|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Quercus prinus | Chestnut Oak
ABBREVIATION :
QUEPRI
SYNONYMS :
Quercus montana Willd.
SCS PLANT CODE :
QUPR2
COMMON NAMES :
chestnut oak
rock chestnut oak
rock oak
tanbark oak
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of chestnut oak is Quercus prinus
L. [38,49]. It has been placed within the subgenus Lepidobalanus, or
white oak group [28]. In the past, Quercus prinus was applied to swamp
chestnut oak (Q. michauxii) and Q. montana was applied to chestnut oak.
Quercus prinus was restored to chestnut oak by Fernald in 1950 [21,38].
Chestnut oak naturally hybridizes with the following species [38]:
x Q. alba (white oak): Q. X saulii Schneid.
x Q. bicolor (swamp white oak)
x Q. robur (English oak): Q. X sargentii Rehd.
x Q. stellata (post oak): Q. X bernardiensis W. Wolf
LIFE FORM :
Tree
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
Chestnut oak is listed as endangered in Maine's Official List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants [15].
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Jennifer H. Carey, December 1992
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Carey, Jennifer H. 1992. Quercus prinus. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Quercus prinus | Chestnut Oak
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Chestnut oak occurs primarily in the Appalachian Mountains and adjacent
hill country. Chestnut oak is distributed from southwestern Maine west
through New York to extreme southern Ontario and extreme southeastern
Michigan, south through southern Indiana and extreme southern Illinois
to extreme northeastern Mississippi, east through northern Alabama to
Georgia, and north along the Piedmont to Delaware. Chestnut oak is rare
on the Southeastern Coastal Plain, but occurs along the coast in
Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and in the New England states [38,49].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
STATES :
AL CT DE GA IL IN KY ME MD MA
MI MS NJ NH NY NC OH PA RI SC
TN VA VT WV
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ALPO BISO BLRI CATO CHCH COLO
CUGA CUVA DEWA FOCA FODO GWMP
GRSM HOBE MACA MANA MORR NATR
NERI OBRI PRWI RICH ROCR SHEN
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
NO-ENTRY
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K110 Northeastern oak - pine forest
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
21 Eastern white pine
22 White pine - hemlock
43 Bear oak
44 Chestnut oak
45 Pitch pine
51 White pine - chestnut oak
52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
53 White oak
78 Virginia pine - oak
79 Virginia pine
108 Red maple
110 Black oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Chestnut oak is an important species of eastern upland deciduous and
coniferous forests and may occur in pure stands [17]. It constitutes an
important component of the subcanopy and canopy layers of Table Mountain
pine (Pinus pungens) forests [80]. Chestnut oak codominates with
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) on particularly steep east-facing
slopes in the Hudson River Valley in New York [24].
Because of the high mortality of American chestnut (Castanea dentata)
caused by the chestnut blight fungus (Endothia parasitica) introduced
from Asia in the early 1900's, the former Appalachian oak (Quercus
spp.)-American chestnut forest is now dominated by chestnut oak, white
oak, and northern red oak (Q. rubra) [29,33,49,79]. Keever [33]
recommends that former oak-American chestnut forests be named chestnut
oak forests.
The following published classifications list chestnut oak as dominant
or codominant:
Deciduous Forest [26]
Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains [79]
The Natural Communities of South Carolina [54]
Eastern Deciduous Forest [74]
Forest Vegetation of the Lower Alabama Piedmont [25]
The Natural Forests of Maryland: an explanation of the vegetation map
of Maryland [8]
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Quercus prinus | Chestnut Oak
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
Chestnut oak wood is cut and utilized as white oak lumber [49].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Good crops of chestnut oak acorns are infrequent, but when available the
acorns are eaten by numerous upland wildlife species, including
white-tailed deer, squirrels, chipmunks, mice, and wild turkeys [49].
White-tailed deer occasionally browse young oak sprouts, especially the
first year after cutting or burning. The deer only take the top few
inches of the sprout unless it is extremely succulent or other food is
scarce [41].
Small birds and mammals, as well as insects such as bees, use chestnut
oak cavities for nesting. In a survey of 31 oak-hickory (Carya spp.)
stands in the Appalachian Mountains, a disproportionate share of
cavities were in chestnut oak [9].
PALATABILITY :
Chestnut oak acorns are considered sweet [49]. Gray squirrels selected
pignut hickory (Carya glabra) nuts and northern red oak acorns over
chestnut oak acorns but preferred chestnut oak acorns to those of white
oak [36].
White-tailed deer prefer chestnut oak sprouts to seedlings [52].
Chestnut oak sprouts are more palatable than those of bear oak (Q.
ilicifolia) [41].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Chestnut oak acorns are, on average by dry weight, 5.76 percent crude
protein, 10.07 percent crude fat, and 78.9 percent carbohydrates [66].
The acorns are 0.09 percent (dry weight) magnesium and 0.15 percent
phosphorus, and contain only a trace of calcium [75]. The average crude
energy yield of chestnut oak acorns is 21.8 kJ/kernel, and the average
metabolizable energy yield is 15.7 kJ/kernel [36].
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
In the past, chestnut oak performed well on mine spoils in Ohio [37] and
on cast overburden in Illinois and Indiana [73]. However, more recent
plantings of chestnut oak on mine spoils have not been as successful.
