Mockernut Hickory
Suggested Citation:
Rudolph, Aaron J.; Snell, Rebecca S. 2026. Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa). In: McNulty, Steven; Callaham, Mac A., Jr., project co-leads. Silvics of North America. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service; National Forestry Commission of Mexico, collaborators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. https://doi.org/10.2737/sna.carya.tomentosa.
| Co-leads and Team Members | |
|---|---|
| Species Group |
|
| Distribution and Environmental Associations |
|
| Regeneration and Management |
|
| Genetics |
|
| Insects and Diseases |
|
| Wildland Fire |
|
| Drought |
|
| Additional Disturbances |
|
| Goods and Services |
|
- Steven McNulty, Project Lead (USDA Forest Service)
- Mac A. Callaham, Jr., Program Manager (USDA Forest Service)
- Rachel Cook, Principal Investigator (North Carolina State University)
- Emma Gates, U.S. Project Coordinator (Three Vowels, LLC)
- Sébastien Meunier, Canada Project Coordinator (Canadian Forest Service)
- Cynthia F. Moser, Managing Editor (Three Vowels, LLC)
- Michael Gavazzi, Content Coordinator (U.S. Forest Service)
- Brody Hall, Business Administrator (North Carolina State University)
Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa) is a large, long-lived, and widespread hickory in the eastern United States known for its durable wood and edible nut crops (fig. 1). The undersides of its pinnately compound leaves are often fuzzy, hence its specific epithet, and crushed leaves reportedly smell strongly of citrus, which can aid in identifying seedlings and saplings (Missouri Department of Conservation, n.d.) (fig. 2). It is easily identifiable during its dormant period by its large, cream-colored buds covered in short, dense hair (fig. 3). Mature individuals have a bark characterized as a rough, gray lattice that does not flake as opposed to often co-occurring shagbark hickory (C. ovata) and pignut hickory (C. glabra) (fig. 4). Like other hickories, mockernut hickory growth rings can be categorized as semi-ring-porous (Rudolph et al., 2024a) (fig. 5).
The species is an important food and habitat resource for wildlife (Fralish, 2004; Smith, 1990). Both living trees and snags offer habitat to a variety of native species. Historically, hickory nut forage was an important food and medicinal resource for some eastern North American Indigenous groups, of which mockernut hickory was included as one of the more palatable hickory nuts (Abrams and Nowacki, 2008; Fralish, 2004; Grauke, 2003). In modern times, mockernut hickory does not represent an economically important species as its use in lumber products and nut harvesting has become minimal, but it continues to have ecological and cultural importance throughout its range (Abrams and Nowacki, 2008; Fralish, 2004; Moerman, 1998).
Figure 2—Mockernut hickory showing typical leaf structure. Courtesy photo by Rebecca Snell.
Figure 3—Typical mockernut leaf bud during the dormant winter season. Courtesy photo by Aaron Rudolph.
Figure 4—Mature mockernut hickory bark showing typical coloration and loose lattice structure. Courtesy photo by Rebecca Snell.
Figure 5—Example of semi-ring-porous mockernut hickory wood procured via increment borer. Courtesy photo by Aaron Rudolph.
Distribution
The current distribution of mockernut hickory is broad in the eastern United States, with the greatest relative abundances found in the Appalachian and Ozark regions. The northern extent of its current range is New England (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire). It is found as far west as eastern Oklahoma and Texas and extends into southern Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle. The species is notably sparse in the Mississippi River embayment area, southeastern Georgia, and southern Indiana (fig. 6).
Figure 6—Current relative abundance of mockernut hickory in eastern North America using forest inventory data from the United States (U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis) and Canada (National Forest Inventory), overlaid by the original Little’s range map (Fryer, 2018; Little, 1971; Thompson et al., 1999). U.S. Forest Service cartography by Matthew P. Peters.
The consensus model projection under intermediate (a representative concentration pathway, RCP, of 4.5) and extreme (RCP 8.5) climate scenarios of carbon dioxide concentrations is that mockernut hickory will remain prevalent in the Appalachian and Ozark regions of the United States as habitat quality in those regions remains high (fig. 7). In fact, mockernut hickory will likely remain common throughout its current range. There is evidence that adaptations to drought and a slow, root-focused growth strategy will allow the species to maintain much of its current range under various climate change scenarios (Pile Knapp et al., 2021; Rudolph et al., 2024a).
Current models also show an increase in suitable habitat in southern Indiana, more of the New England region, and even as far north as Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia under the highest emissions scenarios (fig. 7B). However, due to the large size of individual hickory nuts, slow growth, and slow maturation of the species, long-term dispersal events could be unlikely and may limit migration potential over the next decades and centuries (Cowden et al., 2014; Sork, 1983). Thus, it is unlikely that mockernut hickory will significantly expand into this new climatically suitable habitat without some sort of assisted migration.
Figure 7—Maps showing future habitat suitability for mockernut hickory projected under (A) a moderate emissions scenario and (B) a high emissions scenario. U.S. Forest Service cartography by Matthew P. Peters.
Environmental Associations
The range of mockernut hickory spans humid subtropical and humid continental climates in eastern North America. Under current climate conditions, the species exists in mostly warm and humid environments with an average temperature and precipitation of 15.1 ºC (59 ºF) and 1330 mm (53 inches), respectively. It is typically found at moderate elevations throughout its range, on average being most common at elevations around 200 m (700 feet) and at a maximum of 1200 m (3,900 feet). Under moderate and high emissions climate change scenarios, climate over its range is predicted to become on average 2 to 3 ºC (3.6 to 5.4 ºF) warmer. Average precipitation under future conditions is predicted to remain similar, but uncertainty increases, with mean maximum annual precipitation levels expected to rise from 2040 mm to 5380 mm (80 inches to 212 inches) under the high emissions scenario compared to current conditions. The average elevation throughout its projected suitable habitat range is predicted to shift little, but maximum elevation of this range is likely to increase by 500 to 1300 m (1,600 to 4,300 feet) depending on the emissions scenario.
