True Hickory and Pecan Hickory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

True Hickory and Pecan Hickory by Eric Meier The Carya genus (or what is more commonly referred to as Hickory) is divided into two main groupings: true-hickory, and pecan-hickory. Species in the true- hickory group tend to be slightly denser, and therefore a bit harder and stronger than the species in the pecan-hickory group. However, because the two ranges of densities so closely overlap, using the weight of the wood to separate hickory is unreliable. True Hickories: Pecan Hickories: • Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra) • Water Hickory (Carya aquatica) • Shellbark Hickory (Carya • Bitternut Hickory (Carya laciniosa) cordiformis) • Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata) • Pecan (Carya illinoinensis) • Mockernut Hickory (Carya • Nutmeg Hickory (Carya tomentosa) myristiciformis) Distinguishing between these two groups of hickory is fairly straightforward. The quickest and easiest means of differentiating them is by observing the bands of parenchyma—in pecan-hickories, the bands are present in both the earlywood and latewood portions of the wood. In true-hickories, the bands of parenchyma are absent from the earlywood portion of the wood. Shagbark Hickory (endgrain 10x) Pecan (endgrain 10x) shows uninterrupted bands even through the earlywood zone, indicating pecan- hickory. (Click for enlargements) In addition to the continuous parenchyma bands (in reticulate pattern), another indicator of pecan-hickory is a tendency to be more semi-ring-poroous rather than strictly ring-porous, with a more gradual transition from the larger earylwood pores to the smaller latewood pores. However, although the two groups of hickory can be reliably separated, identifying particular species within each grouping is usually not possible..

Copy Link

Recommended publications

CHESTNUT (CASTANEA Spp.) CULTIVAR EVALUATION for COMMERCIAL CHESTNUT PRODUCTION
CHESTNUT (CASTANEA spp.) CULTIVAR EVALUATION FOR COMMERCIAL CHESTNUT PRODUCTION IN HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE By Ana Maria Metaxas Approved: James Hill Craddock Jennifer Boyd Professor of Biological Sciences Assistant Professor of Biological and Environmental Sciences (Director of Thesis) (Committee Member) Gregory Reighard Jeffery Elwell Professor of Horticulture Dean, College of Arts and Sciences (Committee Member) A. Jerald Ainsworth Dean of the Graduate School CHESTNUT (CASTANEA spp.) CULTIVAR EVALUATION FOR COMMERCIAL CHESTNUT PRODUCTION IN HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE by Ana Maria Metaxas A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Environmental Science May 2013 ii ABSTRACT Chestnut cultivars were evaluated for their commercial applicability under the environmental conditions in Hamilton County, TN at 35°13ꞌ 45ꞌꞌ N 85° 00ꞌ 03.97ꞌꞌ W elevation 230 meters. In 2003 and 2004, 534 trees were planted, representing 64 different cultivars, varieties, and species. Twenty trees from each of 20 different cultivars were planted as five-tree plots in a randomized complete block design in four blocks of 100 trees each, amounting to 400 trees. The remaining 44 chestnut cultivars, varieties, and species served as a germplasm collection. These were planted in guard rows surrounding the four blocks in completely randomized, single-tree plots. In the analysis, we investigated our collection predominantly with the aim to: 1) discover the degree of acclimation of grower- recommended cultivars to southeastern Tennessee climatic conditions and 2) ascertain the cultivars’ ability to survive in the area with Cryphonectria parasitica and other chestnut diseases and pests present.
