I can't make any recommendations without myself researching your very question, Green, but I can ask you, are there white oaks occurring in your immediate area? If yes, I'd at least consider trying to get one or several started from seed from those trees themselves. Not sure exactly why I think as I do, but to me, local provenance seems to matter a bit more for trees like oaks, especially of the white oak group, than for other genera, in terms of being well-suited to a given locale.

Not to the same degree as say, Acer rubrum, where the natural range extends from S. FL to Canada, where obvious problems could be expected if the tree(s) were improperly sourced, but in a different, less extreme sense. Maybe I'd just like to see the many genetic lines maintained against the onslaught of civilization, with its fragmentation and outright extirpation.

I also don't consider Quercus alba as being especially slow-growing if planted in good soil and given adequate moisture. And full sun, protection from browsing, etc!

+oM

Q. alba can grow at a decent rate (2 ft/yr or better) if well watered in a decent soil.

Provenance is VERY important for oaks, as winsonsitom stated.

A good example is the Pin Oak. If I buy a pin oak from a typical production nursery, it will likely be chlorotic in my neutral soils, since they prefer acid. However, pins grow wild all around me. The typical nursery pin oak is from a Tennessee seed source (long story behind this), where soils are acid, but if I plant a pin oak from locally sourced seed, it will do quite well in my soil, most likely, having the genetic background to adapt to the pH. This is true for most oaks, actually, including White Oak, although Q. alba is a bit more pH adaptable overall than pins (but i'd still second the recommendation for local provenance seed).

However, since you are in PA and likely have acid soil to start with, the provenance is less of a concern. It seems that, at least among the Oaks, a tree originating from seeds from an alkaline soil area will adapt better to acid soils than the other way around.

The basis for such outcomes is that trees don't, in fact, adapt. They come with a pre-determined set of parameters that you have to work with if you are going to get a good performance out of them. So, in effect, you have to adapt to them.

Yes, genetic adaptations are events that happen across generational lines. An individual, of whatever species, cannot adapt. It can somehow, typically through genetic mutation, have offspring with different tolerance to a given environmental parameter than it did. By this means, a group of say, white oaks, growing in a certain location, may have certain attributes enabling them to withstand some condition which is present in that area. This is why many of us feel it can be important to select from gene lines already present and growing successfully in that area. And these genetic variations are much more common among some genera than within others. Red pine, for one example, is famously lacking in genetic variability from one population to the next. They all appear to have been cut from the same cloth, so to speak. Many oak species are far to the other side of that tendency, exhibiting much genetic variability from one population to the next.

There is one pitfall in all of this though: You may have selected seeds, cuttings, or whatever, from trees growing and thriving in your area. But if they happen to be growing in a largely undisturbed site, with the original soil profiles pretty much in place, and the location where you wish to grow these offspring is a more typical site, having had its topsoil stripped off at some point, soil compacted, or otherwise abused, your mileage may vary considerably, and not for the better. This is too one of the reasons why "native plants are always better adapted to a given site" is often a false statement. The site may not really be all that "native" anymore!

+oM

bboy, that is a sweeping statement that has very little scientific basis to it. The genetics of the plant enable it to adapt to a variety of stresses and growth conditions, or it would never survive. Plants fight insects, negotiate the collection of nutrients with mychorrhizal fungi, and understand and develop differently in response to lighting, wind, and soil conditions.

On the other hand, there are limits to the adaptability of a single generation. Adaptation to larger stresses has to be managed through several generations that will allow for the genome to mutate and lead to selection... Nonetheless, I do agree with you that in the everyday gardening we might find that those limits of adaptation are tighter than we would like. But to say that plants do not adapt is not right.

bboy, IMO you're simplifying too much. The genetics are set, so to speak, but within those genetics are the ability to "adapt" to a certain extent. I guess it depends on the meaning of "adapt". A tree in poorly drained soil develops a very shallow root-system, one in shade grows mostly upward, etc, etc.

lcadem's description is better.

Actually, what you guys are talking about is "acclimation", not adaptation, at least not as it's used in scientific contexts. So it is down to semantics, but ultimately, the closer one can align his words with those of experts in that field, the less overall confusion.

So, a tree of a species with known genetic adaptation to poorly-drained soils-Thuja occidentalis-may or may not acclimate to its new surroundings if, as surely happens, it was grown in well-drained field soil, but is now being planted in a wet spot in somebody's yard. It has the genetic adaptation already, from its genetic heritage. Now it's just a matter of whether or not it can acclimate to its new surroundings, which are different from where it was initially grown. Hopefully, this is making things clearer, not murkier!

+oM

A species may, to some degree, adapt (over generations) to local conditions, through genetic mutation. This is one reason provenance can be important. However, provenance usually accounts for a fairly small amount of variation among members of a species (much less than some seem to think, maybe more than others realize). Some traits may vary significantly (noticeably) in some species, based on location (genetic pool in a certain area), but I don't think of this as being the norm.

A plant acclimates to conditions at a site as it's genetics allow (as +oM described above). The genetics don't change (at least not normally), but their expression is often determined by conditions present at the site.

This whole question of provenance and adaptability can, at times be complicated, and plantings can yield unsuspected results.

A famous case in point is with white pine. About 60 years ago the Forest Service planted some white line along a small river near Parsons, WV. The seed was from NC. those trees have grown so spectacularly that everyone who knows about them is stunned. Much, much better than white pine from local seed sources, and better than any white pine anywhere in either Va or MD.