Table 1—Temperature, precipitation, and elevation ranges for mockernut hickory in North America for 1991–2020 and two future climate scenarios for 2070–2099
Summary statistics (actual, 1991–2020) | Mean annual temperature in °C (°F) | Mean annual precipitation in millimeters (inches) | Elevation in meters (feet) |
Minimum | 7.0 (45) | 840 (33) | 10 (20) |
Lower 25 percent | 13.2 (56) | 1220 (48) | 100 (340) |
Median | 15.2 (59) | 1320 (52) | 190 (610) |
Mean | 15.1 (59) | 1330 (53) | 230 (750) |
Upper 25 percent | 17.3 (63) | 1440 (57) | 294 (960) |
Maximum | 21.2 (70) | 2040 (80) | 1190 (3,910) |
Summary statistics under a moderate emissions scenario (2070–2099) | Mean annual temperature in °C (°F) | Mean annual precipitation in millimeters (inches) | Elevation in meters (feet) |
Minimum | 8.0 (46) | 720 (28) | Sea level |
Lower 25 percent | 14.8 (59) | 1090 (43) | 90 (310) |
Median | 17.6 (64) | 1320 (52) | 180 (590) |
Mean | 17.2 (63) | 1330 (52) | 230 (750) |
Upper 25 percent | 20.1 (68) | 1460 (58) | 300 (980) |
Maximum | 22.9 (73) | 2700 (106) | 1710 (5,600) |
Summary statistics under a high emissions scenario (2070–2099) | Mean annual temperature in °C (°F) | Mean annual precipitation in millimeters (inches) | Elevation in meters (feet) |
Minimum | 7.8 (46) | 680 (27) | Sea level |
Lower 25 percent | 15.2 (59) | 1190 (47) | 100 (310) |
Median | 18.5 (65) | 1330 (52) | 200 (640) |
Mean | 18.0 (64) | 1350 (53) | 260 (840) |
Upper 25 percent | 21.3 (70) | 1470 (58) | 320 (1,060) |
Maximum | 31.2 (88) | 5380 (212) | 2500 (8,180) |
Mockernut hickory is found on a variety of soil types and can grow on a variety of soil textures and a large range of soil fertility. Throughout its range, mockernut hickory is found mostly on moist, low-nutrient Ultisols associated with ridgetops and slopes. However, the species is well adapted to surviving in soils that experience prolonged dry periods (Smith, 1990). In the higher elevations of the Appalachian region and lower New England, it is common on moist, fertile Inceptisols. In the northwestern portions of its range nearing the midwestern prairies, the species can also be commonly found on nutrient-rich Mollisols characterized by deep upper soil horizons (Smith, 1990).
Sexual Reproduction
Mockernut hickory trees are monoecious with unisexual flowers containing a diminutive calyx of petals, sepals, and the respective male or female reproductive structures (Gleason and Cronquist, 1991). Staminate flowers are presented on long catkins (10 to 13 cm [4 to 5 inches]) at leaf axes on previous-year twigs and terminal buds on current-year twigs. Pistillate flowers are found as short spikes only on the ends of current-year twigs. Flowers are present from April to May over the species range and are wind pollinated. A study of mockernut hickory floral development in New Jersey found year-to-year variation in the rate of expressing protandry (liberation of pollen before the stigmas within the flowers of the same plant are receptive) versus protogyny (presence of stigmas that are receptive before pollen is liberated) (McCarthy and Quinn, 1990). Additionally, pollen viability upon shedding was 80 to 90 percent (McCarthy and Quinn, 1990). This study also found evidence of viable crossing between mockernut and shagbark hickory.
Nuts are palatable to humans and ripen from September to October. Mockernut hickory nuts are globose, range from 2.5 to 9.0 cm (1.0 to 3.5 inches) in diameter, and are often found singly or in groups up to four. Fruits are notoriously hard to open, with shells typically splitting into four parts (Smith, 1990). Approximately 50 percent of pistillate flowers will typically set fruit, with greatest survival rates coming from those fruits found in groups of two to three (McCarthy and Quinn, 1989; McCarthy and Quinn, 1992).
Trees are slow to mature, taking around 25 years to begin producing nuts, and most nut production occurs in trees between 40 and 125 years of age. Mockernut hickories can continue to produce nuts at 200 years old. Mockernut hickories are known to produce variable seed crops year to year, also known as mast seeding (Smith, 1990). Like other hickories, mockernut hickory produces some seeds every year, even in the low seed production years. This seed production pattern is unlike the large masts followed by no seed production in commonly co-occurring oak (Quercus spp.) trees (Lefland et al., 2018; Pile Knapp et al., 2021).
Mockernut hickory nuts are large and heavy compared to other hickories, with 70 to 250 seeds kg-1 (32 to 113·pound-1) (Smith, 1990). The weight of mockernut hickory nuts limits dispersion to mainly gravity, with secondary dispersal from rodents and other small mammals via synzoochory (dispersal by seed-caching animals) (Smith, 1990; Sork, 1983).
Mockernut hickory nuts are known to require cold stratification prior to germination and show hypogeal germination. Optimal conditions are temperatures of 1 to 4 ºC (34 to 39 ºF) for 30 to 150 days in moist organic matter. Seeds in these conditions have shown 50 to 75 percent successful germination rates, and seeds rarely remain viable after a year (Smith, 1990).
As fruits reach the substrate and begin to sprout, both nut and seedling mortality is high for mockernut hickory in survival experiments (90 to 99 percent after 3 years) (McCarthy, 1994; Myster and McCarthy, 1989). These studies agree with the previous version of the Silvics of North America that reports invertebrate pests to have little impact on seedling development (Smith, 1990). Mammalian herbivores cause the majority of foliar and stem damage and mortality for mockernut hickory nuts and seedlings (McCarthy, 1994; Myster and McCarthy, 1989).
Asexual Reproduction
Like other hickories, mockernut hickory actively undergoes stump sprouting after the main trunk is lost due to major disturbances such as cutting and fire. There is ongoing discussion in hickory and fire literature on the fire tolerance of hickory as stump sprouting is likely the result of higher light conditions following a major disturbance event (Iverson et al., 2017; Knapp et al., 2015; Rudolph et al., 2025; Smith, 1990).
Mockernut hickory is more likely to stump sprout following action that increases light levels to the forest floor. Stump sprouting can be induced by a variety of methods, and this species would likely respond well to coppicing if desired (Iverson et al., 2017; Smith, 1990).