[Show full text]
Checklist of Illinois Native Trees
Technical Forestry Bulletin · NRES-102 Checklist of Illinois Native Trees Jay C. Hayek, Extension Forestry Specialist Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences Updated May 2019 This Technical Forestry Bulletin serves as a checklist of Tree species prevalence (Table 2), or commonness, and Illinois native trees, both angiosperms (hardwoods) and gym- county distribution generally follows Iverson et al. (1989) and nosperms (conifers). Nearly every species listed in the fol- Mohlenbrock (2002). Additional sources of data with respect lowing tables† attains tree-sized stature, which is generally to species prevalence and county distribution include Mohlen- defined as having a(i) single stem with a trunk diameter brock and Ladd (1978), INHS (2011), and USDA’s The Plant Da- greater than or equal to 3 inches, measured at 4.5 feet above tabase (2012). ground level, (ii) well-defined crown of foliage, and(iii) total vertical height greater than or equal to 13 feet (Little 1979). Table 2. Species prevalence (Source: Iverson et al. 1989). Based on currently accepted nomenclature and excluding most minor varieties and all nothospecies, or hybrids, there Common — widely distributed with high abundance. are approximately 184± known native trees and tree-sized Occasional — common in localized patches. shrubs found in Illinois (Table 1). Uncommon — localized distribution or sparse. Rare — rarely found and sparse. Nomenclature used throughout this bulletin follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System —the ITIS data- Basic highlights of this tree checklist include the listing of 29 base utilizes real-time access to the most current and accept- native hawthorns (Crataegus), 21 native oaks (Quercus), 11 ed taxonomy based on scientific consensus.
[Show full text]
The Conversion of Abandoned Chestnut Forests to Managed Ones Does Not Affect the Soil Chemical Properties and Improves the Soil Microbial Biomass Activity
Article The Conversion of Abandoned Chestnut Forests to Managed Ones Does Not Affect the Soil Chemical Properties and Improves the Soil Microbial Biomass Activity Mauro De Feudis 1,* , Gloria Falsone 1, Gilmo Vianello 2 and Livia Vittori Antisari 1 1 Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum—University of Bologna, Via Fanin, 40, 40127 Bologna, Italy; [email protected] (G.F.); [email protected] (L.V.A.) 2 Centro Sperimentale per lo Studio e l’Analisi del Suolo (CSSAS), Alma Mater Studiorum—University of Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 June 2020; Accepted: 19 July 2020; Published: 22 July 2020 Abstract: Recently, several hectares of abandoned chestnut forests (ACF) were recovered into chestnut stands for nut or timber production; however, the effects of such practice on soil mineral horizon properties are unknown. This work aimed to (1) identify the better chestnut forest management to maintain or to improve the soil properties during the ACF recovery, and (2) give an insight into the effect of unmanaged to managed forest conversion on soil properties, taking in consideration sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) forest ecosystems. The investigation was conducted in an experimental chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) forest located in the northern part of the Apennine chain (Italy). We identified an ACF, a chestnut forest for wood production (WCF), and chestnut forests 1 for nut production with a tree density of 98 and 120 plants ha− (NCFL and NCFH, respectively). WCF, NCFL and NCFH stands are the result of the ACF recovery carried out in 2004.
[Show full text]
Nut Production, Marketing Handout
Nut Production, Marketing Handout Why grow nuts in Iowa??? Nuts can produce the equivalent of a white-collar salary from a part-time job. They are up to 12 times more profitable per acre than corn was, even back when corn was $8/bushel. Nuts can accomplish the above with just a fraction of the investment in capital, land, and labor. Nuts can be grown in a biologically diverse perennial polyculture system with the following benefits: Builds soil instead of losing it to erosion Little or no chemical inputs needed Sequesters CO2 and builds soil organic matter Increases precipitation infiltration and storage, reduces runoff, building resilience against drought Produces high-quality habitat for wildlife, pollinating insects, and beneficial soil microbes Can build rural communities by providing a good living and a high quality of life for a whole farm family, on a relatively few acres If it’s so great, why doesn’t everybody do it? “Time Preference” economic principle: the tendency of people to prefer a smaller reward immediately over having to wait for a larger reward. Example: if an average person was to be given the choice between the following…. # 1. $10,000 cash right now, tax-free, no strings, or #2. Work part-time for 10 years with no pay, but after 10 years receive $100,000 per year, every year, for the rest of his/her life, and then for his/her heirs, in perpetuity… Most would choose #1, the immediate, smaller payoff. This is a near-perfect analogy for nut growing. Nut growing requires a substantial up-front investment with no return for the first five years, break-even not until eight to ten years, then up to $10,000 per acre or more at maturity, 12-15 years.