Reclamation practices mandated by federal law are often unfavorable for
oak establishment. Top-soiling practices, excess soil compaction caused
by grading, and competition from seeded herbaceous covers reduce the
growth and survival of planted oak species [73]. Chestnut oak did not
show good height growth or survival and is not recommended for planting
on graded, top-soiled mine spoils in southern Illinois [2].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Chestnut oak shows a 7 to 10 day delay in budbreak and leaf flush on
sites that have heavy metal (copper, zinc, and lead) enrichment of the
soil. This retarded leaf flush may be used in geobotanical
remote-sensing techniques for mineral detection [3].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
To regenerate upland oaks successfully, advance regeneration must be 4
to 5 feet (1.2-1.5 m) tall before the overstory is removed. Successful
regeneration of a mixed oak forest can only be accomplished after
clearcutting if there are adequate numbers of older advance regeneration
[62]. Sanders [61] recommended that there be at least 433
well-distributed oak sprouts and saplings per acre (1,070/ha).
Otherwise, a shelterwood silviculture system is needed to give oak
regeneration time and partial light to grow. For best results, the
shelterwood cut should leave a 60 to 70 percent stocking density. All
nonoak stems in the understory larger than 4 to 6 feet (1.2-1.8 m) tall
should be killed [62].
Forest managers have noticed a decrease in upland oak frequency in newly
regenerated stands after clearcutting, especially on good sites. The
reason for the decrease is the inability of oak seedlings and sprouts to
compete successfully with species that have invaded the oak forest
understory in the absence of disturbance [62]. In West Virginia, 59
stands with a history of grazing, thinning, or light fire in the past
two decades had more oak regeneration than undisturbed stands [10].
The season of clearcutting appears to have an effect on the regeneration
of upland oak stands. On lower quality sites in south-central Ohio,
upland oaks (chestnut, scarlet, black, and white) were more favored over
mixed hardwoods after summer clearcutting than after winter
clearcutting. The season of harvest (dormant season versus growing
season) did not affect regeneration on good sites [76].
Site quality affects the ability of upland oaks to regenerate. In the
abovementioned study in south-central Ohio, medium-quality sites had
higher absolute and relative oak densities 18 to 20 years after
clearcutting than did good sites. The oaks showed good early
establishment on both medium and good sites but were unable to compete
with the faster growing mesic hardwoods on good sites [76]. The seed
tree silviculture method was used on fair and good sites in an
Appalachian hardwood forest which contained chestnut oak. Twelve years
after the seed-tree harvest cut and 9 years after seed trees were cut,
chestnut oak regeneration was abundant only on the fair site [68].
Thinning may or may not improve the growth of established chestnut oak
stands. Five years after thinning a sawtimber-sized stand, the 75- to
80-year-old chestnut oaks had not responded to the release [67]. Thinning
upland oak stands to retain the best acorn producers for wildlife
habitat enhancement did not improve acorn yields enough to justify the
efforts [16]. Information on thinning, stocking, growth, and yields of
upland oaks is detailed [23].
Planting chestnut oak seedlings in old fields in the southern
Appalachian Mountains is generally unsuccessful unless the competition
is controlled for more than 3 years [18]. Information on storage,
seeding, and planting techniques for upland oaks is detailed [60].
In 26 chestnut oak stands in Pennsylvania and Maryland, advance
regeneration responded to the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) defoliation
of the canopy by increasing in height. However, there was a large
influx of competing vegetation, and the oak component of future stands
will probably be reduced [30].
Chestnut oak is one of the two most preferred host species of the
introduced gypsy moth, which defoliates trees [49]. Crow and Hicks [14]
developed hazard rating equations from site and stand characteristics
associated with chestnut oak mortality caused by insect defoliation.
The discriminant function equations correctly classified as dead or
alive 59 percent of the chestnut oaks in a study area in West Virginia.
The equations use the following variables: d.b.h., height, site index,
percent slope, aspect, host preference of insect, shade tolerance, and
the number of years of defoliation [14].
Other insects which defoliate chestnut oak include spring and fall
cankerworms (Paleacrita vernata and Alsophila pometaria), the forest
tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria), the half-wing geometer (Phigalia
titea) [49], oak leafrollers (Archips spp.) [59], and the linden looper
(Erannis tilaria) [49]. Chestnut oak is susceptible to wood-boring
beetles, including the Columbian timber beetle (Corthylus columbianus),
Platypus spp., and Xyleborus spp. Other wood borers that attack
chestnut oak include the oak timberworm (Arrhenodes minutus), the
carpenterworm (Prionoxystus robiniae), the little carpenterworm (P.
macmurtrei) [49], and the two-lined chestnut borer (Agrilus bilineatus)
[51].
Chestnut oak is susceptible to many oak diseases including oak wilt
(Ceratocystis fagacearum), twig-blight fungus (Diplodia longispora), and
stem cankers caused by Nectria galligena, Strumella coryneoidea, and
Botryodiplodia spp. Important decay-causing fungi include Spongipellis
pachyodon, Stereum gausapatum, Armillaria mellea, Fistulina hepatica,
Wolfiporia cocos, Inonotus dryophilus, Xylobolus frustulatus, and
Perenniporia compacta. Decay is common in stump sprouts, although the
incidence is lower for those that originate near the ground [49].
Chestnut oak is also susceptible to, but rarely killed by, several gall
wasps (Cynipidae), a pit scale (Asterolecanium quercicola), and the
golden oak scale (A. variolosum). Acorns are destroyed by nut weevils
(Curculio spp. and Conotrachelus spp.), the moth Valentinia glandulella,
and cynipid gall wasps [49].