A while ago in these forums, resin, in a discussion of Norway spruce, desfribed a case where the migration back into a formerly glaciated area through a kind of back door from the east, resulted in a local strain that grew much more slowly than strains from other European sources to the west.

Many trees have extremely large genomes. The genome for Norway spruce, for example, is about 10 times larger than that for a human being. It was long thought that much of this Norway spruce gene material was "junk" DNA. But now, one theory is that this DNA is not "junk," but is DNA that can be activated by epigenetic factors, and in combination with these factors, account for the extreme adaptability of the species.

Well, yes, I am describing things I have only a slight understanding of. What I would say is that the value of local sources for trees is variable and difficult to predict. I agree that it could be a safe choice, but may not be the best choice.

But, if I were to give any advice on the current question, I would not be too strict about a really local choice, but I would avoid a source from a hardiness zone too extremely different from your own.

But even then, who knows. Oikos tells me that the fastest growing bur oaks that he has for sale are those from a source in OK. They are located in lower Michigan. So, what to do???

--spruce

IMHO.. ALL oaks are fast growing.. in MI.. in my sand...

my mail order swamp white oak was a 2 foot whip with one root in 2000 ... it is now 25 to 30 feet tall ...

of course.. its the only white oak.. that isnt Q alba .. lol.. whats that all about... bicolor close enough for you????

ken

If it was my yard, I would plant 3-4 acorns and space them 6-7 inches apart, and keep the most vigorously growing baby. That is what I am doing actually. I needed to replace a sun loving oak for a shade tolerant in youth oak. I have 3 Quercus Alba babies, not counting the acorns now in ground. One is slow growing and 2 are 2 foot a year or more. The first 2 years were sluggish for one of them the other came with a bag of fall leaves( acorn grown) and it did 3 ft last year. {{gwi:495586}} This one is near 7 years in ground and was 1 or 2 years old when I dug it out of the woods in 2006. {{gwi:407360}} {{gwi:459834}} One years growth of seed grown Q. Alba The middle picture is after 1 growth spurt, you can see the leader is still green , this was about 2 ft mostly height growth and the last pic shows the last spurt of about a foot. Sorry I have no pic of before any growth happened but you can see the long height gain of the leader. This one is my fastest grower of my Q. Alba. The top tree does about 2 ft a year.

My post was confusing. I even confused myself reading it. The first pic is a 7 year in ground Q.A. It was about 2ft tall when I planted it, it was dug out of nearby woods. The next pic is the second year in-ground Q.A. taken after one growth spurt year 2. The 3rd pic is after it's second growth spurt, of course it's fall. The last 2 pics are the volunteer seedling I got in a bag of collected fall leaves from the leaf dump. Hope that makes more sense.

I think it depends on the species. Provenance might only account for a 1% differential in DNA for any particular species (for example), however, for a Quercus shumardii, it might be the difference between growing rapidly and healthily on alkaline North Texas soil, for example, or becoming chlorotic and failing.

For an Acer rubrum, it might simply mean the leaves turn October 25 instead of September 30.

For a Pinus resinosa, it might be some almost imperceptible difference in the length of the needles (just a guess).

Quercus Prinus, sometimes called Quercus Montana, have grown superfast for me, the wood is classified as White oak, the same as Q. Alba in Sawmill classification. So what my conclusion is that it is just as sturdy of a tree as Q. Alba. I have seen a photo of an open grown Q. Prinus/Montana that shows it to be wide spreading and beautiful. Just give it room as the Q.A. would need and you'll get a great shade tree. I don't blame you if you insist on a Q. Alba though. Sorry, I become a space cadet when talking about oak trees.

Hardly any white oak selections, but OIKOS had one called "Lint oak". Wide-spreading & relatively fast...

Poaky, chestnut oak wood is interchangeable w/white oak. I know, I used to burn them in a wood stove. Both are almost impossible to split -- you'll lose your splitting wedge in them. Black-type oak is much easier to split..

Although I was the one that initially suggested the importance of local provenance, I'd like to say that I agree with Spruce's comments that it is both but one of many factors and that largely, we don't know what "strain" or genetic line is going to perform well in any given area. In fact, because some of the trees that I grow are not even native to my area, it would be hypocritical for me not to agree with this. Sometimes, we purposely select for tree sources that we know will offer new gene combinations that would otherwise not be found in our plantings.

I think that what I'd really like to see is more attention paid to preserving existing stands of locally adapted trees, including the provision of some means for them to reproduce, some open, sunny areas for them to colonize with their offspring. I just hate to see this all be lost and I suspect it is pretty much the same everywhere.

+oM

Provenance in oaks seems to mostly matter as far as soil pH adaptation. Most oaks (except Chinkapin and Bur) prefer neutral to acid soil. However, many oaks classically known to require acid soil (Pins especially, but most oaks to some degree) are native in areas that have neutral to slightly alkaline soil (like right here in Central Ohio).

If I plant a pin oak from a seed I get down the road from me, it will likely do well, whereas a big nursery with Tennessee sourced stock might give me a pin oak that will turn yellow in a few years.

I planted 10 bald cypress from north Louisiana over here in central Tx with alkaline blackland-clay topsoil. Two of them have done ok, the others did not. In this case, I would say that the genetics to adapt to a more alkaline soil were in the population as a whole, but whether you got that adaptable genetics in a random tree was a gamble. Choosing a tree from one of local origin would take away that gamble.
There is a company that sells grafted white oaks onto bur oak rootstock. Will repost with a link if I can find it later on.