Castanea dentata - (Marsh.) Borkh.
American Chestnut
Other Common Names: American chestnut
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh. (TSN 19454)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.153295
Element Code: PDFAG01020
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Beech Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Fagales Fagaceae Castanea
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Castanea dentata
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 30Dec1996
Global Status Last Changed: 11May1985
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Widespread, abundant as young shoots, but now seldom reaching reproductive maturity due to an introduced fungus, the chestnut blight.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1N2 (02Dec2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SNR), Connecticut (SNR), Delaware (S4), District of Columbia (S1S2), Florida (SX), Georgia (S3), Illinois (SX), Indiana (S3), Iowa (SNA), Kentucky (S1?), Maine (S4), Maryland (S2S3), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (S1S2), Mississippi (S1), Missouri (SNR), New Hampshire (SNR), New Jersey (S4), New York (S5), North Carolina (S4), Ohio (S3), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (SNR), South Carolina (SNR), Tennessee (S2S3), Vermont (SNR), Virginia (S4), West Virginia (S4), Wisconsin (SNR)
Canada Ontario (S1S2)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (15Aug2006)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (01Nov2004)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: Once a dominant tree in well drained forests of the Eastern Deciduous Forest, this species was devastated by chestnut blight in the first part of the 20th century. The species is still present throughout most of its former range, but as a few scattered individuals that have sprouted from root crowns. Most of these succumb to the blight before reaching a substantial size and fewer than 150 are large enough to produce seed. The species requires cross-pollination and seed set is reduced because mature individuals are widely scattered. Threats to the species include the continuous presence of the blight, aging and attrition of the root crowns, land clearing in some remaining sites, and hybridization with other species.

Statu history: Designated Threatened in April 1987. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in November 2004.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Still commonly seen as stump shoots in the Appalachians and elsewhere in the range.

Population Size Comments: Presumably exists by the millions as stumps with shoots, but mature trees extremely rare, usually as cultivated individuals far from the species' natural range.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Depleted, and now seldom reaching reproductive maturity, due to an exotic fungus disease, the chestnut blight.

Short-term Trend: Decline of >30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Essentially eliminated as mature trees within a few decades of introduction of the chestnut blight (an exotic fungus disease) to New York City. Persists as root systems continuing to generate stump shoots which seldom reach sufficient size for reproduction.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, CT, DC, DE, FLextirpated, GA, IAexotic, ILextirpated, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IN Crawford (18025), Monroe (18105)
KY Barren (21009), Harlan (21095)
MD Anne Arundel (24003), Baltimore County (24005), Charles (24017), Harford (24025), Montgomery (24031), Wicomico (24045)
ME Cumberland (23005), Knox (23013), Piscataquis (23021), Somerset (23025), Waldo (23027), York (23031)
MI Monroe (26115), Oakland (26125), St. Clair (26147)*, Washtenaw (26161), Wayne (26163)
OH Ashtabula (39007), Athens (39009), Columbiana (39029), Cuyahoga (39035), Erie (39043), Fairfield (39045), Hocking (39073), Huron (39077), Jackson (39079), Jefferson (39081)*, Knox (39083), Lake (39085), Lawrence (39087), Licking (39089), Lorain (39093), Lucas (39095), Mahoning (39099), Medina (39103), Monroe (39111), Perry (39127), Pike (39131), Portage (39133), Richland (39139)*, Scioto (39145), Stark (39151), Summit (39153), Vinton (39163)
TN Cannon (47015), Carter (47019), Davidson (47037), Fentress (47049), Hamilton (47065), Jackson (47087), Maury (47119), Smith (47159), Unicoi (47171), Van Buren (47175), Williamson (47187)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Piscataquis (01020004)+, Lower Kennebec (01030003)+, Maine Coastal (01050002)+, Presumpscot (01060001)+, Saco (01060002)+, Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+
02 Gunpowder-Patapsco (02060003)+, Patuxent (02060006)+, Monocacy (02070009)+, Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan (02070010)+, Lower Potomac (02070011)+, Eastern Lower Delmarva (02080110)+
04 Upper Grand (04050004)+, St. Clair (04090001)+*, Clinton (04090003)+, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+, Raisin (04100002)+, Lower Maumee (04100009)+, Sandusky (04100011)+, Huron-Vermilion (04100012)+, Black-Rocky (04110001)+, Cuyahoga (04110002)+, Ashtabula-Chagrin (04110003)+, Grand (04110004)+, Chautauqua-Conneaut (04120101)+
05 Upper Ohio (05030101)+, Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+, Hocking (05030204)+, Tuscarawas (05040001)+, Mohican (05040002)+, Walhonding (05040003)+, Licking (05040006)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Barren (05110002)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Upper Cumberland (05130101)+, Obey (05130105)+, Upper Cumberland-Cordell Hull (05130106)+, Caney (05130108)+, Lower Cumberland-Sycamore (05130202)+, Harpeth (05130204)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+
06 Watauga (06010103)+, Nolichucky (06010108)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Lower Duck (06040003)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Help
Basic Description: A large tree (formerly), but now usually seen as transient stump shoots that become diseased after several years.
Economic Attributes
Help
Economically Important Genus: Y
Economic Uses: MEDICINE/DRUG
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 31Dec1996
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Morse, Larry E. (1996)