Due to the large natural range of mockernut hickory, it is a minor part of several forest types and is associated with many different species. In the northern, Appalachian, and Ozark portions of its range, mockernut hickory is often found on slopes and ridgetops (McCarthy and Wistendahl, 1988; Smith, 1990). Common forest types that include mockernut hickory in this area include post oak-blackjack oak, white oak-black oak-northern red oak, white oak, and black oak. It is common to find mockernut hickory with other upland hickories (pignut [C. glabra], shagbark [C. ovata], and bitternut [C. cordiformis] hickories) and oaks (northern red [Quercus rubra], black [Q. velutina], scarlet [Q. coccinea], chestnut [Q. montana], post [Q. stellata], and bur [Q. macrocarpa] oaks). It is also common to find mockernut hickory associated with blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) and tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), along with maples (Acer spp.), ashes (Fraxinus spp.), pines (Pinus spp.), and hemlocks (Tsuga spp.) (Smith, 1990).
In the southern portions of its range, mockernut hickory is associated with shortleaf pine, loblolly pine-shortleaf pine, loblolly pine-hardwood, and swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak. In these forest types it is common to find mockernut near native southern pines (shortleaf pine [Pinus echinata] and loblolly pine [P. taeda]), southern oaks, hickories, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and winged elm (Ulmus alata) (Smith, 1990).
Succession and structural development are poorly studied in hickories on an individual species basis. However, mockernut hickory is known to grow into a large overstory tree with a dense crown (Smith, 1990). Mature individuals typically attain a height between 10 and 30 m (30 and 100 feet) and diameter at breast height (DBH) between 46 and 61 cm (18 and 24 inches) (Smith, 1990). Mockernut hickories are also known to develop widespread root systems with deep taproots (up to 122 cm [4 feet]). Lateral root growth is often restricted until the second year of growth and typically reaches a size of double the crown by the fifth year of growth (Smith, 1990).
As with seedlings, sapling and pole mockernut hickory individuals grow slowly under light-restricted conditions. Recent studies have found understory, suppressed mockernut hickories 50 to more than 150 years old (Lefland et al., 2018; Pile Knapp et al., 2021; Rudolph et al., 2024a). This ability to withstand long-term low-light conditions, coupled with quick growth responses to increased light levels, makes ascertaining age by size difficult. Mockernut hickory is typically described as shade intolerant, but recent studies (see the previous section Vegetative Types) may prove this classification inaccurate. Like other co-occurring hickories (shagbark, pignut, bitternut), mockernut hickory is tolerant of drought conditions and can outcompete other species on the drier ridgetops where it is typically found (Cowden et al., 2014; McCarthy and Wistendahl, 1988; Rudolph et al., 2024a). However, mockernut hickory tolerates a variety of dry to moist soil conditions over its wide range (Smith, 1990).
Growth rate information for mockernut hickory has not changed since the previous version of the Silvics of North America; fully stocked stands are reported to have annual growth rates of 1.0 to 2.1 m3 ha-1 (4.4 to 9.2 feet3 acre-1), depending on soil fertility and moisture (Smith, 1990).
Management with Natural Regeneration
Species-specific information on management of mockernut hickory is unavailable due to its limited use compared to co-occurring, more economically valuable oaks. Hickory as a genus is often included in management strategies aimed at the natural regeneration of oaks in oak-hickory stands. Management strategies for increasing oak regeneration and recruitment in eastern North America are likely to be effective for hickory as well (Rudolph et al., 2025).
Information is not available.
Management with Planted Regeneration
As with natural regeneration, information on planted regeneration of mockernut hickory is limited. However, Pile Knapp et al. (2021) found planted mockernut hickory seedlings showed a root-to-shoot ratio that was 33 percent greater than for white oak (Quercus alba), indicating a root growth-focused strategy. This strategy combined with a shade tolerance similar to that of white oak likely allows for similar planting strategies underneath developed forest canopies when needed for mockernut hickory (Lefland et al., 2018; Pile Knapp et al., 2021; Rogers, 1990). Planting mockernut hickory seedlings is not common but may be necessary in managed areas focusing on restoring and maintaining oak-hickory forest.
Information is not available.
Tending or Intermediate Management
Applications of prescribed burns or mechanical thinning (or both) of forest stands have shown evidence of increased growth and survival of hickory seedlings and saplings. These treatments increase forest understory light levels and allow hickory to compete with other species in the understory (Hutchinson et al., 2012; Iverson et al., 2017). However, the low resistance to fire damage seen in mockernut hickory can cause reductions in seedling and sapling regeneration when fire frequency or intensity is too great (Knapp et al., 2015).
Information is not available.
Information is not available.
Information is not available.
Information is not available.
Carya tomentosa is in the order Fagales, family Juglandaceae, genus Carya section Carya, also known as the “true hickories” (Grauke, 2003; Smith, 1990). Genetic information on hickories in general continues to be scant. However, it is reported that mockernut hickory is a tetraploid (Wang et al., 2022). It is capable of hybridizing with the other tetraploid within the section, black hickory (C. texana) (Carya ×collina), as well as the diploids pecan (C. illinoinensis) (Carya ×schneckii) and shagbark hickory (C. ovata) (Carya ×collina) (Miller, 2017; Wang et al., 2022). Genetic evidence suggests that C. tomentosa is more distantly related to other hickories in the “true hickory” group, but more work is needed to confirm the taxonomic relationships among the species in this subgenus (Wang et al., 2022).
Genetic Variation
Evidence of genetic variation in mockernut hickory is limited across its range. However, a regional study in the Missouri Ozarks that quantified genetic variability by using allozymes of native trees included mockernut hickory. The authors reported an expected heterozygosity of 0.484 and an inbreeding coefficient of 0.348 with a sample size greater than 1,000 (Sork et al., 1997). These values align with other studies of the time. However, the tetraploid nature of mockernut hickory led the authors to suggest that observed expected heterozygosity and the inbreeding coefficient were lower than expected (Sork et al., 1997).
Information is not available.
Information is not available.
Genomic Resources for Forest Tree Species
Information is not available.
Information is not available.