Chestnut oaks that are stressed from drought, gypsy moth defoliation,
spring frost defoliation, old age, fire, poor site conditions, or other
factors often succumb to secondary agents such as the two-lined chestnut
borer. This scenario, in which a primary agent stresses the tree and a
secondary agent kills it, is known as "oak decline" and is responsible
for considerable chestnut oak mortality [51].
Herbicides have been used to control chestnut oak on sites where pine
regeneration is desired. In order to convert a North Carolina
Appalachian site to white pine (Pinus strobus), picloram was applied in
May as 10 percent acid equivalent pellets at the rate of 4.5 pounds acid
equivalent per acre (5.0 kg ae/ha). One year later, 29 percent of the
chestnut oaks showed complete crown kill or defoliation; 67 percent
showed leaf curling, crown biomass reduction, and/or chlorosis; and 4
percent exhibited no effect from the herbicide treatment [53].
Roundup (glyphosate) was used to control chestnut oak on a white pine
plantation in West Virginia. Three subsequent mistblower applications
in August and September on small chestnut oak sprouts were 100 percent
effective after two growing seasons. In the fall, saplings larger than
1 inch (2.5 cm) in d.b.h. were injected with 0.05 fluid ounce (1.5 ml)
of 20 and 50 percent solutions a few inches above the groundline in
1.5-inch (3.8 cm) spacings. Two growing seasons after the injections,
100 percent of the chestnut oak saplings were dead and did not have
sprouts [78].
In Georgia, three herbicides were tested on chestnut oak. Each tree
received one incision for every 3 inches (7.6 cm) in d.b.h., and each
incision was injected with 0.06 ounces (2 ml) of herbicide. One year
after injection, chestnut oak injected with Arsenal at two different
concentrations (1 and 2 lbs AC 252,925 per gallon) had 100 percent
top-kill and no sprouting. Garlon 3A (1.5 pounds triclopyr per gallon)
resulted in 40 percent top-kill. Chestnut oak injected with
3,6-dichloropicolinic acid at two concentrations (1.5 and 3 pounds
XRM-3972 per gallon) resulted in 0 percent and 20 percent top-kill,
respectively [50].
Dead, standing chestnut oak killed by fire had the fastest decomposition
rate (11 percent per year) of ten species studied in the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park [28].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Quercus prinus | Chestnut Oak
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Chestnut oak is a medium-sized, native, deciduous, monoecious tree. It
is long-lived and slow-growing. At maturity, chestnut oak is usually 65
to 80 feet (20-24 m) tall and 20 to 30 inches (51-76 cm) in d.b.h., but
on good sites it can reach a maximum size of 100 feet (30 m) in height
and 72 inches (183 cm) in d.b.h. Seedlings initially develop a deep
taproot, but saplings and larger trees have six to ten main lateral
roots extending 10 to 33 feet (3-10 m) from the root crown. These roots
occur from near the soil surface to a depth of 36 inches (91 cm) [49].
The acorns are large [6].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Sexual: Seed production begins when the tree is about 20 years old.
Acorn crop sizes vary considerably from year to year with heavy crops
occurring only once every 4 to 5 years [49]. Good crops are dependent
on spring temperature patterns. Above normal temperatures in early
April followed by subnormal temperatures in early May result in the best
acorn crops. The early warm temperatures induce the early development
of staminate flowers and increase the development of viable pollen. The
cool weather delays the pollen dispersal to coincide with pistillate
flower development, and the delay may also enhance ovary development. A
gradual increase in the temperature from early spring to summer results
in poor crops. Occasionally, a chestnut oak will produce 100 to 300
pounds (45-136 kg) of acorns, but this is rare. Often a tree will
produce less than 10 pounds (4.5 kg) [64]. Chestnut oaks generally
produce fewer acorns than other upland oak species [49].
Dissemination is by gravity and squirrels [49], although white oak group
acorns are not dispersed by squirrels to the extent that red oak group
acorns are [66]. Very few (0.5 percent) available chestnut oak acorns
were buried by gray squirrels in a study of acorn preference [36].
Most chestnut oak acorns germinate at day/night temperatures of 65/50
degrees Fahrenheit (18/10 deg C). Chestnut oak germination is enhanced
by 1 inch (2-3 cm) of leaf litter, but litter deeper than 2 inches (5
cm) is unfavorable. The germination capacity of sound acorns is 90
percent. A thick paenchyma layer in the chestnut oak acorn pericup
allows it to absorb and retain more moisture than acorns of other oak
species. Consequently, they can germinate in dry soil [49]. The
germination of chestnut oak acorns was not greatly affected by treating
the soil with copper, lead, and zinc solutions, although acorns from
sites naturally high in metals had slightly higher survival than acorns
from sites with low background levels of metals [4].
In an oak-pine forest in the New Jersey Pine Barrens, 1-year-old
chestnut oak occurred in areas with deeper litter (an average of 1.4
inches [3.5 cm]) and less light (22 percent of available) than its
upland associate, scarlet oak (Q. coccinea). Chestnut oak seedlings,
however, are not highly site specific because of the large energy
reserves in the acorns [11].
The roots of chestnut oak seedlings penetrate 5 to 6 inches (12.7-15.2
cm) before the unfolding of primary leaves, which are borne on stems 2
to 3 inches (5-7.6 cm) tall [40]. Seedling growth is slow. Ten years
after establishment, seedling were 6 inches (15 cm) in a unthinned
forest, 9 inches (24 cm) in a thinned forest, and 58 inches (146 cm) in
a clearcut [49].