[Show full text]
Rare Plants of Louisiana
Rare Plants of Louisiana Agalinis filicaulis - purple false-foxglove Figwort Family (Scrophulariaceae) Rarity Rank: S2/G3G4 Range: AL, FL, LA, MS Recognition: Photo by John Hays • Short annual, 10 to 50 cm tall, with stems finely wiry, spindly • Stems simple to few-branched • Leaves opposite, scale-like, about 1mm long, barely perceptible to the unaided eye • Flowers few in number, mostly born singly or in pairs from the highest node of a branchlet • Pedicels filiform, 5 to 10 mm long, subtending bracts minute • Calyx 2 mm long, lobes short-deltoid, with broad shallow sinuses between lobes • Corolla lavender-pink, without lines or spots within, 10 to 13 mm long, exterior glabrous • Capsule globe-like, nearly half exerted from calyx Flowering Time: September to November Light Requirement: Full sun to partial shade Wetland Indicator Status: FAC – similar likelihood of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands Habitat: Wet longleaf pine flatwoods savannahs and hillside seepage bogs. Threats: • Conversion of habitat to pine plantations (bedding, dense tree spacing, etc.) • Residential and commercial development • Fire exclusion, allowing invasion of habitat by woody species • Hydrologic alteration directly (e.g. ditching) and indirectly (fire suppression allowing higher tree density and more large-diameter trees) Beneficial Management Practices: • Thinning (during very dry periods), targeting off-site species such as loblolly and slash pines for removal • Prescribed burning, establishing a regime consisting of mostly growing season (May-June) burns Rare Plants of Louisiana LA River Basins: Pearl, Pontchartrain, Mermentau, Calcasieu, Sabine Side view of flower. Photo by John Hays References: Godfrey, R. K. and J. W. Wooten.
[Show full text]
Monsanto Improved Fatty Acid Profile MON 87705 Soybean, Petition 09-201-01P
Monsanto Improved Fatty Acid Profile MON 87705 Soybean, Petition 09-201-01p OECD Unique Identifier: MON-87705-6 Final Environmental Assessment September 2011 Agency Contact Cindy Eck USDA, APHIS, BRS 4700 River Road, Unit 147 Riverdale, MD 20737-1237 Phone: (301) 734-0667 Fax: (301) 734-8669 [email protected] The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. MONSANTO 87705 SOYBEAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ iv 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................
[Show full text]
Avoiding Peanut, Tree Nuts, Egg, Corn, and Wheat Ingredients Common Food Allergens May Be Listed Many Different Ways on Food Labels and Can Be Hidden in Common Foods
Food Allergen Graph: Avoiding Peanut, Tree Nuts, Egg, Corn, and Wheat Ingredients Common food allergens may be listed many different ways on food labels and can be hidden in common foods. Below you will find different labels for common allergens. Avoiding Peanuts: Avoiding Tree Nuts: Avoiding Egg: Avoiding Corn: Avoiding Wheat: Artificial nuts Almond Albumin / albumen Corn - meal, flakes, Bread Crumbs Beer nuts Artificial nuts Egg (dried, powdered, syrup, solids, flour, Bulgur Cold pressed, expeller Brazil nut solids, white, yolk) niblets, kernel, Cereal extract Flour: pressed or extruded peanut Beechnut Eggnog alcohol, on the cob, Club Wheat all-purpose Butternut oil Globulin / Ovoglobulin starch, bread,muffins Conscous bread Goobers Cashew Fat subtitutes sugar/sweetener, oil, Cracker meal cake Durum Ground nuts Chestnut Livetin Caramel corn / flavoring durum Einkorn Mandelonas (peanuts soaked Chinquapin nut Lysozyme Citric acid (may be corn enriched Emmer in almond flavoring) Coconut (really is a fruit not a based) graham Mayonnaise Farina Mixed nuts tree nut, but classified as a Grits high gluten Meringue (meringue Hydrolyzed Monkey nuts nut on some charts) high protein powder) Hominy wheat protein Nut meat Filbert / hazelnut instant Ovalbumin Maize Kamut Gianduja -a chocolate-nut mix pastry Nut pieces Ovomucin / Ovomucoid / Malto / Dextrose / Dextrate Matzoh Peanut butter Ginkgo nut Modified cornstarch self-rising Ovotransferrin Matzoh meal steel ground Peanut flour Hickory nut Polenta Simplesse Pasta stone ground Peanut protein hydrolysate
[Show full text]
Bald Cypress and Water Tupelo
