Table of Contents
Payne, J.A., G.P. Johnson, and G. Miller. 1993. Chinkapin: Potential new crop
for the south. p. 500-505. In: J. Janick and J.E. Simon (eds.), New crops.
Wiley, New York.
Chinkapin: Potential New Crop for the South
Jerry A. Payne, George P. Johnson, and Gregory Miller*
- DESCRIPTION AND DISTRIBUTION
- BOTANY AND HORTICULTURE
- PEST PROBLEMS
- Table 1
- Fig. 1
- Fig. 2
- Fig. 3
- Fig. 4
- Fig. 5
Chinkapins, also spelled chinquapins and sometimes called dwarf or bush
chestnuts, are shrubs and small trees commonly found throughout the East,
South, and Southeast. They are characterized by usually bearing one nut per
bur and having burs that open into two halves like a clam shell. Some
taxonomists and geneticists have separated the chinkapins into eight or more
poorly defined taxa based on growth form, leaf morphology, bur characteristics, habitat, and blight susceptibility (Jaynes 1975; Graves 1950, 1961; Ashe 1923, 1924). These include: Castanea pumila (L.) Mill., C. ozarkensis Ashe, C. ashei (Sudw.) Ashe, C. alnifolia Nutt., C.
floridana (Sarg.) Ashe, C. paucispina Ashe, C. arkansana
Ashe, and C. alabamensis Ashe. Other taxonomists (Tucker 1975; Johnson
1987, 1988) have reduced most of these taxa to synonymy within C. pumila
var. pumila and indicate that the chinkapin is but a single species,
C. pumila, comprising two botanical varieties: vars. ozarkensis
(Ashe) Tucker and pumila. Only the Allegheny chinkapin, C.
pumila var. pumila (Terrell 1977) is discussed in this report.
The Allegheny chinkapin, also called the American, common, or tree chinkapin,
may well be our most ignored and undervalued native North American nut tree.
It has been widely hailed as a sweet and edible nut; a wood source for fuel,
charcoal, fence post and railroad ties; and a coffee and chocolate substitute
(Porcher 1970; Gillespie 1959). In addition, the tree's root has folkloric
history as an astringent, a tonic, and a febrifuge (Krochmal and Krochmal
1982). However, chinkapin's great potential lies in its value to commercial
chestnut breeding programs and as a source of food and cover for wildlife
(Halls 1977; Jaynes 1979; Bailey 1960).
Castanea pumila var. pumila can be characterized as a large,
spreading, smooth barked multistemmed shrub, 2 to 4 m tall, occasionally single
stemmed and 5 to 8 m tall. Large trees are sometimes found, especially under
human intervention when some of the competing trees have been removed.
According to Bailey (1960), C. pumila attains a height of 15.2 m;
however, the National Register of Big Trees (Pardo 1978) lists its two C.
pumila record specimens at 12.5 and 12.8 m in height. Johnson (1988)
reports an individual tree from Liberty County, Florida that was 15 m tall with
a 1.1 m diameter at breast height.
The Allegheny chinkapin is found in dry sandy woods and thickets from southern
New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Kentucky and Missouri, south to Florida and
Texas (Fig. 1). According to Hooker (1967), C. pumila is rare and
widely scattered in the extreme eastern counties of Oklahoma on dry, rocky or
gravelly ridges, or silicious uplands.
In Georgia, bud break normally occurs during the last week of March or the
first week of April. The leaves are borne alternately along the slender
pubescent to glabrescent reddish brown twigs. The simple leaves are acute,
elliptic to obovate, 4.1 to 21.7 cm long, 1.5 to 8.3 cm wide, bright
yellowish-green to light green and glabrous above, whitish and densely
tomentose beneath. The leaf margins are coarsely serrate and bristle tipped
and the petiole is stout and glabrous but can be pubescent. There is much
variation among leaves in shape, size, color, and pubescence even when growing
on the same tree (shrub).