A variety of insects and several fungi damage mockernut hickory individuals and nut crops at all life stages (table 2). While insect and disease research on Carya has largely focused on valuable pecan, many of those same insects impact mockernut hickory and can lead to loss of individuals in areas used for high-quality timber production (Smith, 1990). Severe infestations from pests like hickory bark beetle (Scolytus quadrispinosus) can also cause widespread mortality under specific forest and weather conditions (Bakken et al., 2021; St. George, 1929). Most damage via insects and fungal diseases impacts mockernut hickory boles and nut crops, although damage to foliage and twigs also occurs (table 2).
Both hickory nut weevils (Curculio spp.) and pecan nut weevils (Curculio caryae) are capable of damaging nut crops. Most damage from the weevils occurs either early in nut development, prior to the nutshell reaching maximum thickness and hardness, or once nuts are mature and have been dispersed to the forest floor (Moznette et al., 1931; Shen, 1973). Damage to mockernut hickory boles is commonly caused by a large diversity of wood-boring beetles from the family Cerambycidae, such as the living-hickory borer (Goes pulcher) (Golec et al., 2020). Additionally, there is evidence that the pecan nut casebearer (Acrobasis caryivorella) can cause significant leaf and bud damage to mockernut hickory (Heinrichs, 1968).
Poria spiculosa, a canker-causing heart rot fungus is capable of degrading hickory boles and leading to mortality in extreme cases (Berry and Beaton, 1972; Smith, 1990). However, the most severe infections of Poria spiculosa are mainly attributed to individuals with large wounds that present an entry point for the fungus (Berry and Beaton, 1972; Smith, 1990). Pecan leaf splotch (Mycosphaerella dendroides) is another fungal disease capable of severely defoliating mockernut hickory and causing loss of nut crops in severe infections (Smith, 1990).
Table 2—Significant insects and diseases of mockernut hickory by tree structure and relative impact
| Degree of impact | Roots | Bole (bark, phloem, and xylem) | Foliage, shoots, and twigs | Flowers, fruit, and seeds |
| Greatest | N/A | Hickory bark beetle (Scolytus quadrispinosus)—capable of girdling
Hickory spiral borer (Argilus arcuatus)—attacks sapwood and is deadly to young hickories
Twig girdler (Oncideres cingulata)—can cause branch mortality and stem death in young trees
Poria spiculosa—canker-causing heart rot fungus that causes tree mortality if infections are severe
| Pecan nursery casemaker (Acrobasis caryivorella)—a casebearer that causes leaf or bud damage
Mycosphaerella dendroides)—black fungal growth on leaves and twigs; severe infections cause leaf and twig mortality | Hickory shoot moth (Acrobasis caryivorella)—larval stage can cause nut mortality
Pecan weevil (Curculio caryae)—causes nut mortality
Cladosporium effusum—brown or black lesions on nuts; severe infections can cause lower yields
Mycosphaerella dendroides—black fungal growth on leaves and twigs; severe infections cause nut mortality
|
| Moderate | N/A | Living-hickory borer (Goes pulcher)—wood boring on boles and branches
Pecan carpenterworm (Cossula magnifica)—causes wood damage | Giant bark aphid (Longistigma caryae)—causes branch mortality | N/A |
| Low | N/A | N/A | Fruit-tree leafroller (Archips argyrospila)—causes leaf damage from feeding
Hickory leafroller (Argyrotaenia juglandana)—causes leaf damage from feeding
Pecan leaf casebearer (Acrobasis juglandis)—causes leaf and bud damage Cladosporium effusum—brown or black lesions on foliage Microstroma juglandis—white fungal growth on leaves | N/A |
N/A: not applicable.
Mockernut hickory responses to insect and fungal damage are not well studied. Additionally, resistance to specific damaging agents is not fully understood. The most damaging impacts from bole-damaging agents are often observed as cankers and other forms of trunk or branch damage (Smith, 1990). The full extent of damage to the bole is often not observed until mortality occurs in the individual. Extensive damage to nut crops by hickory nut weevils is often observed in non-mast years, with a much lower proportion of nuts being damaged during exceptionally high reproductive mast years (Smith, 1990).
Like many tree species, mockernut hickory susceptibility to insect-based damage can be influenced by stress. For example, drought stress during the growing season has been known to increase hickory bark beetle populations and mockernut hickory's susceptibility to infestation (Blackman, 1924; St. George, 1929). Additionally, fires in the forest landscape have been shown to increase pest populations post-burn, particularly when fire intensity was high enough to result in increased levels of deadwood (Campbell et al., 2008).
Future climate conditions within the range of mockernut hickory may include an increase in prescribed burns or wildfire, due to predicted warmer and drier climate conditions. An increase in fire frequency or intensity has the potential to increase fire-related damage to mockernut hickory, which in turn could result in higher rates of damage and infestation by fungal diseases and insect pests (Berry and Beaton, 1972).
Severe canopy defoliation (e.g., by spongy moth [Lymantria dispar]) can help advance regeneration increase into larger diameter size classes; however, seedlings themselves do not withstand defoliation particularly well. Repeated defoliation can make them more susceptible to mortality due to secondary factors like drought or disease (Smith, 1990).
Mockernut hickory is not managed to a point where management responses to pests have been studied.
Throughout the range of mockernut hickory, low-intensity surface fire is thought to have been a regular disturbance prior to the arrival of Europeans and during the early colonial periods through human ignition of forest fires (Dyer and Hutchinson, 2019; Guyette et al., 2006; McEwan et al., 2011; Nowacki and Abrams, 2008; Stambaugh and Guyette, 2006; Stambaugh et al., 2016). Fire scars from other species, such as more fire-tolerant oak species, have shown low-level surface fires were semi-frequent throughout the range of mockernut hickory, likely reducing seedling and sapling layer competition and maintaining a more open forest structure (Guyette et al., 2006; Hanberry and Nowacki, 2016; Hanberry and Warwick, 2025; Hanberry et al., 2020). While fire intervals prior to European colonization are still being determined, studies have found intervals of 6 to 7 years to as low as 2 to 3 years in the post-colonization periods of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Guyette et al., 2006; Guyette et al., 2012; McEwan et al., 2011).