AN EXAMINATION OF HISTORIC WETLAND LOSS IN NORTHERN MISSISSIPPI FLOODPLAINS USING GENERAL LAND OFFICE SURVEYS by MATTHEW HARPER JOE WEBER, COMMITTEE CHAIR SAGY COHEN JONATHAN BENSTEAD A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Geography in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2013 Copyright Matthew Aaron Harper 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT Prior to European settlement of America in the late 16th century, a relatively pristine environment existed on the North American continent. Since that time, landscape-altering processes such as logging, deforestation for agricultural cultivation, channelization, and the removal of natural ecosystems engineers such as the beaver (Castor canadensis) have left little of its natural state unchanged. Alluvial floodplains within the upper Gulf Coastal Plain of Mississippi and the bottomland hardwoods that occupy them are especially sensitive to change, already being naturally dynamic environments in which loose sedimentary soil participates in a perpetual cycle of deposition and erosion as the main river channel meanders across their broad valleys. These changes result in microhabitats with varying degrees of inundation, rates of deposition, and elevation. This thesis attempts to reconstruct the pre-European settlement ecology of northern Mississippi alluvial floodplains through the use of General Land Office (GLO) survey records of the area from the early 19th century. A specific effort will be made to detect wetland environments based upon a surveyor’s recorded bearing trees and line descriptions. A bearing tree, or a witness tree, is a tree that is physically marked by a surveyor to indicate a nearby survey corner.
[Show full text]
Vegetation Community Monitoring at Ocmulgee National Monument, 2011
National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Vegetation Community Monitoring at Ocmulgee National Monument, 2011 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2014/702 ON THE COVER Duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia) at Ocmulgee National Monument. Photograph by: Sarah C. Heath, SECN Botanist. Vegetation Community Monitoring at Ocmulgee National Monument, 2011 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2014/702 Sarah Corbett Heath1 Michael W. Byrne2 1USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network Cumberland Island National Seashore 101 Wheeler Street Saint Marys, Georgia 31558 2USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network 135 Phoenix Road Athens, Georgia 30605 September 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for the timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this report are provisional and subject to change. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
[Show full text]
Sweet Pecan Plant Fact Sheet
Plant Fact Sheet status (e.g. threatened or endangered species, state PECAN noxious status, and wetland indicator values). Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) Description and Adaptation K. Koch Pecan is a large tree to 150 feet with a broad rounded Plant Symbol = CAIL2 crown. It is the largest of all the hickories. It produces flowers from March to May with both male and female flowers on the same tree. Leaves are alternate, odd- Contributed by: USDA NRCS East Texas Plant Materials pinnately compound with 9-17 leaflets. The fruit is a nut Center 1 to 2 inches long and ½ to l inch in diameter. The nut is encased in a thin husk which is divided into sections which open in the fall at maturity. The bark is grayish brown to light brown with flattened ridges and narrow fissures. The wood is reddish brown with lighter sapwood, brittle and hard. Pecan grows best in loam soils which are well drained without prolonged flooding. Pecan is adapted to areas with a minimum of 30 inches of average rainfall. Pecan distribution from USDA-NRCS Plants database Establishment Due to stratification requirements for the nut to sprout, establishment is best with nursery grown seedlings which are planted in the fall or early winter. In mass plantings Robert Mohlenbrock bare root seedlings can be planted by hand or machine. USDA, NRCS, Wetland Science Institute Care should be taken with root placement and planting @PLANTS depth. The root collar should be planted at the same depth as grown in the nursery. Alternate Names Sweet pecan, Illinois nut, faux hickory, pecan hickory, Management pecan nut, pecan tree Weed control and fertilization are important considerations for maximizing nut production.