Vegetative: If top-killed, chestnut oaks sprout vigorously from dormant
buds at the root crown. Sprouts grow faster than seedlings. Ten years
after clearcutting, some stump sprouts were larger than 21 feet (6.4 m)
tall. Probably 75 percent of chestnut oak reproduction in the southern
Appalachian Mountains is of sprout origin [49].
Chestnut oak sprouting frequency is high compared to other upland oaks.
In one study in the Virginia Piedmont, the sprouting frequency of
chestnut oak was over 90 percent, regardless of season of harvest or
stump diameter [32]. Although chestnut oak initially produces large
numbers of sprouts, sprout clumps tend towards the survival of one to
three stems. In one study, 5, 10, 15, 25, and 35 years after cutting,
the average number of sprouts per stump was 7.3, 3.8, 2.8, 2.3, and 1.9,
respectively [48]. Between the ages of 4 and 8, competition is
dominated by interaction between sprout clumps, not stem-to-stem
competition within a sprout clump [12].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Chestnut oak, an upland xerophytic species, commonly occurs on ridgetops
and upper slopes. It occurs from sea level on the coastal plain of New
Jersey and Long Island, New York, to about 4,600 feet (1,400 m) in the
southern Appalachians [49]. It can occur on all aspects; however, it is
usually on south- and west-facing upper slopes and on north and easterly
aspects in the southern Piedmont [25,49,54]. In the Ridge and Valley
Province of central Pennsylvania, chestnut oak dominated the steep
inclines and xeric ridgetop communities. It decreased in importance on
mesic sites, although on some coarse-textured valley and cove sites,
chestnut oak was codominant with white oak [56].
Chestnut oak is usually found on dry, rocky, infertile soil with a low
moisture-holding capacity, although it grows best in rich, well-drained
soils along streams [49]. In southeastern Pennsylvania, Keever [33]
discovered that many of the ridge sites that chestnut oak dominates have
good soil moisture. Presumably, these ridges get more precipitation than
lower elevations. It is unclear why other species are excluded from
these ridgetop sites, although its possible that more mesic species
cannot endure occasional drought, which may be more severe on these
sites [33]. The infertile rocky soil, steep slopes, and exposed
conditions may also select against other forest species [46].
In 51 upland hardwood stands in the Piedmont of Virginia, chestnut oak
was important on sites with low soil calcium, magnesium, and pH [19].
Chestnut oak is commonly found on acidic soils derived from sandstone,
quartzite, and coarse-grained schists [8,54].
In the Hudson River Valley in New York, chestnut oak forests differed
significantly (P<0.05) from white oak-black oak-pignut hickory (Carya
glabra) forests and red maple (Acer rubrum) forests in several site
characteristics. Chestnut oak forests were more likely to have exposed
bedrock (67 percent of the stands), have a higher percent cover of bare
ground by rocks (5.28 percent), and have deeper litter (1.3 inches [3.4
cm]) [24].
Overstory associates not mentioned in Distribution and Occurrence
include scarlet oak, post oak (Q. stellata), hickories, sweet birch
(Betula lenta), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), blackgum (Nyssa
sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), black walnut (Juglans nigra), red maple, sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), and black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia). Shrub associates include blueberry (Vaccinium spp.),
dwarf chinkapin oak (Q. prinoides), mountain-laurel (Kalmia latifolia),
Rhododendron spp., sumac (Rhus spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), grape
(Vitis spp.), and Ceanothus spp. [25,49]. Pure and almost pure stands
of chestnut oak have sparse ground vegetation [6].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Chestnut oak is intermediate in shade tolerance. Chestnut oak
reproduction dies after a few years under a closed canopy, but if some
light penetrates to the forest floor, seedling sprouts may persist for
years. The sprouts will respond to release. Chestnut oak is excluded
from mesic sites by more rapidly growing species including
yellow-poplar, sugar maple, red maple, black cherry, northern red oak,
black oak, and white oak. Post oak, scarlet oak, and pitch pine (Pinus
rigida) are better adapted than chestnut oak to some extremely xeric
sites [49].
In the absence of disturbance, red maple and other shade-tolerant
species will succeed old-growth chestnut oak on good sites [43]. On
some poor sites in the Appalachian Mountains, chestnut oak stands are
considered a physiographic climax [49]. Little [39] suggests a mixed
oak forest of black, white, chestnut, and scarlet oaks may represent a
physiographic climax association on upland sites in the New Jersey Pine
Barrens.
In a study of forest composition in North Carolina, chestnut oak showed
good regeneration over a 30-year period on low density rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum) sites, suggesting chestnut oak will continue to
dominate these forests. However, it may diminish with time in areas
where high rhododendron density inhibits regeneration [57].
Advance regeneration is released by gypsy moth defoliation of the
overstory canopy. However, stands defoliated by gypsy moth in
Pennsylvania and Maryland will probabaly have a smaller oak component in
the future because of competing vegetation and insufficient numbers of
advance regeneration [30].
In forests in the Hudson River Valley in New York, the percent
occurrence of chestnut oak has increased from 2.1 percent in the period
before 1800 to 13.7 percent in 1984. However, early land surveys may
have underrepresented chestnut oak because it occurs on poor sites and
inaccessible areas. If it were not underrepresented, frequent logging
may have increased its importance in stands because of the superior
ability of chestnut oak to sprout from stumps [24].
