Ontologia
Arbre à noix longues

Arbre à noix longues

Juglans cinereaL.

ENLR Monde (IUCN)
1 photo · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir
Pays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome

Graphe en cours d’indexation

Calcul du tissu écologique de Juglans cinerea.

Le graphe apparaîtra automatiquement dès que le calcul est terminé (rafraîchissement toutes les 5s).

Liste rouge IUCN

EN · En dangercritères A2e+3e+4eDécroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2019 · v3.1
Altitude
1400 m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert
The species is 'scattered' or 'sporadic' in its habitats but may occasionally form small pure groups (Broders et al. 2015).  Small isolated pockets are found in the south of the range, and subpopulations in Wisconsin, Michingan, Ontario and Quebec are considered disjunct (Coladonato 1991). The species is rarely dominant, but in some sites is co-dominant with an overall low abundance (Michler et al. 2006).

Population is subject to a high rate of decline. This is a consequence of infection of trees by the fungus Ophiognomonia clavigignenti-juglandacearum, commonly known as butternut canker (Broders et al. 2015, NatureServe 2018). This fungal pest was first reported in 1967 and the population of butternut has continued to decline since its invasion. In some states up to 91% of trees can be infected, putting them at risk of death (McIlwrick et al. 2000). Seven midwestern states recorded a decline in butternut trees of 23% (Michler et al. 2006) while Wisconsin recorded a loss of between 27 and 92% by 1992 (Michler et al. 2006). Flickinger (2015) reports a decrease in number of butternut trees from 1.4 million individuals to 84,000 individuals, a 94% decline. In general, the average loss across reporting states is around 80% (McIlwrick et al. 2000). The species is also subject to decline in its Canadian range at a similar rate.

Despite this decline the species is still present in habitat as infected individuals, uninfected saplings, mature putative resistant trees (McIlwrick et al. 2000). The species currently maintains good genetic diversity and there is some natural resistance to O. clavigignenti-juglandacearum (Ross-Davis et al. 2008). Other causes of population decline are due to habitat loss, poor regeneration and genetic dilution (Parks et al. 2013).

The species produces seed from 20 to 60 years old, hence generation length is given as 40 years. Therefore, across three generations looking from 1967 to 2067 it is estimated that the population will experience decline between 50 and 80%. There has been a historical reduction of up to 80% based on the loss of trees due to butternut canker, and the variable rate this has occurred across the range. There is a high rate of infection and high rate of mortality of the tree. Decline will continue into the future as O. clavigignenti-juglandacearum is present across the entire species range and there is no known remedy (Parks et al. 2013). Decline over the next 100 years could also be as much as 80%, considering a conservative estimate.

Menaces identifiées(4 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 8_3
    Introduced genetic material
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsUnknownOngoing
  • 11_1
    Habitat shifting & alteration
    UnknownUnknownFuture
  • 2_1_4
    Scale Unknown/Unrecorded
    UnknownUnknownOngoing
  • 2_3_4
    Scale Unknown/Unrecorded
    UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesExpert
The greatest threat to the species is decline due to butternut canker, caused by the pathogen Ophiognomonia clavigignenti-juglandacearum (Borders et al. 2015). This pest can infect trees of all age and size classes (McIlwrick et al. 2000). It can infect rapidly and invade just as quickly, hence only a few uninfected stands remain (NatureServe 2018). The pest is thought to be waterbourne but may also be dispersed by insects (Borders et al. 2015). Infection results in the premature death of the tree as the tree becomes girdled and the cambium is destroyed. During this time the tree can also become more susceptible to other pests and diseases which reduces the viability of the tree further (NatureServe 2018). The pest was thought to be introduced at the end of the 1960's and has since caused the global population of butternut to decline. Currently methods of mitigation are not fully understood. The population now exists in smaller numbers, than across the last century.

Parks et al. 2013 also notes that the species is threatened by historical habitat loss, poor regeneration and genetic dilution caused by hybridisation with Juglans ailantifolia. Potter et al. 2017 also identified that the species may be 'vulnerable' to climate change but with some capacity to adapt.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 1_4Forest - Temperate
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
The species is assessed as Endangered for Canada (COSEWIC 2008). US NatureServe tracks that the species is at risk in many states, but at the national level is assessed as G4 ('Apparently secure'), as the species 'is not currently vulnerable to extinction' as large numbers still persist across the species range. The species is present on the US Endangered Species Act (McIlwrick et al. 2000). There was also a moratorium placed on the trade of this species from Minnesota (McIlwrick et al. 2000) and in general, the harvest of this species for timber is now more restricted to ensure that healthy, uninfected individuals persist in the wild. 

