Cited by 16Seedling growth and survival studiesForest ecology and managementForest Insect Ecology and Management

Evaluating the Use of Tree Shelters for Direct Seeding of Castanea on a Surface Mine in Appalachia

Open access
Barton, Christopher, Miller, Jarrod, Sena, Kenton, Angel, Patrick, French, Michael·2015·Forests

Abstract

American chestnut (Castanea dentata), once a primary constituent of the eastern hardwood forest ecosystem, was nearly extirpated from the forest canopy by the accidental introduction of chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica). An intensive breeding program has sought to breed blight resistance from Chinese chestnut into American chestnuts, while maintaining as much of the desirable American chestnut phenotypes as possible. Previous studies suggest that these blight resistant American chestnuts, termed “restoration chestnuts”, are capable of thriving on reclaimed surface mines. We direct seeded pure Chinese, pure American, and three backcross lines into brown sandstone minesoil on a mine site in Pike County, KY. To investigate the effects of tree sheltering on survival and growth, we installed tree shelters on half the plots, and left the rest of the plots unsheltered. Results indicated that shelters were highly effective at reducing initial mortality. In addition, while pure Chinese chestnut survival was highest, the three backcross lines have also survived well on this site. Our study demonstrates that American, Chinese, and backcrossed chestnuts can survive through five growing seasons on reclaimed surface mines with the use of tree shelters.

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 · 10.3390/f6103514

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Where Chinese and American chestnut have been planted in studies, survival and growth tends to be quite similar.

    “Where these two species have been planted in studies, survival and growth tends to be quite similar (Barton et al. 2015).”

    From Plantation performance of chestnut hybrids and progenitors on reclaimed Appalachian surface mines (2018) · cites this paper as Barton et al. 2015

    The Results report similar heights for pure American and Chinese chestnuts after five growing seasons, supporting the growth portion of the claim. But the Discussion reports significantly higher five-year survival for sheltered Chinese chestnuts and describes a longer-term trend toward higher Chinese survival. The claim therefore overgeneralizes their similarity. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Chestnut plantings have demonstrated success in many Appalachian states.

    “Chestnut plantings have demonstrated this success in many of the Appalachian states (Kentucky—Barton et al. 2015; Virginia—Fields-Johnson et al. 2012; West Virginia—Skousen et al. 2013; and Ohio—Bauman et al. 2008).”
  • This study and others demonstrate the potential of these chestnut stock types to survive and persist, and thereby spread gradually into eastern North American forests by restoration efforts on reclaimed surface mines in Appalachia.

    “This study and others demonstrate the potential of these chestnut stock types to survive and persist, and thereby spread gradually into eastern North American forests by restoration efforts on reclaimed surface mines in Appalachia (Barton et al. 2015; Bauman et al. 2014; Fields-Johnson et al. 2010, and herein).”

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

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Riley, L.E., Haase, E.L., Pinto, J.R., Eds.; Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2012; pp. 16-23.
  2. Barton, C.D.; French, M.E.; Fei, S.; Ward, K.A.; Paris, R.; Angel, P. Appalachian surface mines provide a unique setting for the return of the American chestnut. Solutions 2010, 1, 84-87.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barton, C., Miller, J., Sena, K., Angel, P., & French, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • University of Maryland Extension (US)
  • Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (US)
  • The American Chestnut Foundation (US)
Corresponding author
Barton, Christopher
Venue
Forests
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2015-10-07
Volume
6
Issue
10
Pages
3514-3527
ISSN
1999-4907 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1910095917
Cited by
16
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Forests (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Seedling growth and survival studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Forest Insect Ecology and Management
Keywords
American chestnut, Castanea dentata, tree shelters, direct seeding, surface mine reclamation, chestnut blight resistance, Castanea mollissima, backcross lines, seedling survival, seedling growth, Pike County, Kentucky

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