Depending on the part of the native range the acorns originated from, I'd say from the Northern part of it's range they are a solid zone 5. I've been growing it for about 15 years here(zone 6 Eastern Kansas) with no problems and it's been through about -11F(-24°C). It's actually been one of my fastest growing trees over that time, but I also have it planted in some wet ground(not swampy though). I don't know how well it would do in zone 4 though. I'm not sure where you got the drought tolerance information from, but Nuttall Oak grows in swamplands and other wetland areas of the lower Mississippi drainage basin. I'd say it's drought tolerance is quite similar to that of Pin Oak (Quercus palustris). It does seem to have reliably good red fall colors.

Also, it's "new" scientific name is Quercus texana, so you might some more information about it under that name.

Thanks, kman04.

One of the websites I visited said the tree had good drought tolerance. I do not know the source of my acorns (I received them from Schumacher's.) If I get any seedlings maybe I will plant one to see how it does.

Thanks for the info on the name change. I'll do a bit more research under that name.
Mike

treelover:

The Nutall oak (Quercus nuttallii) is a fast growing oak. If it receives sun and water, it prospers. It is native to the Mississippi area and tolerates periods of flooding.

According to a publication from the NC Cooperative Extension (link below), the Nutall oak grows best in moist to average soil, tolerates short periods of flooding, and will tolerate "considerable drought" ( 3-4 weeks without rainfall) once it is established.

If you already have the acorns, you don't have anything to lose by trying. If you do, try to ensure that your seedlings get plenty of water, especially during the first two years. I don't think it will thrive in a very cold, very dry location but I may be wrong.

Good luck with your experiment!
Pam

You just got to try it and see if it grows. Most oaks
are very tough. Here in SW Britain we have Q petraea
and might be hardy in Z4.

Thanks for the info, Pam. I appreciate the link to the rain garden info, also.

torreya,
Q. petraea is a cool oak. I did a little digging on the web and the tree is zone 4 hardy. I also found out that Q. petraea can live for a thousand years or more. Very cool. I don't know how successful I would be in finding this oak for sale in the USA. It is also a very large tree and probably too large for my yard.
Thanks,
Mike

Kman, are you sure about that name change? My (admittedly limited) understanding was that Q. texana was an entirely different plant that has only recently been recognized as being distinct from Q. shumardii. I find the entire complex of southern red oaks all but impossible to keep straight, especially the hemisphaerica vs. laurifolia (Darlington vs. Laurel) oak situation, which I still have not seen a definitive reference on. If you know of one, please share. I'd like to remedy my "Quercus confusion" I was also thinking of purchasing a Q. nuttallii and Q. texana as part of the beginning of a new Oak collection, so I would be pretty disappointed to find that they were one and the same.

Treelover, I beleive forestfarm usually sells Q. petraea. Their online catalog, if not updated for the spring quite yet, should be available in the coming days. If memory serves me correctly they have even sold a variegated cultivar in the past.

Thanks to Guy Sternberg's book (below), I can shed some light on the name change re: Q. texana and Q. nuttallii.

"Nutall's oak (Quercus nuttallii) is a very close relative of pin oak. The reason Texas Shumard Oak (Q. buckleyi) is no longer called Q. texana is that this name was once reassigned to Nutall's oak. This was not done out of any sense of logic but merely because a botanist had mixed up his specimens decades before and the error was finally noticed (see Q. shurarmdii for more details).

"The unfortunate nomentclatural nit-picking with this species has caused many problems for nontaxonomists, because the name Q texana is used by many foresters, nurseries, and ecological researchers ... so no one really knows which species is being discussed."
Until this is resolved, "most of us should probably ignore Q. texana as a valid name for any species. Thus I will stick with Q. nuttallii, which is discrete and can refer to only this species."

"Nutall's oak, by whatever name, is a southern look-alike of pin oak and was not classified as a separate species until 1927. In the wild it is confined to wet ground in the lower Mississippi River valley and adjacent lowlands, but it grows very well when planted on higher ground ... the red fall color is at least equal to that of the pin oak but is displayed much later in the fall and sometimes does not develop before a hard freeze toasts the leaves."

"The former national champion Nuttall's oak was found on an island in Horseshoe Lake, southern Illinois, in 1972 ... at that time, Nutall's oak was not known to occur as far north as Illinois."

Source; "Native Trees for North American Landscapes" by Guy Sternberg, p 396)

pteroceltis,

Yes I'm 100% sure of the name change. As Pam noted, Guy is not found of this name change and neither am I. Quercus texana most commonly referred to Texas Red Oak(Texas Shummard Oak or Rock Oak are a couple of it's other "common" names) in the past and still does in 90% of the nurseries in the state of Texas. Texas Red Oak now goes by Quercus buckleyi.

Historically Quercus texana was mistakenly used in a description of Nuttall Oak also, and this was the oldest published record and in 1985 this was purposed by a botanist as the valid name for Nuttall Oak, even though it appears the original publication of Q. texana used for Nuttall Oak in 1860 was done mistakenly. And I believe in 1993 at the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Tokyo, this name change was officially made, but it didn't come into common scientific used until the past 10 years or so and just within the past 4 or 5 years has it become widely used in the nursery industry(mostly outside of the state of Texas).

Q. texana wasn't published as the scientific name for Texas Red Oak until 1873, so this is why this a botanist 100 years later decided it needed "correcting". Q. texana has also been published as the scientific name for Chisos Red Oak(aka Graves Oak) in 1918 but this was quickly declared invalid and the accepted and very clear scientific name for that species is Quercus gravesii.