The recent and ongoing mesophication of traditional oak-hickory forests has likely impacted hickory to a similar degree as more well-studied oak (Alexander et al., 2021; McCarthy and Wistendahl, 1988; Nowacki and Abrams, 2008; Rudolph et al., 2024b; Rudolph et al., 2025). In this region, mesophication is a positive feedback loop in which forest fuels become less flammable over time due to a lack of regular fire and forest succession. Consensus places the origins of mesophication with fire suppression since the early 20th century, culminating in recruitment failure for mockernut hickory (Alexander et al., 2021; Lorimer, 1984; Nowacki and Abrams, 2008). In areas subjected to forest mesophication and lack of fire, understory hickory and oak individuals largely fail to outcompete more shade-tolerant maples, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and other species, resulting in an inability for mockernut hickories to recruit, with little to no advance regeneration that will be competitive following a disturbance (McCarthy and Wistendahl, 1988; Rudolph et al., 2024b; Rudolph et al., 2025).
In recent decades, the application of repeated prescribed fires has shown promise in increasing the competitive status of hickory regeneration (Hutchinson et al., 2024; Rudolph et al., 2025). However, regular prescribed fires are typically aimed at oak regeneration, and there is evidence that multiple fires over a short period that are beneficial to oaks may prevent successful overstory recruitment of mockernut hickory if fire-free periods are not long enough to allow recruitment of advance regeneration into the more topkill-resistant larger size classes (Knapp et al., 2015). This finding may be rooted in small differences in resource allocation toward height and bark thickness, although conclusions are mixed (Fillingim et al., 2026; Shearman and Varner, 2021; Shearman et al., 2018). Despite having thicker bark compared to many fire-intolerant species, mockernut hickory bark is thinner than species like chestnut oak (Quercus montana) and southern red oak (Q. falcata) (Shearman and Varner, 2021; Yaussy et al., 2004). A combination of inner bark tapering with height and increased resource allocation toward height rather than bark thickness in small size classes have been reported, but more information is needed in this area (Shearman and Varner, 2021; Shearman et al., 2018). There is evidence to suggest that despite the large, exposed buds of mockernut hickory, the buds are no more prone to heat damage than those of co-occurring species and may even experience less heat-related damage than some oaks (McClure et al., 2022).
Despite positive associations between mockernut hickory regeneration/recruitment and fire, this species has the potential to be damaged and topkilled in areas with short (less than 3- to 4-year) fire intervals (Knapp et al., 2015). A growth strategy aimed toward root growth in early development with rooting depth of established individuals between 0.3 and 1.2 m (1 to 4 feet) likely allows mockernut hickory to resprout vigorously after topkill (Pile Knapp et al., 2021; Smith, 1990). Higher light levels and additional growing space following a fire are beneficial to hickory reproduction, advance regeneration, and competitive ability if the fire-free period is long enough for the trees to sprout, build root reserves, and grow sufficiently large to resist additional topkilling from the next fire (Knapp et al., 2015; Knapp et al., 2017; Pile Knapp et al., 2021; Rudolph et al., 2025).
Studies of leaf flammability have shown that mockernut hickory leaf litter can support short-lived, tall flames, followed by a brief period of smoldering (Varner et al., 2021). However, the relatively low density of mockernut hickory over its range is likely too low to impact the severity and burn time of surface fires.
Management strategies for increasing oak in forest understories are likely good for hickories as well. Management strategies that incorporate repeated prescribed burns and thinning strategies to reduce canopy cover have been shown to increase understory hickory densities despite management being aimed at oaks (Rudolph et al., 2025).
See the section Tending or Intermediate Management regarding prescribed fire and mockernut hickory management.
The range of mockernut hickory currently encompasses regions known to experience semi-frequent drought during the June to August period of the growing season (Ficklin et al., 2015). Over the latter half of the 20th century, studies focused on oak in the core range of mockernut hickory in the midwestern United States have found that droughts in this region have become less frequent and often less intense (LeBlanc and Berland, 2019; Maxwell et al., 2016; McEwan et al., 2011). Due to changing environmental conditions, it is likely that drought will become more frequent and grow in intensity over the coming decades and centuries (Iverson et al., 2019).
As with most upland hickories in eastern North America, mature mockernut hickory is considered drought tolerant due to its hydraulic behavior and drought avoidance strategies (Brown and Woods, 1968; Parker et al., 1982). However, there is evidence of high mockernut hickory sapling mortality in crowded stands under drought conditions (McCarthy, 1994). Dendrochronological studies that have included mockernut hickory have found radial growth sensitivity to drought through growth reductions during the May to July portion of the growing season (Cowden et al., 2014; Rudolph et al., 2024a). Radial growth appears to rebound quickly in southeastern Ohio following a drought, although lower growth rates due to drought may persist as trees move from understory to canopy status (Rudolph et al., 2024a). Dendrochronological studies on other hickory species have found similar growth sensitivities and resilience to drought (Au and Maxwell, 2022; Cowden et al., 2014). Drought tolerance in mockernut hickory can likely be attributed to its deep taproot system and high root-to-shoot ratio in the seedling establishment period, along with hydraulic behaviors broadly described as anisohydric, which are characterized by a lack of stomatal control and closure under stressful drought conditions (Brown and Woods, 1968; Gaines et al., 2016; Latham, 1992; Pile Knapp et al., 2021; Smith, 1990). The semi-ring-porous wood anatomy, extensive root system, deep taproot, and lack of low stomatal response to drought (fig. 5) likely help mockernut hickory withstand xylem cavitation and other harmful effects of drought in times of water stress (Brown and Woods, 1968; Miller and Bassuk, 2022; Parker et al., 1982; Rudolph et al., 2024a).
Information is not available.
Information is not available.
Mockernut hickory seedlings and saplings are frequently browsed by herbivores, including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), which can cause total mortality for an individual (Myster and McCarthy, 1989). Leaves, buds, and young stems are frequented by browsers throughout the range of mockernut hickory. This issue lessens as individuals grow beyond browse height (Myster and McCarthy, 1989). In areas where the species may be under stress from other major disturbances, deer browse can be an additional stress for seedlings and saplings. Mockernut hickory's strong wood and relatively thick, flexible twigs make mature trees generally resistant to ice glaze, ice storms, and snow buildup. However, young seedlings are susceptible to frost damage (Smith, 1990).