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Ambrose, J., G. Boland, K. Elliott, B. Husband, M. Melzer and G. Waldron. 2000. National recovery plan for American Chestnut (Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh.). World Wildlife Fund.

  • Ambrose, J.D. 2003. Status Report on American Chestnut (Castanea dentata). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 15 pp. + appendix

  • Ambrose, J.D. 2004. Update COSEWIC Status Report on American Chestnut Castanea dentata. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Interim Draft (June 2004). 17 pp. + confidential appendix.

  • Ambrose, J.D. and P.G. Kevan. 1990. Reproductive biology of rare Carolinian plants with regard to conservation management. Pages 57-63, in "Conserving Carolinian Canada: Conservation Biology in the Deciduous Forest Region", G.M. Allen, P.F.J. Eagles, and S.D. Price, editors. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario..

  • Ambrose, J.D. and S.W. Aboud. 1986. Status Report on Chestnut, Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh.: A Threatened Species in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. 19 pp.

  • Ambrose, J.D. and S.W. Aboud. 1987. Status report on the American Chestnut, CASTANEA DENTATA (Marsh.) Borkh., in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa. 19 pp.

  • Anagnostakis, S.L. 1982. Biological control of chestnut blight. Science 215:466-471.

  • Anagnostakis, S.L., & B. Hillman. 1992. Evolutioin of the chestnut tree and its blight. Arnoldia 52(2):2-10.

  • Anderson, C. 1992. The fight against blight. Nature Conservancy (Nov/Dec):8-9.

  • Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White and C.J. Keddy (eds.). 1982-1987. Atlas of the Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario.. Botany Division, National Museum of National Sciences, Ottawa.

  • Baxter, D.V. 1930. The fungi and the decay of the American chestnut: part I. Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts & letters 14:259-290.

  • Beacham, W. 2003. American Chestnut in our sanctuaries. Wood Duck. April: 186.

  • Berry, F.H. 1980. Evaluation of chestnut test plantings in the eastern United States. Forest Service Research Paper NE-454, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station, Broomall, PA. 5 pp.

  • Bloomfield, H. 1980. New hope for the chestnut. American Forests 86(1):15-17, 59, 61-62.

  • Brewer, L.G. 1982. The present status and future prospect for the American chestnut in Michigan. Michigan Botanist 21:117-128.

  • Brewer, L.G. 1995. Ecology of survival and recovery from blight in American Chestnut trees (Castanea dentata (Michx.)Borkh.) in Michigan. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 122(1): 40-57.

  • Burns, C. 1984. Saving this fine tree: The American chestnut may have a future despite its blight-plagued past. Michigan Natural Resources (Jan/Feb):27-33.

  • COSEWIC 2004. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the American chestnut Castanea dentata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 19 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

  • Casada, J. 1990. Saga of a fallen monarch. Wildlife in North Carolina 54(1):10-14.

  • Deam, C. C. 1940. Flora of Indiana. Division of Forestry, Dept. of Conservation, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1236 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1997. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 3. Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiii + 590 pp.

  • Fox, W.S. 1949. Present state of the chestnut, Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh., in Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 63: 88-89.

  • Fox, W.S. 1959. Is there hope of restoring the Sweet Chestnut, Castanea dentata? Federation of Ontario Naturalists Bulletin 83: 7-9.

  • Fox, W.S. and J.H. Soper. 1953. The Distribution of some trees and shrubs of the Carolinian Zone of Southern Ontario. Part 2. Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute 30(Part 1): 3-32.

  • Fox. W.S. 1959. Is there hope of restoring the sweet chestnut, CASTANEA DENTATA?. Federation of Ontario Naturalists (FON) Bulletin 83:7-9.

