Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Callery Pear Cultivars Tested as Street Trees: Initial Results

Henry D. Gerhold and Heather L. McElroy
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) September 1994, 20 (5) 259-261; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1994.046
Henry D. Gerhold
Professor of Forest Genetics and Grad. Asst., School of Forest Resources, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather L. McElroy
Professor of Forest Genetics and Grad. Asst., School of Forest Resources, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Eight callery pear cultivars were planted, two each in ten communities, for evaluation as street trees. They were measured annually during the first three years by cooperators in the Municipal Tree Restoration Program, using standardized methods. Under sometimes stressful site conditions, all the cultivars but one grew well and remained healthy. Two-year height growth of five cultivars varied from 1.0 to 3.4 feet, representing a 7 to 30 percent increase. Diameter growth ranged from 0.4 to 1.0 inches, i.e. average increases of 18 to 68 percent in two years. The health of foliage, branches, and trunks was good to excellent after the first growing season, during which there were occasional signs of transplant shock. The one exception was the Whitehouse cultivar, which grew little in height and exhibited greater foliage injury than the others. Aristocrat, Cleveland Select, and Redspire received the highest overall rating; Autumn Blaze, Cleveland Pride, and Valiant also appear promising, based on more limited data. Bradford is growing well, and has not yet shown signs of breakage which is known to occur when trees become more mature.

Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) cultivars represent one of several species being tested as street trees in the Municipal Tree Restoration Program. Besides obtaining better information for selecting trees well suited to various urban sites, the program encourages municipalities to improve their tree programs. Support is provided by utility companies through the Pennsylvania Electric Energy Research Council, and by state forestry agencies in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Initial results of crabapple (Malus) performance tests were reported previously (3).

Methods

Listen

Cultivars and planting sites were chosen in each often communities in Pennsylvania according to site characteristics, aesthetics, and community preferences. Foresters in the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry and utility foresters assisted community representatives with these decisions, and provided technical advice on planting and tree care. The two cultivars selected for each community (a third one was added in Tioga) were planted alternately within each of 4 to 8 plots typically containing 4 to 16 trees each. All plots were required to be under primary electric distribution lines, and in many places deteriorating old trees that conflicted with wires were removed prior to planting. Trees were purchased from various nurseries and planted during 1988 to 1993. Both cultivars in any test came together from the same nursery and were ordered with the same caliper, either 1.75 or 2 inches. Heights ranged from 9 to 16 feet. The eight callery pear cultivars that have been planted so far are Aristocrat, Autumn Blaze, Bradford, Cleveland Pride, Cleveland Select, Redspire, Whitehouse, and Valiant.

During the first three years trees were measured and evaluated annually by Bureau of Forestry cooperators, seven people in all, using standardized methods. Data were collected typically in September on height and diameter; health of foliage, branches, and trunk; maintenance needs; and overall quality of the individual cultivars. Causes of damage such as disease, insects, drought, and mechanical damage were recorded and also any other noteworthy observations on tree characteristics.

An analysis of variance was conducted on each type of quantitative data to determine significant differences between the two (or three) cultivars in each community. Each location in every year was treated as a separate experiment with plots providing replication. These results, together with written comments of cooperators, were used to characterize the performance of cultivars.

Results

Listen

Most of the cultivars are growing quite well, with growth rates varying more among locations than among cultivars (Table 1). Significant differences found between the cultivars at any location are due largely to the difference in size at the time of planting. During the first growing season growth was quite small, as it usually is, so growth rates are reported for the second plus third years after transplanting.

Height growth of five of the cultivars which had been measured for three years ranged from 1.0 to 3.4 feet in two years, which represented increases of 7 to 30 percent (Table 1). Whitehouse was an exception, as it grew 2 percent at one location and had some dieback at the other; the cultivars to which it was compared grew 22 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

The trees seemed to put more energy into diameter growth than height growth. The 0.4 to 1.0 inch two-year growth in diameter (excluding Redspire trees at Warren which had low branching that caused inconsistent measurements) represented 18 percent to 68 percent increases (Table 1). Diameter growth was not closely correlated with height growth.

