Note 6 — Pecans in Northern Virginia

In the NNGA Report for 1935, Mr. C. A. Reed told of studies of blossoming habits of pecan varieties at Rockport, Indiana, conducted for four seasons in co-operation with Mr. J. F. Wilkinson. There the Busseron was found to be a protandrous variety, shedding most of its pollen, and in some years all of it, before the period of receptivity of its pistillate flowers. "With Butterick ... the order was reversed, as the period of receptivity began first," and it was classified, therefore, as regularly protogynous. "... Furthermore, upon close observation it has been found," he said, that trees of the Butterick variety "develop very few pistillate flowers, and that many of these wither up and drop off, apparently because of inherent weakness. From this, it would appear that light bearing is not necessarily due to lack of suitable or adequate pollen." The Butterick had a record of practically non-bearing performances during the four years (1931, 1932, 1934 and 1935) at Rockport, which is duplicated by its performance records at other locations and other years, so it is generally on the discard list. But when it does bear and mature its nuts it is a good pecan. Mr. P. W. Wang rated it his first choice of northern pecans fruited in China.

Mr. Reed listed as protandrous Busseron, Kentucky, Major, and Niblack varieties, whereas Butterick, Indiana, and Posey were protogynous. He did not specify in which class the Greenriver fell. Major during each of the four years, had an interval of 1 to 3 days between the last shedding of pollen and the first pistil receptivity; Warrick, an obsolete variety, had some overlap each year as did Indiana and Posey. The Kentucky, a discarded variety, had overlaps the three years it was observed. In two years it was observed, Niblack had staminate and pistillate flowering together one season, and staminate overlapping four days into the period of pistillate receptivity the next. Busseron, Butterick, and Greenriver sometimes had overlaps and sometimes intervals. Reed's conclusion, that "northern varieties of pecan ... appear to be partly or completely dependent upon other varieties for pollen," still holds good, as does his second observation, that "all varieties tend to vary, from year to year with respect to periods of pollen shedding and pistil receptivity." But more records are needed, and any members who have two or more varieties flowering in 1952 can make valuable contributions by taking accurate notes on their habits. There are now newer varieties for which such data are completely lacking, and until more is known, no reliable basis can be had for matching them with the best combinations for adequate cross-pollination.—J. C. McD.