A forest stand growth model was developed and used to compare the pre-
and post-chestnut-blight forest. After 500 years without American
chestnut, the model showed chestnut oak increased in frequency in the
forests [65].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Flowers develop in the spring at the same time as leaf development [49].
In a 3-year study of chestnut oak phenology in Pennsylvania, staminate
flowers, borne on ephemeral catkins, usually emerged during the first
week in May, and leaves unfolded several day later. Pistillate flowers
appeared in the axils of leaves on the current year's shoots, usually 5
to 10 days after the staminate flowers emerged [63,64].
Pollen dispersal, largely controlled by weather, usually occurs 10 to 20
days after the staminate flowers emerge [49]. Cool weather delays
pollen dispersal [64].
Acorns mature in one growing season and drop from early September to
early October, usually 2 to 5 weeks before the acorns of other upland
oaks drop. Acorns exhibit no dormancy and germinate in the fall. If
the temperature is below 61 degrees Fahrenheit (16 deg C), shoot
development is inhibited by an induced epicotyl dormancy, but root
development continues. Normal shoot development resumes in the spring
[49].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Quercus prinus | Chestnut Oak
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Chestnut oak is moderately resistant to fire [7]. In three separate
rankings, chestnut oak was listed as the most fire resistant of four oak
species: scarlet, chestnut, black, and white [69]. Large chestnut oaks
have fairly thick bark and, while more susceptible to basal wounding
than pines, they survive most ground fires [7]. Top-killed chestnut
oaks sprout vigorously from the root crown after fire [49].
Because bark thickens with age, the larger the fire interval is, the
greater is the chance of survival. Based on a semilogarithmic model of
bark thickness and mortality, chestnut oak requires a fire interval of
14 years for 50 percent survival of a low-severity surface fire. The
model was developed from data collected after low-severity surface fires
on south-facing slopes in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park [29].
A litter covering deeper than 2 inches (5 cm) is unfavorable for
chestnut oak acorn germination [49]. Fire removes excess litter and may
facilitate chestnut oak regeneration. In an oak-pine forest in the New
Jersey pine barrens, chestnut oak seedling density was lowest in the
forest fragment that had not been recently burned and that had an
average litter depth of 2.4 inches (6.1 cm) [11]. However, the primary
mode of regeneration after fire appears to be sprouting.
The prevalent presettlement upland oak forests in the eastern and
central United States were associated with recurring fire. These
forests probably burned at an intermediate frequency (50 to 100 year
intervals), which promoted the dominance and stability of oak [1].
Oak-hickory forests are usually not conducive to high-severity fires,
but surface fires are easily ignited and spread rapidly under favorable
conditions [13]. Periodic fire opens the canopy and sets back
competition, providing an opportunity for upland oaks to regenerate and
maintain dominance [1]. Fifty-five years after a late summer fire in
south-central Connecticut, absolute and relative amounts of oak
(chestnut, scarlet, black, white, and northern red) were higher on
burned areas than adjacent unburned areas [77]. However, a fire in a 5
to 6-year old mixed hardwood stand did not affect relative species
dominance, it merely retarded stand development [47]. The exact timing
and conditions of fire that favor oak dominance have not been
determined.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/root sucker
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Quercus prinus | Chestnut Oak
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Small chestnut oaks are top-killed by low-severity fire. Surviving
trees may have basal fire wounds [49].
Acorns cannot withstand the amount of heat usually generated in leaf
litter fires [34].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Chestnut oak sprouts vigorously after being top-killed. After a fire in
south-central New York, 100 percent of the top-killed chestnut oak
saplings (less than 4 inches [10 cm] in d.b.h.) sprouted, with an
average of 5.9 sprouts per top-killed stem. Eleven percent of the
sampled saplings were not top-killed [71].
The mortality of oak trees from fire is often delayed. Six months after
two surface fires of different severity in southern New York, living
butt-scorched trees (larger than 1 inch [2.5 cm] in d.b.h.) were tagged
for future study. In the less severely burned area, 22 percent of the
tagged chestnut oak were dead 1.5 years after the fire. Small diameter
trees, especially those less than 5 inches (12.7 cm) in d.b.h., had the
highest mortality. In the other area that burned more severely because
of a dense understory of mountain-laurel, 41 percent of the tagged
chestnut oak were dead 1.5 years after the fire. The authors concluded
that at least one postfire growing season must elapse before fire damage
to oaks can be accurately determined [70].
Fire may increase the growth rate of chestnut oak. Three chestnut oaks,
that had suffered no crown damage from a winter fire, averaged 38
percent higher diameter growth rate in the first postfire year than the
4 years prior to the fire. Unburned chestnut oaks did not show
increased growth rates. Foliar phosphorus and calcium concentrations in
burned chestnut oak trees were higher than control trees through most of
the growing season. In addition, the proportional phosphorus resorption
and both proportional and absolute calcium deposition in leaves was
higher in burned trees. However, it is uncertain what caused the
increase in growth rate because other factors, such as a decrease in
competition from understory shrubs, also may have contributed to the
increased growth [5].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Prescribed fire is often used to control hardwoods and promote the
establishment of pine. In a study on the South Carolina Piedmont,
spring felling of leafed-out residual oaks (chestnut, scarlet, and
black) followed by summer burning produced greater reductions of
dominant sprout height and sprout clump crown diameters at the end of
the first postfire growing season than did winter felling followed by
summer broadcast burning. Spring felling was probably more effective
because carbohydrate root reserves are low after leaves emerge [22].