There is currently no effective or practical management techniques known that completely protect Juglans cinerea from butternut canker. Various research is occurring to investigate remedies to butternut canker infection. This includes looking at in vitro propagation, breeding resistance, use of fungicides and pesticides, reducing timber harvest and developing ex situ conservation stands, DNA and seed banks (McIlwrick et al. 2000, NatureServe 2018). Remaining stands of the tree need to be managed to encourage regeneration, such as reducing canopy to better establishment of butternut (Parks et al. 2013). There needs to be continuing monitoring of the population for decline and regeneration. The species is present in at least 137 ex situ collections.
Actions de conservation (2)Expert
  • 3_2Species recovery
  • 3_4_1Captive breeding/artificial propagation
Stress écologiques (8)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_3_1Hybridisation
Usage & commerce (5)Expert
  • 1Food - human
    nationalsubsistance
  • 11Other household goods
    internationalnational
  • 12Handicrafts, jewellery, etc.
    internationalnationalsubsistance
  • 3Medicine - human & veterinary
    nationalsubsistance
  • 9Construction or structural materials
    internationalnationalsubsistance
Priorités de recherche (2)Expert
  • 1_5Threats
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Nearctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial

Formes de croissance

Tree - large
Références bibliographiques (13)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-1. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 21 March 2019).
  2. NatureServe. 2018. <i>Juglans cinerea</i>. Available at: <a href="http://explorer.natureserve.org">http://explorer.natureserve.org</a>. (Accessed: 6 August 2018).
  3. Potter, K., Crane, B. and Hargrove, W. 2017. A United States national prioritization framework for tree species vulnerability to climate change. <i>New Forests</i>: 1–26.
  4. Broders, K., Boraks, A., Barbison, L., Brown, J. and Boland, G.J. 2015. Recent insights into the pandemic disease butternut canker caused by the invasive pathogen <i>Ophiognomonia clavigignenti‐juglandacearum</i>. <i>Forest Pathology</i> 45(1): 1-8.
  5. Flickinger, A. 2015. Potential Loss of Butternut from Iowa Forests. In: Gipp, C., Tauke, P. and Feeley, T. (eds), <i>Iowa's 2015 Forest Health Highlights</i>, pp. 47. Iowa Department of Natural Resources and USDA Forestry Service, Des Moines.
  6. Parks, A.M., Jenkins, M.A., Woeste, K.E. and Ostry, M.E. 2013. Conservation Status of a Threatened Tree Species: Establishing a Baseline for Restoration of <i> Juglans cinerea</i> L. In the Southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. <i>Natural Areas Journal</i> 33(4): 413-426.
  7. Ross-Davis, A., Ostry, M. and Woeste, K.E. 2008. Genetic diversity of butternut (Juglans cinerea) and implications for conservation. <i>Canadian Journal of Forest Research</i> 38(4): 899-907.
  8. eFloras. 2008. Flora of North America. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO & Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA Available at: <a href="http://www.efloras.org/">http://www.efloras.org/</a>.
  9. COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Rapids Clubtail <i>Gomphus quadricolor</i> in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa.
  10. Michler, C.H., Pijut, P.M., Jacobs, D.F., Meilan, R., Woeste, K.E. and Ostry, M.E. 2006. Improving disease resistance of butternut (<i>Juglans cinerea</i>), a threatened fine hardwood: a case for single-tree selection through genetic improvement and deployment. <i>Tree Physiology</i> 26(1): 121-128.
  11. McIlwrick, K., Wetzel, S., Beardmore, T., and Frobes, K. 2000. Ex situ conservation of American chestnut (<i>Castanea dentata</i> (Marsh.) Borkh.) and butternut (<i>Juglans cinerea</i> L.), a review. <i>The Forestry Chronicle</i> 76(5): 765-775.
  12. Coladonato, M. 1991. <i>Juglans cinerea</i>. Available at: <a href="https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/jugcin/all.html">https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/jugcin/all.html</a>. (Accessed: 7 August 2018).
  13. Burns, R.M. and Honkala, B.H. 1990. <i>Silvics of North America</i>. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (2)Expert
assessor
Stritch, L. & Barstow, M.
evaluator
Bétrisey, S. & Kozlowski, G.

Stritch, L. & Barstow, M. 2019. Juglans cinerea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T62019689A62019696. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Indicateurs écologiques

Indicateurs écologiques Ellenberg-type

EIVE 1.0 — Dengler 2023

Position de l'espèce sur les 5 dimensions écologiques européennes (M / N / R / L / T), échelle 0-10. La zone estompée représente la niche width (variabilité tolérée).

MNRLT
Humidité
xérophile hygrophile
4.3
xérophile
Azote
oligotrophe nitrophile
7.0
nitrophile
Réaction (pH)
silicicole calcicole
7.4
calcicole
Lumière
sciaphile héliophile
6.1
héliophile
Température
cryophile thermophile
4.4
cryophile

Source : EIVE 1.0 (Dengler et al. 2023). CC-BY 4.0. Échelle harmonisée 0-10 (équivalent inverse-rang sur les systèmes Ellenberg, Landolt, Pignatti, etc.). Niche width = écart-type d'estimation, indicateur de fiabilité (zone estompée).

Répartition mondiale (heatmap GBIF)Construction en cours

0 obs · 0 cellules
Construction par partitions temporelles GBIF0%

Source : GBIF — observations agrégées par hexagones 0.2° × 0.2° (~22km). Filtre qualité : précision coordonnée < 10 km. Coloration quantile (q50/70/90/99). Fond carte : OpenFreeMap · © OpenStreetMap.

Distribution mondiale

Calcul de la distribution GBIF· ~10–60 s

Phénologie

Calcul du calendrier d'apparition· ~5–30 s

Consulter sur les bases externes

Observations & statuts

Cartographie

Bibliographie

Note nomenclaturale & synonymesExpert

Note nomenclaturale

TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHN

Synonymes (4)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Juglans catharticaF.Michx.
  • Juglans oblongaMill.
  • Nux cinerea(L.) M.Gómez
  • Wallia cinerea(L.) Alef.

Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).