Flowering occurs after the first leaves have expanded. Two or three types of
flowers and inflorescences are borne in the leaf axils of current season's
growth (Fig. 2). Unisexual male catkins appear near the bases of the shoots
and bisexual catkins containing both male and female flowers are found nearer
the terminal ends of the shoots. The female or pistillate flowers occur near
the bases of these bisexual catkins and the male or staminate flowers near the
tips. Occasionally, bisexual catkins are replaced by female catkins (catkins
bearing only pistillate flowers).
In Middle Georgia, pollen shed of the unisexual male catkins normally occurs
during the first week of May. The pistillate flowers of the bisexual catkins
are normally receptive during the second week of May, several days before the
staminate flowers of these bisexual catkins shed pollen. This type of blooming
sequence or maturation of flowers has been called duodichogamy and
hetero-duodichogamy (Stout 1928; Vilkomerson 1940). Chinkapins are rarely
self-fruitful and cross pollination is necessary to ensure a good nut crop.
However, Morris (1914) reported that plants of C. pumila may set viable
seeds without pollination. This apomictic behavior has been reported in
Chinese chestnuts by McKay (1942).
The Allegheny chinkapin is normally ready for harvesting in early September.
Harvest must be prompt in order to gather nuts before wildlife (birds and small
mammals) remove the entire crop (Fig. 3). One single brown, lustrous, rounded
nut is contained in each spiny green involucre (bur) (Fig. 4). The burs of
chinkapin are normally no more than 1.4 to 4.6 cm in diameter and split into 2
valves at nut maturity. In contrast to other chestnut species, chinkapins
normally remain attached to the bur at the hilum for several days after the bur
has opened. Also, the burs and catkins do not abscise at harvest time, but
remain attached until later in the fall or even until the following season. On
each catkin, the more basal burs usually ripen before the more distal ones.
These characteristics make chinkapins very difficult to harvest. The burs
cannot be shaken or easily picked from the trees. After the burs open, but
before the nuts fall, the exposed nuts are tempting morsels for birds or
climbing mammals. Even at the peak of harvest, shaking a chinkapin branch will
bring down only a small percentage of its crop, since half of the nuts are
already gone, and the other half have not opened yet. If the unopened burs are
cut or torn from the branches, very few of them will subsequently open, with
most requiring a tedious threshing. Complicating the harvest and subsequent
use is the fact that chinkapins are fall germinating. Often the radicle
emerges while the nuts are still on the tree. Some of the chinkapin clones
from isolated sites in Georgia bear nuts averaging 480/kg (fresh weight);
however, the normal range is 800 to 1,320/kg (Fig. 5). According to Bailey
(1960), C. pumila has been marketed in considerable quantities and for
more than two centuries (Woodroof 1979); however, we seldom see mention of
chinkapins for sale in any recent state market bulletins.
Chinkapins contain 5% fat, 5% protein, 40% starch, and 50% water (Woodroof
1979). Caloric content is 4,736±98 cal/g ash-free dry weight; ash content is
4.0±4% (Payne et al. 1982). Caloric and ash content were determined by
standard methods (Paine 1971) with a Parr Model 1341 oxygen bomb calorimeter
from four 1 g samples of C. pumila kernels.
Yield estimates are difficult to ascertain, as commercial plantings are
practically nonexistent. However, nurseries have established this species for
seeds and breeding research. Yield extrapolations from a 6 row planting of 30
trees of C. pumila in southeastern Kentucky with a spacing of 3 m
between trees and 6 m between rows would give 1,230 kg/ha in the 12th year and
3,100 kg/ha in the 14th year. These yields are lower than expected due to fall
germination and adherence of nuts in the bur. Yield was also measured from a
7-year-old, closely-spaced (1 x 2 m) planting of seedlings in east central
Ohio. The planting had reached crown closure, but had not yet suffered much
branch loss due to shading. Individual tree yields varied considerably from
nothing up to 1 kg or more. Average yield from trees in the middle of the
planting was 5,000±1,500 kg/ha. This yield equals or exceeds the level
expected for other chestnuts. In other words, the prolific production of
chinkapins compensates for their small size.