As with other disturbances resulting in a form of stem death but not total plant mortality, stump sprouting will occur in mockernut hickory (Smith, 1990).
Information is not available.
Where mockernut hickory and hickory regeneration in general are desired, managers of areas with high concentrations of deer may consider deer-exclusion enclosures to let mockernut grow to a size where herbivory-caused mortality is unlikely (Myster and McCarthy, 1989).
Goods
As a true hickory, mockernut hickory is often grouped with other hickories in the classification of hickory-derived wood products. Wood from mockernut hickory is most commonly used as firewood and other fuelwood products due to its high heating value (Smith, 1990). Historically, mockernut hickory wood has been used in specialty wood products including tool handles, tool shafts, and high-quality furniture. Mockernut hickory wood is also used in low-quality wood pallets and often chipped or compressed into pellets for smoking foods (Smith, 1990). Use of mockernut hickory logs for veneer production is possible but uncommon (Smith, 1990).
The nuts of mockernut hickory are palatable yet not widely harvested. Historically, mockernut hickory nuts have been used in some part for various Indigenous food products (Grauke, 2003; Smith, 1990).
Ecosystem Services
Mockernut hickory is valuable for wildlife due to the habitat provided by large, mature individuals and sizable nut crops that provide forage for various animals (Luna et al., 2014; Miller, 2017; Smith, 1990). Mammals such as black bears (Ursus americanus), foxes, rabbits, and rodents including squirrels forage for hickory nuts as a portion of their diet (Miller, 2017; Smith, 1990). Deer are common herbivores for hickory leaves, young stems, and buds (Myster and McCarthy, 1989). Aside from general nesting habitat for birds, mockernut hickory snags play an important role in nesting and feeding for various birds including the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) (Brawn et al., 1982).
Species-specific information on the carbon storage potential of mockernut hickory is not available, and its slow growth does not suit short-rotation forestry. Hickory is often grouped with oak when examining carbon and nutrient dynamics, and more research is needed to understand specific hickory relationships with forest carbon and nutrients.
Mockernut hickory is not commonly associated with specific recreational activities but may be valuable for hunters during periods of fruit maturation when desired game species may be foraging hickory nuts. Those interested in foraging wild, edible nuts may also find recreational value in mature mockernut hickory.
Information is not available.
Mockernut hickory is not a commonly planted tree in urban areas. Species-specific responses to urban growth of mockernut are not yet understood.
Forests in Cities
Information is not available.
Information is not available.
Trees in Planted Urban Landscapes
Information is not available.
Information is not available.
- Information on the ability to use mockernut hickory in urban planning and green spaces is lacking. There is potential for this species to be a long-lived shade tree capable of supporting various wildlife. Concerns may be present over nut production becoming a nuisance, but research is needed to determine mockernut hickory viability in urban spaces.
- Hickories are often studied, analyzed, and discussed at the genus level. Species-specific information on mockernut hickory is lacking in many areas, such as demography, life history, management and disturbance responses, and pests and diseases.
Abrams, M.D.; Nowacki, G.J. 2008. Native Americans as active and passive promoters of mast and fruit trees in the eastern USA. The Holocene. 18(7): 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683608095581.
Alexander, H.D.; Siegert, C.; Brewer, J.S.; Kreye, J.; Lashley, M.A.; McDaniel, J.K.; [et al.]. 2021. Mesophication of oak landscapes: evidence, knowledge gaps, and future research. BioScience. 71(5): 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa169.
Au, T.F.; Maxwell, J.T. 2022. Drought sensitivity and resilience of oak–hickory stands in the eastern United States. Forests. 13(3): 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13030389.
Bakken, K.A.; Forrester, J.A.; Mladenoff, D.J.; Leggett, Z.; Juzwik, J.; Jetton, R.M. 2021. Mortality patterns following a hickory decline event—Is density reduction key to maintaining bitternut hickory? Forest Ecology and Management. 485: 118956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.118956.
Berry, F.H.; Beaton, J.A. 1972. Decay causes little loss in hickory. Res. Note NE-152. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 4 p.
Blackman, M.W. 1924. The effect of deficiency and excess in rainfall upon the hickory bark beetle. Journal of Economic Entomology. 17(4): 460–470. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/17.4.460.
Brawn, J.D.; Elder, W.H.; Evans, K.E. 1982. Winter foraging by cavity nesting birds in an oak-hickory forest. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 10(3): 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1086/336424.
Brown, J.H., Jr.; Woods, F.W. 1968. Root extension of trees in surface soils of the North Carolina Piedmont. Botanical Gazette. 129(2): 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1086/336424.
Campbell, J.W.; Hanula, J.L.; Waldrop, T.A. 2008. Effects of prescribed fire and fire surrogates on saproxylic Coleoptera in the southern Appalachians of North Carolina. Journal of Entomological Science. 43(1): 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.029.
Cowden, M.M.; Hart, J.L.; Buchanan, M.L. 2014. Canopy accession strategies and climate responses for three Carya species common in the Eastern Deciduous Forest. Trees. 28(1): 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-013-0944-3.
Dyer, J.M.; Hutchinson, T.F. 2019. Topography and soils-based mapping reveals fine-scale compositional shifts over two centuries within a central Appalachian landscape. Forest Ecology and Management. 433: 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.10.052.
Ficklin, D.L.; Maxwell, J.T.; Letsinger, S.L.; Gholizadeh, H. 2015. A climatic deconstruction of recent drought trends in the United States. Environmental Research Letters. 10(4): 044009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044009.
Fillingim, H.; Knapp, B.O.; Kabrick, J.M.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Elliott, G.P.; Dey, D.C. 2026. Resprouting dynamics suggest different regeneration strategies for shortleaf pine and oak species following surface fires in Missouri Ozarks. Forest Ecology and Management. 602: 123396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123396.
Fralish, J.S. 2004. The keystone role of oak and hickory in the Central Hardwood Forest. In: Spetich, M.A., ed. Upland oak ecology symposium: history, current conditions, and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 73–78.
Fryer, J.L., comp. 2018. Tree species distribution maps from Little's "Atlas of United States trees" series. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at https://research.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/treedistributionmaps.