  • Fulbright, D.W., W.H. Weidlich, K.Z. Haufler, C.S. Thomas & C.P. Paul. 1983. Chestnut blight and recovering American chestnut trees in Michigan. Canadian Journal of Botany 61:3164-3171.

  • Good, N.F. 1968. A study of natural replacement of chestnut in six stands in the highlands of New Jersey. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club. 95(3):240-253.

  • Graves, A.H. 1949. Breeding chestnut for timber. Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 50:248-254.

  • Griffin, G.J. 1992. American chestnut survival in understory mesic sites following the chestnut blight pandemic. Can. J. Bot. 70:1950-1956.

  • Hartline, B.K. 1980. Fighting the spread of chestnut blight. Science 209:892-893.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • Kuhlman, E.G. 1983. Effects of hypovirulence in CRYPHONECTRIA PARASITICA and of secondary blight infections on dieback of American chestnut trees. Phytopathology 73:1030-1034.

  • Larson, B.M., & G. Waldron. 1994. American chestnut infected with hypovirulent blight at Arner Point, Ontario. Mich. Bot. 33:109-115.

  • Laycock, G. 1984. Fungus versus fungus. Audubon 86(3):42-45.

  • Little, E.L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agriculture Handbook No. 541. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 375 pp.

  • McCormick, J.F. & R.B. Platt. 1980. Recovery of an Appalachian forest following the chestnut blight or Catherine Keever--you were right!. Amer. Midl. Nat. 104(2):264-273.

  • McKeen, C.D. & J.D. Ambrose. 1988. Native chestnut attempts a comeback. Wildflower 4(2):20-23.

  • Miller, J.A. 1987. Fighting fungus with fungus. Bioscience 37(4):23-24.

  • Mitchell, Richard S. 1986. A checklist of New York State plants. Bulletin No. 458. New York State Museum. 272 pp.

  • Oldham, M.J. 1996. COSSARO Candidate V,T,E Species Evaluation Form for Chestnut (Castanea dentata). Unpublished report prepared by Natural Heritage Information Centre for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 5 pp.

  • Oldham, M.J. 2004. COSSARO Candidate Species at Risk Evaluation Form for American Chestnut (Castanea dentata). Natural Heritage Information Centre. Prepared for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. 26 October, 11 pp.

  • Paillet, F.L. 1982. The ecological significance of American Chestnut (Castanea dentata (March.)Borkh.) in the Holocene forests of Connecticut. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 109(4): 457-473.

  • Paillet, F.L. 1984. Growth-form and ecology of American chestnut sprout clones in northeastern Massachusetts. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club. 111(3):316-328.

  • Paillet, F.L. 1988. Character and distribution of American chestnut sprouts in southern New England woodlands. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 115(1):32-44.

  • Russell, E.W.B. 1987. Pre-blight distribution of CASTANEA DENTATA (Marsh.)Borkh.. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club. 114(2):183-190.

  • Sayers, W.B. 1974. The king is dead: Long live the King. National Parks & Conservation Magazine (Sept.):8-13.

  • Shugart, H.H., Jr., and D.C. West. 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.

  • Smith, H.C. 1981. U.S. Forest Service American Chestnut Cooperators' Meeting. Northeastern Forest Station Experiment Station GTR NE-64, Broomall, Pennsylvania. 20 pp.

  • Soper, J.H. 1962. Some genera of restricted range in the Carolinian flora of Canada. Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute 34(1):3-56.

  • Stephenson, S.L. 1986. Changes in a former chestnut-dominated forest after a half century of succession. Amer. Midl. Nat.116(1):173-179.

  • Sutherland, D.A. 1987. The Vascular Plants of Haldimand-Norfolk. Pages 1-52 in The Natural Areas Inventory of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk - Volume II: Annotated Checklists. Norfolk Field Naturalists, Simcoe, Ontario.

  • Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Morton Arboretum. Lisle, Illinois.

  • Thompson, P.W. 1969. A unique American chestnut grove. Mich. Academician 1(3& 4);175-178.

  • Thompson, R.J. 1993. Status Report, CASTANEA DENTATA, American Chestnut. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Simcoe. (17 un-numbered pages).

  • Tiedemann C.D. & E.R. Hasselkus. 1975. The American chestnut in Wisconsin. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts & Letters 63:81-101.

  • Tindall, Jeffrey R. et al. 2004. Ecological status of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) in its native range in Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 2554-2563.

  • ZON, R. 1904. CHESTNUT IN SOUTHERN MARYLAND. U.S. DEPT. AG. FORESTRY BULL. 53. 31 PP.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.