While there is limited information on the pest management of chinkapins, it is
known they are susceptible to many of the insects, mites, and diseases that
attack other native and introduced Castanea species (Crops Res. Div.
1960; Forest Service 1985; Payne and Johnson 1979). Several insects including
two chestnut weevils, Curculio caryatrypes (Boheman) and C. sayi
(Gyllenhal); a nut curculio, Conotrachelus carinifer Casey; Asiatic oak
weevil, Cyrtepistomus castaneus (Roelofs); Japanese beetle, Popillia
japonica Newman; yellownecked caterpillar, Datana ministra (Drury);
and pinkstriped oakworm, Anisota virginiensis (Drury) feed on the
flowers, fruit and foliage of chinkapin. The Oriental chestnut gall wasp,
Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu, has recently been found on chinkapins
near Americus, Georgia. It is also a serious pest of Chinese chestnut,
Castanea mollissima Blume, and Japanese chestnut, Castanea
crenata Sieb. & Zucc., in Georgia, Japan, China and Korea; no control
is presently known (Payne et al. 1983).
Chinkapins are susceptible to Phytophthora cinnamomi root rot (Crandall
et al. 1945). The Allegheny chinkapin is reported to be rather resistant to
the chestnut blight fungus caused by Cryphonectria (Endothia) parasitica
(Murr.) Barr (Chandler 1957); however, diseased and heavily cankered trees have
been found in Georgia and Louisiana (Wallace and Peacher 1970). Chinkapins
blight to some degree, but they continue to sucker and send up shoots from the
root collar and, despite cankering, produce fruit. Castanea pumila has
been widely used in the breeding programs for blight resistance (Graves 1950;
Jaynes 1975). 'Alamoore', a C. crenata x C. pumila, was
introduced in 1952 by the Alabama Agr. Expt. Sta. because it was blight
resistant, prolific, and early bearing (Brooks and Olmo 1972). According to a
blight researcher (S. Anagnostakis pers. commun.) the chinkapin hybrids are as
susceptible to chestnut blight as American chestnuts, C. dentata
(Marsh.) Borkh., based on inoculation tests with two strains of
According to Bailey (1960), two cultivars of C. pumila, `Fuller' and
`Rush', have been named, but neither is listed in Register of New Fruit and
Nut Varieties (Brooks and Olmo 1952, 1972). In 1983, the Soil Conservation
Service and the University of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station and
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife jointly released `Golden' for
Our native Allegheny chinkapins are prolific producers of sweet, nutty
flavored, small chestnuts (Table 1). They have attractive foliage and flowers,
although the odor at blossoming time is considered unpleasant by some. If the
sweetness, texture, and flavor could be incorporated into the Japanese chestnut
or the Chinese chestnut there would be a greater demand for uncooked chestnuts
(Jaynes 1979). If the suckering could be eliminated, it may have promise as a
dwarfing rootstock for choicer cultivars of chestnut (Bailey 1960) and should
be broadly adapted since the Allegheny chinkapin occurs across a wide
geographic range. The great drawback of the American chestnut was its small
nut size and the added disadvantage that many nuts stuck fast in the bur at
harvest and had to be removed by force (Smith 1950); the same can certainly be
stated for the Allegheny chinkapin (Table 1). Because the nuts are small,
difficult to harvest, and germinate at harvest time, chinkapins have limited
potential as a commercial crop. However, their small tree size, precocity, and
heavy production may be useful characteristics to breed into the commercial
chestnut species. These chinkapin characteristics will facilitate the
development of high-density chestnut production systems with earlier and higher
yields than is possible with existing chestnut cultivars.
Since the chinkapin is adapted to a wide range of soils and site conditions, it
should be considered for its wildlife value. The nuts are eaten by a number of
small mammals such as squirrels, rabbits, deermice, and chipmunks, (Halls
1977). By cutting the stem at the ground surface, dense thickets can be
established within a few years to provide food and cover for wildlife,
especially grouse, bobwhite, and wild turkey.