Equations have been developed to predict lumber value losses due to fire
wounding of chestnut oak [42]. An equation has also been developed to
predict the size of a fire wound on a chestnut oak from the area of the
exterior discolored bark and the diameter of the damaged tree [55].
While fire has been suggested as a tool for improving upland oak
regeneration, it has been used with only mixed success [44]. Five- to
six-year-old naturally regenerating mixed hardwood stands were
prescribed burned in order to increase the relative dominance of oak.
The former harvested stands were 60 to 90 percent oak, but the
regenerating stand had a large number of yellow-poplar, black cherry,
and white ash (Fraxinus americana). The fire retarded the development
of the young stand but did not increase the relative dominance of oak,
which was estimated to be not more than 30 to 40 percent of the future
stand. The season of fire (spring versus fall) did not change the
outcome [47]. In such a stand, there may not be sufficient differences
in fire resistance between oak stems and those of other species for fire
to give oaks a distinct advantage [44].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Quercus prinus | Chestnut Oak
REFERENCES :
1. Abrams, Marc D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests.
BioScience. 42(5): 346-353. [19215]
2. Ashby, W. Clark. 1990. Growth of oaks on topsoiled mined lands. In: Van
Sambeek, J. W.; Larson, M. M., eds. Proceedings, 4th workshop on
seedling physiology and growth problems in oak plantings; 1989 March
1-2; Columbus, OH. (Abstracts). Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-139. St. Paul, MN:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station: 20. Abstract. [13147]
3. Bell, R.; Labovitz, M. L.; Sullivan, D. P. 1985. Delay in leaf flush
associated with a heavy metal-enriched soil. Economic Geology. 80:
1407-1414. [11014]
4. Bell, R.; Teramura, A. H. 1991. Soil metal effects on the germination
and survival of Quercus alba L. and Q. prinus L. Environmental and
Experimental Botany. 31(2): 145-152. [15281]
5. Boerner, Ralph E. J.; Lord, Thomas R.; Peterson, John C. 1988.
Prescribed burning in the oak-pine forest of the New Jersey Pine Barrens
: effects on growth and nutrient dynamics of two Quercus species.
American Midland Naturalist. 120(1): 108-119. [8646]
6. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University Press. 362 p. [12914]
7. Brown, Arthur A.; Davis, Kenneth P. 1973. Forest fire control and use.
2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 686 p. [15993]
8. Brush, Grace S.; Lenk, Cecilia; Smith, Joanne. 1980. The natural forests
of Maryland: an explanation of the vegetation map of Maryland.
Ecological Monographs. 50(1): 77-92. [19035]
9. Carey, Andrew B. 1983. Cavities in trees in hardwood forests. In: Davis,
Jerry W.; Goodwin, Gregory A.; Ockenfeis, Richard A., technical
coordinators. Snag habitat management: proceedings of the symposium;
1983 June 7-9; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-99. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station: 167-184. [17833]
10. Carvell, K. L.; Tryon, E. H. 1961. The effect of environmental factors
on the abundance of oak regeneration beneath mature oak stands. Forestry
Science. 7: 98-105. [10115]
11. Collins, Scott L.; Good, Ralph E. 1987. The seedling regeneration niche:
habitat structure of tree seedlings in an oak-pine forest. Oikos. 48:
89-98. [8637]
12. Cook, James E. 1990. Degree of competition and integration in one- to
eight-year-old scarlet and chestnut oak sprout clumps. In: Van Sambeek,
J. W.; Larson, M. M., eds. Proceedings, 4th workshop on seedling
physiology and growth problems in oak plantings; 1989 March 1-2;
Columbus, OH. (Abstracts). Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-139. St. Paul, MN: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station: 29. Abstract. [13156]
13. Crosby, John S.; Loomis, Robert M. 1974. Some forest floor fuelbed
characteristics of black oak stands in southeast Missouri. NC-162. St.
Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central
Forest Experiment Station. 4 p. [8153]
14. Crow, Gerald R.; Hicks, Ray R., Jr. 1990. Predicting mortality in mixed
oak stands following spring insect defoliation. Forest Science. 36(3):
831-841. [13019]
15. Dibble, Alison C.; Campbell, Christopher S.; Tyler, Harry R., Jr.;
Vickery, Barbara St. J. 1989. Maine's official list of endangered and
threatened plants. Rhodora. 91(867): 244-269. [4258]
16. Drake, William E. 1991. Evaluation of an approach to improve acorn
production during thinning. In: McCormick, Larry H.; Gottschalk, Kurt
W., eds. Proceedings, 8th central hardwood forest conference; 1991 March
4-6; University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station: 429-441. [15328]
17. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
18. Farmer, R. E., Jr. 1981. Early growth of black cherry, oaks, and
yellow-poplar in southern Appalachian plantings. Tree Planters' Notes.
32(3): 12-14. [12504]
19. Farrell, John D.; Ware, Stewart. 1991. Edaphic factors and forest
vegetation in the piedmont of Virgina. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical
Club. 118(2): 161-169. [15694]
20. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections
supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p.
(Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny
Series; vol. 2). [14935]
21. 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]
22. Geisinger, Donn R.; Waldrop, Thomas A.; Haymond, Jacqueline L.; Van
Lear, David H. 1989. Sprout growth following winter and spring felling
with and without summer broadcast burning. 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, SC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 91-95. [10262]
23. Gingrich, Samuel F. 1971. Stocking, growth, and yield of oak stands. In:
Oak symposium: Proceedings; 1971 August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper
Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern
Forest Experiment Station: 65-73. [9085]
24. Glitzenstein, Jeff S.; Canham, Charles D.; McDonnell, Mark J.; Streng,
Donna R. 1990. Effects of environment and land-use history on upland
forests of the Cary Arboretum, Hudson Valley, New York. Bulletin of the
Torrey Botanical Club. 117(2): 106-122. [13301]
25. Golden, Michael S. 1979. Forest vegetation of the lower Alabama
Piedmont. Ecology. 60(4): 770-782. [9643]
26. Greller, Andrew M. 1988. Deciduous forest. In: Barbour, Michael G.;
Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation.
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press: 288-316. [19544]
27. Harlow, William M.; Harrar, Ellwood S., White, F. M. 1979. Textbook of
dendrology. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 510 p. [18070]
28. Harmon, Mark E. 1982. Decomposition of standing dead trees in the
southern Appalachian Mountains. Oecologia. 52: 214-215. [13735]
29. Harmon, Mark E. 1984. Survival of trees after low-intensity surface
fires in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecology. 65(3): 796-802.
[10997]
30. Hix, David M.; Fosbroke, David E.; Hicks, Ray R., Jr.; Gottschalk, Kurt
W. 1991. Development of regeneration following gypsy moth defoliation of
Appalachian Plateau and Ridge & Valley hardwood stands. In: McCormick,
Larry H.; Gottschalk, Kurt W., eds. Proceedings, 8th central hardwood
forest conference; 1991 March 4-6; University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep.
NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 347-359. [15323]
31. 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]
32. Dieterich, John H. 1983. Fire history of southwestern mixed conifer: a
case study. Forest Ecology. 6: 13-31. [5242]
33. Keever, Catherine. 1973. Distribution of major forest species in
southeastern Pennsylvania. Ecological Monographs. 43(3): 303-327.
[19550]
34. Korstian, C. F. 1927. Factors controlling germination and early survival
of oaks. Bull. No. 19. New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of
Forestry. 115 p. [19369]
35. 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]
36. Lewis, Allen R. 1982. Selection of nuts by gray squirrels and optimal
foraging theory. American Midland Naturalist. 107: 250-257. [8391]
37. Limstrom, G. A.; Merz, R. W. 1949. Rehabilitation of lands stripped for
coal in Ohio. Tech. Pap. No. 113. Columbus, OH: The Ohio Reclamation
Association. 41 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station. [4427]
38. 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]
39. Martin, S. Clark. 1980. Mesquite. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover
types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of
American Foresters: 118. [9858]
40. Little, S.; Moore, E. B. 1949. The ecological role of prescribed burns
in the pine-oak forests of southern New Jersey. Ecology. 30(2): 223-233.
[11107]
41. Little, Silas; Moorhead, George R.; Somes, Horace A. 1958. Forestry and
deer in the Pine Region of New Jersey. Station Pap. No. 109. Upper
Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern
Forest Experiment Station. 33 p. [11681]
42. Loomis, Robert M. 1974. Predicting the losses in sawtimber volume and
quality from fires in oak-hickory forests. NC-104. St. Paul, MN: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station. 6 p. [8712]
43. Lorimer, Craig G. 1984. Development of the red maple understory in
northeastern oak forests. Forest Science. 30(1): 3-22. [12565]
44. Lorimer, Craig G. 1985. The role of fire in the perpetuation of oak
forests. In:, Johnson, J. E., ed. Challenges in oak management and
utilization. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Cooperative Extension
Service: 8-25. [19543]
45. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council
fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.
14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
46. Martin, William H.; DeSelm, Hal R. 1976. Forest communities of dissected
uplands in the Great Valley of east Tennessee. In: Fralish, James S.;
Weaver, George T.; Schlesinger, Richard C., eds. Central hardwood forest
conference: Proceedings of a meeting; 1976 October 17-19; Carbondale,
IL. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University: 11-29. [3810]
47. McGee, Charles E. 1980. The effect of fire on species dominance in young
upland hardwood stands. In: Proceedings, mid-south upland hardwood
symposium for the practicing forester and land manager; [Date of
conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Atlanta, GA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Division of State and Private
Forestry: 97-104. [12706]
48. McIntyre, A. C. 1936. Sprout groups and their relation to the oak
forests of Pennsylvania. Journal of Forestry. 34: 1054-1058. [10086]
49. McQuilkin, Robert A. 1990. Quercus prinus L. chestnut oak. In: Burns,
Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America.
Vol. 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 726 p. [19551]
50. Michael, J. L. 1985. Hardwood control by injection with two new
chemicals. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. 38:
164-167. [12687]
51. Millers, Imants; Shriner, David S.; Rizzo, David. 1989. History of
hardwood decline in the eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-126.
Bromall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 75 p. [10925]
52. Moore, William H.; Johnson, Frank M. 1967. Nature of deer browsing on
hardwood seedlings and sprouts. Journal of Wildlife Management. 31(2):
351-353. [16394]
53. Neary, D. G.; Douglass, J. E.; Ruehle, J. L.; Fox, W. 1984. Converting
rhododendron-laurel thickets to white pine with picloram and
mycorrhizae-inoculated seedlings. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry.