Gaines, K.P.; Stanley, J.W.; Meinzer, F.C.; McCulloh, K.A.; Woodruff, D.R.; Chen, W.; [et al.]. 2016. Reliance on shallow soil water in a mixed-hardwood forest in central Pennsylvania. Tree Physiology. 36(4): 444–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpv113.
Gleason, H.A.; Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Second ed. Bronx, NY: The New York Botanical Garden.
Golec, J.R.; Aparicio, E.; Wang, X.; Duan, J.J.; Fuester, R.W.; Tatman, D.; Kula, R.R. 2020. Cerambycid communities and their associated hymenopteran parasitoids from major hardwood trees in Delaware: implications for biocontrol of invasive longhorned beetles. Environmental Entomology. 49(2): 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvz169.
Grauke, L.J. 2003. Hickories. In: Fullbright, D., ed. Nut tree culture in North America. Vol. 1. Northern Nut Growers Association, Inc.: 117–166.
Guyette, R.P.; Dey, D.C.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Muzika, R.-M. 2006. Fire scars reveal variability and dynamics of eastern fire regimes. In: Dickinson, M.B., ed. Fire in eastern oak forests: delivering science to land managers, proceedings of a conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 20–39.
Guyette, R.P.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Dey, D.C.; Muzika, R.-M. 2012. Predicting fire frequency with chemistry and climate. Ecosystems. 15(2): 322–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9512-0.
Hanberry, B.B.; Abrams, M.D.; Arthur, M.A.; Varner, J.M. 2020. Reviewing fire, climate, deer, and foundation species as drivers of historically open oak and pine forests and transition to closed forests. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 3: 56. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00056.
Hanberry, B.B.; Nowacki, G.J. 2016. Oaks were the historical foundation genus of the east-central United States. Quaternary Science Reviews. 145: 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.05.037.
Hanberry, B.B.; Warwick, J.A. 2025. Retrieving historical forest composition in the southern Appalachian region, United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 596: 123118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123118.
Heinrichs, E.A. 1968. The pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis caryae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on mockernut hickory, Carya tomentosa. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. 41(2): 236–239.
Hutchinson, T.F.; Adams, B.T.; Dickinson, M.B.; Heckel, M.; Royo, A.A.; Thomas‐Van Gundy, M.A. 2024. Sustaining eastern oak forests: synergistic effects of fire and topography on vegetation and fuels. Ecological Applications. 34(3): e2948. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2948.
Hutchinson, T.F.; Yaussy, D.A.; Long, R.P.; Rebbeck, J.; Sutherland, E.K. 2012. Long-term (13-year) effects of repeated prescribed fires on stand structure and tree regeneration in mixed-oak forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 286: 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.08.036.
Iverson, L.R.; Hutchinson, T.F.; Peters, M.P.; Yaussy, D.A. 2017. Long-term response of oak-hickory regeneration to partial harvest and repeated fires: influence of light and moisture. Ecosphere. 8(1): e01642. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1642.
Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M.; Peters, M.P.; Matthews, S.N. 2019. Facilitating adaptive forest management under climate change: a spatially specific synthesis of 125 species for habitat changes and assisted migration over the eastern United States. Forests. 10(11): 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10110989.
Knapp, B.O.; Hullinger, M.A.; Kabrick, J.M. 2017. Effects of fire frequency on long-term development of an oak-hickory forest in Missouri. U. S. A. Forest Ecology Management. 387: 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.07.013.
Knapp, B.O.; Stephan, K.; Hubbart, J.A. 2015. Structure and composition of an oak-hickory forest after over 60 years of repeated prescribed burning in Missouri, U.S.A. Forest Ecology and Management. 344: 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.009.
Latham, R.E. 1992. Co‐occurring tree species change rank in seedling performance with resources varied experimentally. Ecology. 73(6): 2129–2144. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941461.
LeBlanc, D.C.; Berland, A.M. 2019. Spatial variation in oak (Quercus spp.) radial growth responses to drought stress in eastern North America. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 49(8): 986–993. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0360.
Lefland, A.B.; Duguid, M.C.; Morin, R.S.; Ashton, M.S. 2018. The demographics and regeneration dynamic of hickory in second-growth temperate forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 419–420: 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.03.027.
Little, E.L. 1971. Atlas of United States trees, vol. 1: Conifers and important hardwoods. Misc. Publ. 1146. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 320 p.
Lorimer, C.G. 1984. Development of the red maple understory in northeastern oak forests. Forest Science. 30(1): 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/30.1.3.
Luna, T.; Lindner, D.L.; Dumroese, R.K. 2014. Growing hickories (Carya spp.) for roost trees: a method to support conservation of declining bat populations. Native Plants Journal. 15(1): 67–74. https://doi.org/10.3368/npj.15.1.66.
Maxwell, J.T.; Harley, G.L.; Robeson, S.M. 2016. On the declining relationship between tree growth and climate in the midwest United States: the fading drought signal. Climatic Change. 138(1–2): 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1720-3.
McCarthy, B.C. 1994. Experimental studies of hickory recruitment in a wooded hedgerow forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 121(3): 240–250. https://doi.org/10.2307/2997179.
McCarthy, B.C.; Quinn, J.A. 1989. Within- and among-tree variation in flower and fruit production in two species of Carya (Juglandaceae). American Journal of Botany. 76(7): 1015–1023. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1989.tb15082.x.
McCarthy, B.C.; Quinn, J.A. 1990. Reproductive ecology of Carya (Juglandaceae): phenology, pollination, and breeding system of two sympatric tree species. American Journal of Botany. 77(2): 261–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/2444647.
McCarthy, B.C.; Quinn, J.A. 1992. Fruit maturation patterns of Carya spp. (Juglandaceae): an intra-crown analysis of growth and reproduction. Oecologia. 91: 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317237.
McCarthy, B.C.; Wistendahl, W.A. 1988. Hickory (Carya spp.) distribution and replacement in a second-growth oak hickory forest of southeastern Ohio. The American Midland Naturalist. 119(1): 156. https://doi.org/10.2307/2426064.
