This situation was at once called to the attention of the owner of the orchard who lived some 50 miles away. He replied that although he made frequent visits to the orchard, the matter had not attracted his attention, nor had it been reported to him. On April 17, he inspected the orchard and the day following, reported to the Bureau by special delivery that as a result of a rather hasty inspection, he was convinced that from 16 to 20 per cent of the trees in the experimental tract were injured, but that in the rest of this orchard the injury was insignificant, probably not exceeding 4 per cent. His not unnatural deduction was that the high fertilization of the soil in the experimental tract had caused tender growth which, under the extreme conditions of the previous months, had been unable to survive.
On April 24, a careful record of the condition of all trees in this tract and of a representative number of those in adjacent parts of the orchard, was made by Mr. J. L. Pelham of the Bureau of Plant Industry and the writer, in company with the owner of the orchard and his superintendent. It was found that in the experimental tract, 50 per cent of the trees had been visibly injured, thus exceeding the owner's maximum estimate by about 30 per cent. Of the total number of trees, 20 per cent were regarded as being slightly injured, and 30 per cent severely so. Of the fertilized trees within the experimental tract, 55 per cent showed injury to some degree as compared with 58 per cent of the trees unfertilized, also within the tract.
Inspection of the trees outside of the experimental tract showed that 52.6 per cent were affected, 40.8 per cent being slightly, and 11.8 per cent severely injured. A second inspection made June 9 showed that while a few of the most severely injured trees had succumbed, the apparent condition of the majority was greatly improved. In the experimental tract 6 per cent were dead, 13.50 per cent in doubtful condition, and 80.25 per cent were apparently in good condition. Of the trees in outside tracts, the percentage dead, doubtful and apparently sound were 2.80, 9.008 and 87.42, respectively.
The lesson of present importance from this narrative is that afforded by the illustration not only of the ease with which the matter all but escaped the attention of a careful grower but of the difficulty of even impressing upon him the full gravity of the situation. In spite of a prejudice which he conceded was in his mind, when he first inspected the trees on April 17, he underestimated the number affected by from one-third to one-half.
This grower was not alone in his failure to detect evidence of winter injury as was subsequently proven by the negative replies to a general inquiry to growers in many sections sent out in May, together with numerous reports of severe injury received during June and early July. The fact is that winter injury was more or less general in the pecan orchards of much of the South. Had it been possible to observe further, it is highly probable that a direct relation would have been found between this damage and the lightness in the set of the crop of nuts in 1924 over the general pecan district.
Other instances of damages to nut trees which have largely escaped notice might be cited, but these will perhaps be sufficient to call similar cases to the minds of other observers. Of particular interest in the northern part of the country are specific instances of the behavior of individual species and their varieties with reference to ability to withstand local climatic conditions. To cite a few: Mr. E. A. Riehl, of Godfrey, Ill., 8 miles from Alton, reports that during his 60 years of residence on a high bluff overlooking the Mississippi, the pecan trees in the river bottoms of the immediate neighborhood have fruited with exceeding irregularity. A correspondent from Evansville, who cleared 200 acres of forest land along the Ohio of all growth other than pecan, reports that the yields have been disappointing. F. W. McReynolds of Washington, D. C. has 50 or more grafted trees now 8 or 10 years old, 10 miles north of the District, which, although in otherwise thrifty condition, have not fruited.
T. P. Littlepage of Washington, D. C., has some 30 acres of pecan trees, also grafted, on his farm near Bowie, Md., which have borne some nuts during the last three years, but the product has been undersized, poorly-filled and distinctly inferior. Mr. Littlepage reports that during the past spring, these trees suffered appreciable injury in the freezing back of the fruit spurs and that the nuts which formed were from a second set of spurs. His trees bore in the neighborhood of a bushel of nuts which looked more promising than usual until the middle of October when freezing temperature occurring between the 14th and the 24th, completely destroyed the crop. At Bell Station, near Glenndale, Md., about three miles nearer Washington than Bowie, at Marietta, a colonial plantation, there is a clump of pecan trees dating back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. These are apparently hardy except in the matter of yields. Dr. M. B. Waite, of the Bureau of Plant Industry, who has long known these trees, states that they bore heavily in one year, about 1912, but that since that time, they have borne very little.
On the other hand, Mr. Albert Stabler of Washington, has 6 or 8 trees of varieties similar to those in the plantings of Messrs. Littlepage and McReynolds and of about the same age, on a farm not far from that of the latter, one variety of which, Major, in 1923 bore some very fair quality nuts. Although small, they were typical for that variety both in respect to size and high quality. The crop of 1924 was practically a failure, the set being very light. In the test orchard of Mr. J. F. Jones of Lancaster, Pa., young trees of several of the better known varieties are making a good start in the way of beginning to yield and in showing no appreciable signs of winter injury. Most of these trees bore light crops last year, (1923) but are practically barren this year.
South of Waynesboro, Pa., on a farm belonging to Mr. G. H. Lesher, there are 7 seedling pecan trees some 50 years old, which not only show no signs of winter injury outwardly visible, but have the reputation of bearing fairly well on alternate years. The present (1924) being the favorable year, the trees had a good sprinkling of nuts in clusters of as many as 5 each, when seen on July 23. A few miles farther north, in the town of Mont Alto, at an altitude of about 1000 feet, near the location of the State Forestry School of Pennsylvania, another tree said to be 65 years old, and having a girth at breast height of 65 inches, on the residence grounds of Mr. H. B. Verdeer, is apparently as hardy as are the indigenous species of the neighborhood. It is claimed to have recently borne three pecks of nuts in a single season, and it now has a very good crop. Numerous other instances of pecan trees in the North might be cited, but these suffice to establish not only the uncertainty of hardiness of the pecan in the North, but also the probability of nut crops in occasional years or oftener, well beyond the generally accepted range of the species.
The hardiness of the Persian walnut is difficult to define. To again quote Dr. Waite, "Juglans regia, as we know it in the east and north, frequently succeeds over long intervals of time under conditions of climate, soil, elevation, and general environment suitable for the peach. It is perhaps a trifle more subject to injury by radical drops in temperature, but it recuperates with decidedly greater difficulty." Dr. Waite points out that there is a striking similarity between the requirements of local environment of the Persian walnut and the sweet cherry. It develops that this is a familiar comparison in southwestern British Columbia. Both require good drainage of air and soil, or the benefit of moderating influence such as is afforded by large bodies of water. Also both are endangered by warm spells during the dormant months.