8(3): 163-168. [10697]
54. Nelson, John B. 1986. The natural communities of South Carolina.
Columbia, SC: South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department. 54
p. [15578]
55. Nelson, Ralph M.; Sims, Ivan H.; Abell, Margaret S. 1933. Basal fire
wounds on some southern Appalachian hardwoods. Journal of Forestry. 31:
829-837. [160]
56. Nowacki, Gregory J.; Abrams, Marc D. 1991. Community and edaphic
analysis of mixed oak forests in the Ridge and Valley Province of
central Pennsylvania. In: McCormick, Larry H.; Gottschalk, Kurt W., eds.
Proceedings, 8th central hardwood forest conference; 1991 March 4-6;
University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station:
247-260. [15315]
57. Phillips, Donald L.; Murdy, William H. 1985. Effects of Rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum L.) on regeneration of southern Appalachian
hardwoods. Forest Science. 31(1): 226-233. [19372]
58. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
59. Rexrode, Charles O. 1971. Insect damage to oaks. In: Oak symposium:
Proceedings; 1971 August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper Darby, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station: 129-134. [9089]
60. Russell, T. E. 1971. Seeding and planting upland oaks. In: Oak
symposium: Proceedings; 1971 August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper Darby,
PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station: 49-54. [9082]
61. Sander, Ivan L. 1977. Manager's handbook for oaks in the North Central
States. Gen. Tech. Rep NC-37. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 35
p. [11002]
62. Sander, Ivan L. 1988. Guidelines for regenerating Appalachian oak
stands. In: Smith, H. Clay; Perkey, Arlyn W.; Kidd, William E., Jr.,
eds. Guidelines for regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands: Workshop
proceedings; 1988 May 24-26; Morgantown, WV. SAF Publ. 88-03.
Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Books: 189-198. [13945]
63. Sharp, Ward M.; Chisman, Henry H. 1961. Flowering and fruiting in the
white oaks. I. Staminate flowering through pollen dispersal. Ecology.
42: 365-372. [3910]
64. Sharp, Ward M.; Sprague, Vance G. 1967. Flowering and fruiting in the
white oaks, pistillate flowering, acorn development, weather, and
yields. Ecology. 48: 243-251. [3909]
65. Shugart, H.H., Jr.; West, D.C. 1977. Development of an Appalachian
deciduous forest succession model and its application to assessment of
the impact of the chestnut blight. Journal of Environmental Management.
5: 161-179. [67]
66. Smallwood, Peter D.; Peters, W. David. 1986. Grey squirrel food
preferences: the effects of tannin and fat concentration. Ecology.
67(1): 168-175. [10519]
67. Smith, H. Clay; Miller, Gary W. 1991. Releasing 75- to 80-year-old
Appalachian hardwood sawtimber trees: 5-year d.b.h. response. In:
McCormick, Larry H.; Gottschalk, Kurt W., eds. Proceedings, 8th central
hardwood forest conference; 1991 March 4-6; University Park, PA. Gen.
Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 402-413. [15327]
68. Smith, H. Clay; Rosier, Robert L.; Hammack, K. P.. 1976. Reproduction 12
years after seed-tree harvest cutting in Appalachian hardwoods. Res.
Pap. NE-350. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 11 p. [10887]
69. Spalt, Karl W.; Reifsnyder, William E. 1962. Bark characteristics and
fire resistance: a literature survey. Occas. Paper 193. New Orleans, LA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station. 19 p. In cooperation with: Yale University, School
of Forestry. [266]
70. Stickel, Paul W. 1935. Forest fire damage studies in the Northeast. II.
First-year mortality in burned-over oak stands. Journal of Forestry. 33:
595-598. [18764]
71. Swan, Frederick R., Jr. 1970. Post-fire response of four plant
communities in south-central New York state. Ecology. 51(6): 1074-1082.
[3446]
72. 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]
73. Vogel, Willis G. 1990. Results of planting oaks on coal surface-mined
lands. In: Van Sambeek, J. W.; Larson, M. M., eds. Proceedings, 4th
workshop on seedling physiology and growth problems in oak plantings;
1989 March 1-2; Columbus, OH. (Abstracts). Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-139. St.
Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central
Forest Experiment Station: 19. Abstract. [13146]
74. Waggoner, Gary S. 1975. Eastern deciduous forest, Vol. 1: Southeastern
evergreen and oak-pine region. Natural History Theme Studies No. 1, NPS
135. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 206 p. [16103]
75. 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]
76. Ward, Jeffery S.; Heiligmann, Randall B. 1990. Effects of site quality
and season of clearcutting on hardwood regeneration in Ohio. Northern
Journal of Applied Forestry. 7: 69-72. [11879]
77. Ward, Jeffrey S.; Stephens, George R. 1989. Long-term effects of a 1932
surface fire on stand structure in a Connecticut mixed hardwood forest.
In: Rink, George; Budelsky, Carl A., eds. Proceedings, 7th central
hardwood conference; 1989 March 5-8; Carbondale, IL. Gen. Tech. Rep.
NC-132. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Forest Experiment Station: 267-273. [9389]
78. Wendel, G. W.; Kochenderfer, J. N. 1982. Glyphosate controls hardwoods
in West Virginia. Res. Pap. NE-497. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7
p. [9869]
79. Whittaker, R. H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains.
Ecological Monographs. 26(1): 1-79. [11108]
80. Williams, Charles E.; Johnson, W. Carter. 1990. Age structure and the
maintenance of Pinus pungens in pine-oak forests of southwestern
Virginia. American Midland Naturalist. 124(1): 130-141. [12747]
Index
Related categories for Species: Quercus prinus
| Chestnut Oak
|
 |