A renowned horticulturist once remarked, "To hear about the attributes of the
Allegheny chinkapin makes your mouth water but to see it makes your eyes
water." According to Fuller (1896), "From present indications this tree will
be well worthy of cultivation as an ornamental shade tree, even if we leave out
of the account its rapid growth, productiveness, and delicious little nuts,
which will be very acceptable for home use, if not, possessing any great
commercial value." Ninety-six years later the economic potential of this crop
still remains to be adequately demonstrated.
- Ashe, W.W. 1923. Further notes on trees and shrubs of the southeastern United
States. Bul. Torrey Bot. Club. 50:359-363.
- Ashe, W.W. 1924. Notes on woody plants. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.
- Bailey, L.H. 1960. Castanea, p. 681-682 and Chestnut, p. 742-746. In:
The standard cyclopedia of horticulture. Macmillan, New York.
- Brooks, R.M. and H.P. Olmo. 1952. Chestnut, p. 50-52. In: Register of new
fruit and nut varieties 1920-1950. Univ. California Press, Berkeley.
- Brooks, R.M. and H. P.Olmo. 1972. Chestnut, p. 205-211. In: Register of new
fruit and nut varieties. Univ. California Press, Berkeley.
- Chandler, W.H. 1957. Edible nut tree, p. 418-457. In: Deciduous orchards.
Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia.
- Crandall, B.S., G.F. Gravatt, and M.M. Ryan. 1945. Root diseases of
Castanea species and some coniferous and broadleaf nursery stocks,
caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi. Phytopathology 35:162-180.
- Crops Research Division-USDA. 1960. Index of plant diseases in the United
States. Agr. Handb. 165. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
- Forest Service-USDA. 1985. Insects of eastern forests. Misc. Publ. 1426.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
- Fuller, A.S. 1896. The nut culturist, a treatise on the propagation, planting
and cultivation of nut-bearing trees and shrubs adapted to the climate of the
United States. Orange Judd Co., New York.
- Gillespie, W.H. 1959. Beech family, p. 33-36. In: A compilation of edible
wild plants of West Virginia. Scholar's Library, New York.
- Graves, A.H. 1950. Relative blight resistance in species and hybrids of
Castanea. Phytopathology 40:1125-1131.
- Graves, A.H. 1961. Keys to chestnut species. Annu. Rpt. No. Nut Growers
- Halls, L.K. 1977. Southern fruit-producing woody plants used by wildlife.
U.S. Dept. Agr. Forest Serv. General Tech. Rpt. SO-16. New Orleans.
- Hooker, W.V. 1967. Chinquapins in Oklahoma. Annu. Rpt. No. Nut Growers
- Jaynes, R.A. 1975. Chestnuts, p. 490-503. In: J. Janick and J. Moore (eds.).
Advances in fruit breeding. Purdue Univ. Press, West Lafayette, IN.
- Jaynes, R.A. 1979. Chestnuts, p. 111-127. In: R.A. Jaynes (ed.). Nut tree
culture in North America. Northern Nut Growers Assoc., Hamden, CT.
- Johnson, G.P. 1987. Chinquapins: taxonomy, distribution, ecology, and
importance. Annu. Rpt. No. Nut Growers Assoc. 78:58-62.
- Johnson, G.P. 1988. Revision of Castanea sect. Balanocastanon
(Fagaceae). J. Arnold Arbor. 69:25-49.
- Krochmal, A. and C. Krochmal. 1982. Uncultivated nuts of the United States.
U.S. Dept. Agr. Forest Service. Agr. Info. Bul. 450., Washington, DC.
- McKay, J.W. 1942. Self-sterility in the Chinese chestnut (C.
mollissima). Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 41:156-160.
- Morris, R.T. 1914. Chestnut blight resistance. J. Hered. 5:26-29.