[Show full text]
Planting List Update 2013 Table 1: Recommended Canopy Trees and Their Approved Uses
Official Planting List Update 2013 Table 1: Recommended canopy trees and their approved uses Approved Uses 8' Treelawn, Evergreen Height Spread Street Tree Scientific Name Common Name or 4' 6' (Feet) (Feet) Easement, or Buffer Deciduous Treelawn Treelawn Parking Lot Island Aesculus x carnea Red horsechestnut 30-40 30-40 D x x x x Betula nigra River birch 40-70 25-50 D x x x x Carpinus betulus European 40-60 30-40 D x x x x hornbeam Cercidiphyllum japonicum Katsuratree 40-60 35-60 D x x x x Cryptomeria japonica Japanese 50-60 20-30 E x x x x cryptomeria Eucommia ulmoides Hardy rubber tree 40-60 25-35 D x x x x Ginkgo biloba (Male cultivars only) Ginkgo 50-80 50-60 D x x x x Halesia tetraptera (Halesia carolina) Carolina silverbell 30-40 20-35 D x x x x Ilex opaca American holly 40-50 18-40 E x x x x Juniperus virginiana Eastern red cedar 40-50 8-20 E x x x x Juniperus virginiana var. siliciola Southern red cedar 30-45 20-30 E x x x x Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenraintree 30-40 30-40 D x x x x Metasequoia glyptostroboides Dawn redwood 70- 15-25 D x x x x 100 Nyssa aquatica Water tupelo 75- 25-35 D x x x x 100 Nyssa ogeche Ogeechee tupelo 30-45 25-35 D x x x x Nyssa sylvatica Black gum 20-30 D x x x x 30-70 Ostrya carpinifolia Hophornbeam 50-65 25-35 D x x x x Ostrya virginiana American 25-40 20-40 D x x x x hophornbeam Parrotia persica Persian ironwood 20-40 20-35 D x x x x Quercus robur 'fastigiata' Upright English oak 50-60 10-18 D x x x x 40-50 40-50 D x x x x Sapindus drummondii Western soapberry Sassafras albidium Sassafras 30-60 25-40 D x x x x Taxodium ascendens (Taxodium Pondcypress 70-80 15-20 D x x x x distichum var.
[Show full text]
Perennial Edible Fruits of the Tropics: an and Taxonomists Throughout the World Who Have Left Inventory
United States Department of Agriculture Perennial Edible Fruits Agricultural Research Service of the Tropics Agriculture Handbook No. 642 An Inventory t Abstract Acknowledgments Martin, Franklin W., Carl W. Cannpbell, Ruth M. Puberté. We owe first thanks to the botanists, horticulturists 1987 Perennial Edible Fruits of the Tropics: An and taxonomists throughout the world who have left Inventory. U.S. Department of Agriculture, written records of the fruits they encountered. Agriculture Handbook No. 642, 252 p., illus. Second, we thank Richard A. Hamilton, who read and The edible fruits of the Tropics are nnany in number, criticized the major part of the manuscript. His help varied in form, and irregular in distribution. They can be was invaluable. categorized as major or minor. Only about 300 Tropical fruits can be considered great. These are outstanding We also thank the many individuals who read, criti- in one or more of the following: Size, beauty, flavor, and cized, or contributed to various parts of the book. In nutritional value. In contrast are the more than 3,000 alphabetical order, they are Susan Abraham (Indian fruits that can be considered minor, limited severely by fruits), Herbert Barrett (citrus fruits), Jose Calzada one or more defects, such as very small size, poor taste Benza (fruits of Peru), Clarkson (South African fruits), or appeal, limited adaptability, or limited distribution. William 0. Cooper (citrus fruits), Derek Cormack The major fruits are not all well known. Some excellent (arrangements for review in Africa), Milton de Albu- fruits which rival the commercialized greatest are still querque (Brazilian fruits), Enriquito D.
[Show full text]