Cited by 171Plant and Fungal Interactions ResearchPlant Pathogens and ResistanceForest Insect Ecology and Management

Rescue of American chestnut with extraspecific genes following its destruction by a naturalized pathogen

Open access
Steiner, Kim C., Westbrook, Jared W., Hebard, Frederick V., Georgi, Laura L., Powell, William A., Fitzsimmons, Sara F.·2017·New Forests

Abstract

Following the near-obliteration of American chestnut ( Castanea dentata [Marsh.] Borkh.) by the chestnut blight early in the last century, interest in its restoration has been revived by efforts to develop a blight-resistant form of the species. We summarize progress and outline future steps in two approaches: (1) a system of hybridizing with a blight-resistant chestnut species and then backcrossing repeatedly to recover the American type and (2) transformation of American chestnut with a resistance-conferring transgene followed by propagation and conventional breeding. Several decades of effort have been invested in each approach. More work remains, but results indicate that success is within practical reach. The restoration of C. dentata to its native habitat now appears to be less a matter of time and conjecture than ever before in 90 years of work by public and private entities. The difficult and protracted task of incorporating extraspecific genes for resistance into a tree species with lethal susceptibility to a naturalized pathogen represents perhaps the most extreme of restoration challenges. Its pursuit by a small non-governmental organization supported primarily by philanthropy and volunteers may serve as a model for other species threatened by exotic pathogens or insects.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11056-016-9561-5

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Backcross hybrids incorporated Chinese chestnut's blight resistance while retaining the timber and nut-producing characteristics of American chestnut.

    “Through careful selection for blight resistance and desirable phenotype, these backcross hybrids incorporated Chinese chestnut’s blight resistance while retaining the timber and nut-producing characteristics of American chestnut (Hebard 2005; Steiner et al. 2017).”

    From Plantation performance of chestnut hybrids and progenitors on reclaimed Appalachian surface mines (2018) · cites this paper as Steiner et al. 2017

    The Burnham plan section describes backcrossing Chinese and American chestnut to combine blight resistance with American chestnut character. The Progress in breeding section reports intermediate resistance in selected backcrosses and an American phenotype in 96% of B3 trees, but does not establish retention of timber- and nut-producing performance. The Genetic variation section also reports that later progeny, on average, had canker severity closer to susceptible American chestnut than to Chinese chestnut, so the claim overstates the resistance achieved. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Baier KM (2010) Interspecific suppression subtractive hybridization identifies a differentially expressed Chinese chestnut (Castanea mollissima) laccase-like gene. M.S. thesis, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY
  2. Beavis WD (1994) The power and deceit of QTL experiments: Lessons from comparative QTL studies. In: DB Wilkinson (ed) 49th Annual corn and sorghum research conference American seed trade associ- ation, Chicago, IL, pp 250-266
  3. Griffin, GJ, Elkins JR, McCurdy D, Griffin SL (2006) Integrated use of resistance, hypovirulence, and forest management to control blight in American chestnut. In: Steiner, KC and JE Carlson (eds) Restoration of American chestnut to forest lands, pp 97-107. Proceedings of a conference and workshop, May 2006, The North Carolina Arboretum. United States National Park Service Natural Resources Report NPS/NCR/CUE/NRR-2006/001
  4. Hebard FV (1994) The American Chestnut Foundation breeding plan: beginning and intermediate steps. J Am Chestnut Found 8(1):21-28
  5. Hebard FV (2002) Meadowview notes 2001-2002. J Am Chestnut Found 16(1):7-18
  6. Hebard FV (2004) Research objectives of the American Chestnut Foundation, 2004-2014. J Am Chestnut Found 18(2):13-19
  7. Hebard FV (2006) The backcross breeding program of The American Chestnut Foundation. In: Steiner KC, Carlson JE (eds) Restoration of American chestnut to forest lands, pp 61-77. Proceedings of a con- ference and workshop, May 2006, The North Carolina Arboretum. United States National Park Service Natural Resources Report NPS/NCR/CUE/NRR-2006/001
  8. Hebard FV (2012) The American Chestnut Foundation breeding program. In: Sniezko RA et al (eds) Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on the genetics of host-parasite interactions in forestry: disease and insect resistance in forest trees, pp 221-234. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-240, 372 pp
  9. Jaynes RA (1978) Selecting and breeding blight-resistant chestnut trees. In: Proceedings of the American Chestnut symposium, Morgantown, WV, pp 4-6
  10. Jeffers SN, Meadows IM, James JB, Sisco PH (2012) Resistance to Phytophthora cinnamomi among seedlings from backcross families of hybrid American chestnut. In: Sniezko RA et al (eds) Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on the genetics of host-parasite interactions in forestry: disease and insect resistance in forest trees, pp 194-195. USDA Forest Service Gen Tech Rep PSW-GTR-240, 372 pp
  11. Nelson CD, Powell WA, Merkle SA, Carlson JE, Hebard FV, Islam-Faridi N, Staton ME, Georgi L (2014) Chestnut. In: Ramawat K (ed) Tree biotechnology, chapter 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 3-35

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steiner, K. C., Westbrook, J. W., Hebard, F. V., Georgi, L. L., Powell, W. A., & Fitzsimmons, S. F.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • The American Chestnut Foundation (US)
  • State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Steiner, Kim C.
Venue
New Forests
Published
2016-12-10
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
317-336
ISSN
  • 0169-4286 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-5095
OpenAlex
W2560524150
Cited by
171
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7
FWCI
18.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
New Forests (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Endocrinology › Plant and Fungal Interactions Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Pathogens and Resistance
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Forest Insect Ecology and Management
Keywords
American chestnut, Castanea dentata, chestnut blight, Cryphonectria parasitica, hybridization, backcrossing, genetic transformation, transgenes, disease resistance, non-governmental organizations, philanthropy, exotic pathogens

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review