- Paine, R.T. 1971. The measurement and application of the calorie to
ecological problems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Systemics 2:145-164.
- Pardo, R. 1978. National register of big trees. Amer. Forests 84(4):18-46.
- Payne, J.A., J.D. Dutcher, and B.W. Wood. 1982. Chinkapins: A promising nut
crop in the south? Annu. Rpt. No. Nut Growers Assoc. 73:23-26.
- Payne, J.A., R.A. Jaynes, and S.J. Kays. 1983. Chinese chestnut production in
the United States: practice, problems and possible solutions. Econ. Bot.
- Payne, J.A. and W.T. Johnson. 1979. Plant pests, p. 314-395. In: R.A. Jaynes
(ed.). Nut tree culture in North America. Northern Nut Growers Assoc.,
- Porcher, F.P. 1970. Corylaceae (The nut tribe), p. 233-265. In: Resources of
the southern fields and forests: medicinal, economical, and agricultural. Arno
Press, New York.
- Smith, J.R. 1950. Tree crops, a permanent agriculture. Devin-Adair, Old
- Stout, A.B. 1928. Dichogamy in flowering plants. Bul. Torrey Bot. Club
- Terrell, E.E. 1977. A checklist of names for 3,000 vascular plants of
economic importance. USDA Handb. 505. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC.
- Tucker, G.E. 1975. Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis (Ashe)
Tucker, comb. nov. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 29:67-69.
- Vilkomerson, H. 1940. Flowering habits of the chestnut. Annu. Rpt. No. Nut
Growers Assoc. 31:114-116.
- Wallace, H.N. and P.H. Peacher. 1970. Chinkapin in Louisiana infected by
Endothia parasitica. Plant Dis. Rptr. 54:713.
- Woodroof, J.G. 1979. Tree nuts of less importance, p. 656-676. In: Tree
nuts: production, processing, products. AVI, Westport, CT.
*We gratefully acknowledge the following for freely sharing their knowledge,
experience and unpublished data on chinkapin acreage, blight, culture,
pesticides, yields, products, breeding and cultivars: Connecticut (Sandra
Anagnostakis; Richard Jaynes); Georgia (Rose Payne, Mike Moore); Kansas (Bill
Reid); Kentucky (Laura Ray); Missouri (Dan Millikan); New Jersey (Jerry Baron);
New York (Alfred Szego, Brian Caldwell); Ohio (Diane Miller); Ontario (Doug
Campbell, Ernie Grimo); Pennsylvania (Tucker Hill); Tennessee (Spencer Chase).
Table 1. Advantages and problems associated with development of Allegheny chinkapin as a crop.
- Precocious, produces nuts in 2 to 3 years
- Prolific; large number of female flowers per catkin, large number of female catkins per shoot
- Distinct flavor and aroma (sweet and edible)
- Attractive foliage, flowers and burs
- Wildlife food and cover crop
- Dry site plant and reclamation plant
- Dwarfing rootstock possibility
- Excessive bird and mammal feeding
- Difficult to harvest
- Fall germination
- Small nut size
- Adherence of nuts in the bur and germination in the bur
- Susceptible to blight
- Lack of pesticide registrations
Fig. 1. Distribution of Castanea pumila var. pumila,
based on herbarium specimens (Johnson 1988).
||Fig. 2. The flowers are borne on erect, horizontal, or pendant axillary spikes on branches of the current season's growth. There is one inflorescence
per leaf axil.
Fig. 3. Chinkapins normally bear 1 to 5 spiny burs per spike; however,
5 to 8 burs or more are encountered.
Fig. 4. Chinkapin nuts are 7 to 19 mm in diameter, chocolate to
blackish brown, ovate, pointed at one end, and are enclosed in a spiny bur 1.4
to 4.6 cm in diameter.
Fig. 5. Chinkapins are precocious and prolific with yields of 2 kg per
plant in 6 to 8 years.
Last update September 15, 1997