The foliage of all cultivars except Whitehouse was very healthy (Table 1), though some of them had lower ratings in the first growing season most likely due to transplant shock. Most values after the first year were above 3.9 on the five-point scale, indicating that trees retained more than 85 percent healthy foliage even at the end of the season. Injuries to leaves were attributed to drought stress, late frost, aphids, unidentified leaf-feeding insects, a disease that causes brown leaf spots, and possibly fireblight. None of these has been severe enough to warrant concern, except for Whitehouse which had low ratings every year.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Growth, health, and overall ratings of callery pear cultivars.

The health of branches and trunks has been very good, especially in the second and third years. The most prevalent injuries were mechanical ones caused during shipping and planting, or later by lawnmowers. A few cases of fireblight were suspected at Franklin, Warren, and Waterford, but the pathogen (Erwinia amylovora) was not positively identified and damage has not been serious.

When all characteristics of cultivars were considered, most quality ratings were very high (Table 1). The most notable exception was Whitehouse, which was rated somewhat lower than the comparison cultivars at two locations. The ratings of Autumn Blaze and Bradford fell off somewhat during the three years, but evaluations of each were available only from one location.

Conclusions

Listen

The cultivars that had the strongest initial evidence of good health and growth on sometimes stressful urban sites were Aristocrat, Cleveland Select (identical to Chanticleer), and Redspire. Autumn Blaze in one municipality and Bradford in two also performed well, but Bradford is known from experience to suffer from breakage when trees become larger (2). The limited data on Cleveland Pride and Valiant so far are promising. Whitehouse, although inferiorto the other cultivars in growth and health, still performed well enough that it may be considered for urban sites where a narrow tree is needed.

Two concerns about callery pears should receive special attention in subsequent years. They could attain heights that reach utility wires, so growth rates should be projected to predict when interference may occur. Secondly, fireblight could become serious, or it may not. In Alabama when warm, moist weather prevailed, severe damage was caused by fireblight to Aristocrat and Autumn Blaze, and moderate damage to Redspire (1). If symptoms reappear in Pennsylvania, branches should be sampled for diagnosis of the pathogen.

When opportunities arise for additional performance tests of callery pears, they will be concentrated on extending the geographic range and increasing the number of locations of underrepresented cultivars.

Footnotes

Listen
  • ↵1 Funds for purchasing trees were donated by Pennsylvania Electric Company and the Metropolitan Edison Company. Foresters of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry assisted with community liaison and measurements.

  • © 1994, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. 1.↵
    1. Fare, D. C.,
    2. C. H. Gilliam,
    3. H. G. Ponder
    . 1991. Fireblight susceptibility, growth and other characteristics in ornamental pears in Alabama. J. Arboric. 17(10): 257–260.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Gerhold, H. D.,
    2. N. L. Lacasse,
    3. W. N. Wandell
    . 1993. Street tree factsheets. College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University. 394 p.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Gerhold, H. D.,
    2. H. L. McElvoy,
    3. H. L. H. Rhodes
    . 1994. Street tree performance tests of crabapple cultivars: initial results. J. Arboric. 20(2): 87–93.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 20, Issue 5
September 1994
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Callery Pear Cultivars Tested as Street Trees: Initial Results
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Callery Pear Cultivars Tested as Street Trees: Initial Results
Henry D. Gerhold, Heather L. McElroy
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1994, 20 (5) 259-261; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1994.046

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Callery Pear Cultivars Tested as Street Trees: Initial Results
Henry D. Gerhold, Heather L. McElroy
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1994, 20 (5) 259-261; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1994.046
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Urban Trees and Cooling: A Review of the Recent Literature (2018 to 2024)
  • Aerial Imagery as a Tool for Monitoring Urban Tree Retention: Applications, Strengths and Challenges for Backyard Tree Planting Programs
  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire