri River region. 33rd Annual Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of
American Ethnology. 154 p. [6928]
17. 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]
18. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
19. Gullion, G. W. 1970. Ruffed grouse investigations - influence of forest
management practices on grouse populations. Upland Game Job No. 45. [St.
Paul, MN]: Minnesota Department of Game and Fish. Game Research
Quarterly Reports. 30(3): 104-105. [16748]
20. Hunter, Carl G. 1989. Trees, shrubs, and vines of Arkansas. Little Rock,
AR: The Ozark Society Foundation. 207 p. [21266]
21. Paulsen, Harold A., Jr.; Miller, John C. 1968. Control of Parry
rabbitbrush on mountain grasslands of western Colorado. Journal of Range
Management. 21: 175-177. [1844]
22. Krefting, Laurits W. 1962. Use of silvicultural techniques for improving
deer habitat in the Lake States. Journal of Forestry. 60(1): 40-42.
[17092]
23. 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]
24. Pastor, J.; Dewey, B.; Naiman, R. J.; [and others]. 1993. Moose browsing
and soil fertility in the boreal forests of Isle Royale National Park.
Ecology. 74(2): 467-480. [20767]
25. Perala, Donald A. 1971. Controlling hazel, aspen suckers, and mountain
maple with picloram. Res. Note NC-129. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 4
p. [3953]
26. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
27. Shirley, Hardy L. 1932. Light intensity in relation to plant growth in a
virgin Norway pine forest. Journal of Agricultural Research. 44:
227-244. [10360]
28. Stephens, H. A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains.
Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 530 p. [3804]
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. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
32. Wainio, Walter W.; Forbes, E. B. 1941. The chemical composition of
forest fruits and nuts from Pennsylvania. Journal of Agricultural
Research. 62(10): 627-635. [5401]
33. Weaver, J. E. 1968. Prairie plants and their environment: A fifty-year
study in the Midwest. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 276 p.
[17547]
34. Weaver, J. E.; Kramer, Joseph. 1932. Root system of Quercus macrocarpa
in relation to the invasion of prairie. Botanical Gazette. 94: 51-85.
[274]
Index
Related categories for Species: Corylus americana
| American Hazel
|
 |