The thing that bothers me the most about this, besides the obvious confusion the scientific name change caused, is that now scientific publications, like the Flora of North America, are changing the "common" names to match their new scientific names! If you look up Texas Red Oak in the FNA, you'll find it's "common" name is supposedly Buckley's oak! This is indeed a name used for this tree in parts of Southern Texas, but it's much much more "common" name is Texas Red Oak which is the most widespread vernacular name for this Oak, but it's not even listed as a secondary name for the tree in FNA and other scientific publications! If you look up Nuttall Oak in the FNA, you'll find it's "common" name is Texas Red Oak now! At least they kept Nuttall Oak as a secondary "common" name. I have yet to find a living human being anywhere in the USA that does or has ever called Nuttall Oak by the name of Texas Red Oak! It's completely ridiculous! Just because they changed the scientific names and in that old (1860) publication it's called Texas Red Oak, does not mean that's it common name nor the name in the common vernacular and it shouldn't be changed at all! This is where worse confusion has set in, in my opinion. Now some non-scientific sources and publications are going to these new scientific publications and using the "common" name that's listed there. It's so bad that I virtually have no idea of what Oak someone is selling or talking about if they say it's "common" name is supposedly Texas Red Oak, or if they list it's scientific name as Quercus texana! I think Quercus texana should be declared nomen confusum and just be dropped altogether, thus changing Nuttall Oak back to Quercus nuttallii and keeping Q. buckleyi for the REAL Texas Red Oak.

OK, I got to rant on one of my biggest pet peeves, thank you for enduring. :-)

Kman,

You actually have Nuttall Oak growing over there in Kansas? What is your soil like again? I was under the impression that it grows in neutral to acidic, preferably moist heavy clay soil. I have 50 seedlings on order from Texas Forest Service to be planted at my property which is pretty flat and heavy clay soil that apparently takes long time to drain whenever it rains a lot.

I'm so confused over the scientific names regarding Nuttall and Texas Red Oak. I had looked into those trees for several years and I was pulling my hairs out because of the confusion of which is which they're talking about!

Kman, I understand your frustration. I once saw a whole shipment of trees at Home Depot that were labeled as "Quercus shumardii - Southern Red Oak". Yes, Q.shumardii is a red oak, and it is southern, but it is NOT called "Southern Red Oak". That would be Q.falcata. There's no telling how many people bought those trees and don't even know what they are.

Lou,

I have Nuttall Oak growing happily here in Kansas. It's been just about the fastest growing Oak I've planted. Mine is planted in a rich clay loam soil which never seems to dry out completely, but it's also rarely waterlogged either. The soil is moderately acidic with a pH of about 5.8. About 4' or 5'(1.22m-1.52m) down is a layer of shale like clay which doesn't allow water to easily drain through and I believe this is why the soil above never seems to dry out, even in the harshest of droughts. This semi-impermeable layer is between 6" and 2'(15cm-61cm) thick with a clay subsoil beneath. So, I guess you could say it's planted in the perfect situation for this species.

As for the real Texas Red Oak(Quercus buckleyi), I've got mine planted in a dry upland clay soil over limestone. The pH is about 7.2 and it gets quite dry and the tree is doing great. So, you can see the real Texas Red Oak and Nuttall Oak have completely different growing preferences and grow in just about diametrically opposite environments. With Texas Red Oak growing in xeric to somewhat mesic sites(in the driest parts of it's range), while Nuttall Oak grows almost exclusively on hydric sites. Another note about Texas Red Oak is that a state forester for the state of Texas(but a Kansas native) has reportedly found it growing in 2 South Central Kansas counties(adjacent to counties where it's native in Oklahoma), so Kansas apparently just got another native Oak! :-)

This along with the recently discovered Shin Oak (Quercus havardii) found out in SW Kansas makes the number of native Oak species up to 13 now(if this new record is confirmed of course).

I hear ya about tearing your hair out. Another problem I found in a lot of nurseries in North Texas, was that often times Quercus shumardii is sold right alongside Q. buckleyi and both are labeled simply Red Oak, or Texas Red Oak! Often even with the scientific names correctly listed on the tag as well!

alabamatreehugger,

I noticed the same exact thing at my local Home Depot around here this past summer too!

Alabama - Home Depot shipped "Quercus shumardii - Southern Red Oaks" to Virginia too. People will be confused about this tree forever.

Thanks for clearing that up as much as it can be cleared up kman. I understand that taxonomic rules must be followed to keep the system intact, but situations like this are not what the rules of taxonomy were designed to create. The fact that some enterprising taxonomist 100 years later, without entirely clear evidence can change a name- and have that change be accepted- shows that in certain situations the system is deeply flawed.

I havn't checked out the flora of North America site recently, but if what you say is true about changing common names, that is really an outrage! I guess what makes me so mad about it is that what is supposed to be a definitive reference to our native species is, in effect, churning out works of fiction.

Sorry about my own rant above. I saw a paper a few years ago describing that New York also has a new native Oak species: Quercus shumardii. Apparently a few isolated stands of it were found out near Buffalo. They were on their last leg so to speak, with most of the trees being hybrids with Q. rubra, and only a handful of "pure-blooded' shumardii present. Somehow the people involved determined that the trees had not been brought there; I don't exactly remember why (desolate location perhaps?). I'll see if I can track down a link. Makes you wonder what else might be hiding in spots where plantsmen rarely tread, I seem to discover something new (to me) in our swampland everytime I go for a hike!