McClure, A.B.; Coates, T.A.; Hiers, J.K.; Seiler, J.R.; O’Brien, J.J.; Hoffman, C.M. 2022. Estimating heat tolerance of buds in southeastern US trees in fire-prone forests. Fire Ecology. 18(1): 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-022-00160-5.
McEwan, R.W.; Dyer, J.M.; Pederson, N. 2011. Multiple interacting ecosystem drivers: toward an encompassing hypothesis of oak forest dynamics across eastern North America. Ecography. 34(2): 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06390.x.
Miller, B.; Bassuk, N. 2022. Carya species for use in the managed landscape: predicted drought tolerance. HortScience. 57(12): 1558–1563. https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci16756-22.
Miller, B.M. 2017. The horticultural potential of six species of North American hickories. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. 130 p. Thesis. https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-5002.
Missouri Department of Conservation. [N.d.]. Mockernut hickory. Jefferson City, MO. https://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/field-guide/mockernut-hickory (accessed 28 August 2024).
Moerman, D.E. 1998. Native American ethnobotany. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 140 p.
Moznette, G.F.; Bissell, T.L.; Adair, H.S. 1931. Insects of the pecan and how to combat them. Farmers’ Bulletin No. 1654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 60 p.
Myster, R.W.; McCarthy, B.C. 1989. Effects of herbivory and competition on survival of Carya tomentosa (Juglandaceae) seedlings. Oikos. 56(2): 145–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3565329.
Nowacki, G.J.; Abrams, M.D. 2008. The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. BioScience. 58(2): 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580207.
Parker, W.C.; Pallardy, S.G.; Hinckley, T.M.; Teskey, R.O. 1982. Season changes in tissue water relations of three woody species of the Quercus-Carya forest type. Ecology. 63(5): 1259–1267. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938853.
Pile Knapp, L.S.; Snell, R.; Vickers, L.A.; Hutchinson, T.; Kabrick, J.; Jenkins, M.A.; [et al.]. 2021. The ‘other’ hardwood: growth, physiology, and dynamics of hickories in the Central Hardwood Region, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 497: 119513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119513.
Rogers, R. 1990. Quercus alba (L.). White oak. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America, vol. 2: Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 605–613.
Rudolph, A.J.; McCarthy, B.C.; Hutchinson, T.F.; Snell, R.S. 2025. Positive regeneration responses of oak, hickory, and American chestnut to repeated prescribed fires and mechanical thinning 22 years after study initiation. Forest Ecology and Management. 585: 122656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2025.122656.
Rudolph, A.J.; Snell, R.S.; Delach, E.; McCarthy, B.C. 2024a. Interspecific, conspecific, and ontogenetic responses of tree rings to climate: a case study utilizing Carya glabra, Carya ovata, Carya tomentosa, and Quercus montana from an oak-hickory forest in southeastern Ohio. Dendrochronologia. 87: 126254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2024.126254.
Rudolph, A.J.; Snell, R.S.; McCarthy, B.C. 2024b. A decades-long case study: understanding the effects of mesophication on the forest community with emphasis on Carya spp. dynamics. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society.152(1): 10–22. https://doi.org/10.3159/torrey-d-24-00017.
Shearman, T.M.; Varner, J.M. 2021. Variation in bark allocation and rugosity across seven co-occurring southeastern US tree species. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 4: 731020. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.731020.
Shearman, T.M.; Wang, G.G.; Ma, P.T.; Guan, S. 2018. Patterns of bark growth for juvenile trees of six common hardwood species in the eastern United States and the implications to fire-tolerance. Trees. 32(2): 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-017-1649-9.
Shen, A.P. 1973. Interactions among mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa, Jugiandaceae) and its seed predators (Conotrachelus affinis and Curculio caryae, Curculionidae, Coleoptera). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Master's thesis.
Smith, H.C. 1990. Carya tomentosa (Poir.) Nutt. Mockernut hickory. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America, vol. 2: Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 226–233.
Sork, V.L. 1983. Mast-fruiting in hickories and availability of nuts. The American Midland Naturalist. 109(1): 81–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/2425518.
Sork, V.L.; Koop, A.; de la Fuente, M.A.; Foster, P.; Raveill, J. 1997. Patterns of genetic variation in woody plant species in the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project. In: Brookshire, B.L.; Shifley, S.R., eds. Proceedings of the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project symposium: an experimental approach to landscape research. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-193. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 231–247.
Stambaugh, M.C.; Guyette, R.P. 2006. Fire regime of an Ozark wilderness area, Arkansas. The American Midland Naturalist. 156(2): 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2006)156[237:froaow]2.0.co;2.
Stambaugh, M.C.; Guyette, R.P.; Marschall, J.M.; Dey, D.C. 2016. Scale dependence of oak woodland historical fire intervals: contrasting the Barrens of Tennessee and Cross Timbers of Oklahoma, USA. Fire Ecology. 12(2): 65–84. https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.1202065.
St. George, R.A. 1929. Weather, a factor in outbreaks of the hickory bark beetle. Journal of Economic Entomology. 22(3): 573–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/22.3.573.
Thompson, R.S.; Anderson, K.H.; Bartlein, P.J. 1999. Digital representations of tree species range maps from "Atlas of United States trees" by Elbert L. Little, Jr. (and other publications). In: Atlas of relations between climatic parameters and distributions of important trees and shrubs in North America. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services (Producer). On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; FEIS files.
Varner, J.M.; Kane, J.M.; Kreye, J.K.; Shearman, T.M. 2021. Litter flammability of 50 southeastern North American tree species: evidence for mesophication gradients across multiple ecosystems. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 4: 727042. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.727042.
Wang, X.; Chatwin, W.; Hilton, A.; Kubenka, K. 2022. Genetic diversity revealed by microsatellites in genus Carya. Forests. 13(2): 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020188.
Yaussy, D.A.; Dickinson, M.B.; Bova, A.S. 2004. Prescribed surface-fire tree mortality in southern Ohio: equations based on thermocouple probe temperatures. In: Yaussy, D.A.; Hix, D.M.; Long, R.P.; Goebel, P.C., eds. Proceedings of the 14th Central Hardwood forest conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-316. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 67–75.
Thank you to the anonymous reviewers, editors, and support staff for their helpful comments and suggestions to improve this chapter.