DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecology of Whitebark Pine in the Pacific Northwest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecology of Whitebark Pine in the Pacific Northwest USDA Forest Service R6-NR-FHP-2007-01 Ecology of Whitebark Pine in the Pacific Northwest Gregory J. Ettl College of Forest Resources, University of Washington Box 352100 Seattle, WA 98195 Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is found in the subalpine zone throughout the Coastal, Olympic, Cascade, and Klamath Mountains, extending well into California at high elevations along the Sierra Nevada. Precipitation is > 300 cm/yr on the western slopes of the Coastal Mountains in British Columbia and the Olympics & Washington Cascades (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Precipitation generally decreases along the Oregon Cascades moving south, with 50-100 cm/yr common in southern Oregon. The coastal mountain ranges in southern Oregon and Northern California, including the Siskiyou, Trinity, and Klamath Mountain ranges also receive precipitation upwards of 300 cm/yr, decreasing to 150-200 cm/yr throughout much of the California Cascades and northern Sierra Nevada (Schoenherr 1992). In the coastal ranges and Cascade ranges of British Columbia, Washington, and northern Oregon heavy precipitation leads to persistent snowpack, and therefore whitebark pine is often restricted to exposed ridges of the subalpine zone or drier sites in the rain shadow of these ranges where it commonly grows in association with subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Whitebark pine is also a minor component of moister subalpine sites, or in mixed subalpine forests at lower elevations. Moister subalpine sites west of the Cascade crest in the southern Washington and northern Oregon Cascades have mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) and whitebark pine in association on some of the highest and most exposed slopes (Diaz et al. 1997). Whitebark pine typically loses dominance in the lower subalpine zone, and its dominance being restricted to drier sites may be related to drought tolerance. However, whitebark pine is also considered a seral species with lower shade tolerance than most Pacific subalpine conifers. High elevation whitebark pine populations are typically isolated on mountain peaks, as whitebark pine is outcompeted by other subalpine tree species at lower elevations, therefore forming a metapopulation structure. The southern Oregon Cascades show a decrease in subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce, and an increase in mountain hemlock, lodgepole pine and Shasta red fir (Abies magnifica var. shastensis) growing in association with whitebark pine. Westside, wetter slopes and lower subalpine slopes are often dominated by Shasta red fir and mountain hemlock with whitebark pine increasing in abundance on ridges. Mountain hemlock is often the dominant subalpine species in both the number of trees/ha and in basal area on mesic sites, with lodgepole pine and Shasta red fir typically more abundant than whitebark pine; western white pine (Pinus monticola) is also present (Goheen et al. 2002). Whitebark pine is common on high elevation ridges in this region, and drier soils lead to greater dominance by whitebark pine on these sites, occasionally forming pure stands in areas east of the Cascade crest. The subalpine zone of the eastern side of the southern Cascades are often more open with 20 Proceedings of the Conference Whitebark Pine: A Pacific Coast Perspective lodgepole pine increasing in importance (Hopkins 1979). Whitebark pine is also common near treeline in the Sierra Nevada, Oregon and California Cascades and coastal mountains, with increasing importance of additional 5-needle pines including Pinus flexilis, Pinus balfouriana, and Pinus longaeva (Schoenherr 1992). White pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) is common throughout the Pacific Northwest, generally decreasing toward eastern WA and south through OR and CA; lower infection levels may be related to lower transmission rates on drier sites and/or to a more recent arrival of white pine blister rust on these sites. The spread of blister rust south and east, particularly in California and the Great Basin region, will require additional attention and resources to be allocated to all high-elevation 5-needle pines. There is considerable variability in blister rust infection at finer scales, for example across mountain ranges, and this variability may be related to local variation in the alternate host Ribes, microclimate, and/or variation in blister rust resistance among hosts. Field data used to create a spatially explicit metapopulation model for whitebark pine for Mt. Rainier National Park using RAMAS GIS predicts a rapid decline in whitebark pine in the park, with the population falling below 100 individuals in 148 years (Ettl and Cottone 2004). The proportion of blister rust resistant whitebark pine is unknown, but incorporating resistance into the model only moderately slows population decline (Cottone 2001). Infected trees show relatively low cone production (DelPrato 1999) and therefore even resistant trees, with presumed slow disease progression, are likely to have limited reproduction. The fire return interval is variable in whitebark pine stands across the Pacific Northwest (range ~30- 300 years) with wetter sites showing longer return intervals. Furthermore, low fuel availability in open grown high-elevation ecosystems typically leads to poor fire transmission across the landscape. Modeling a fire return interval of 50 years, projects a faster decline for whitebark pine in Mt. Rainier than in the absence of fire (Cottone 2001). It seems likely that mixed species whitebark pine stands would benefit from reduced competition provided by prescribed fire, but it is unclear whether the loss of whitebark pine from fire-related mortality could be compensated for by increased whitebark pine seedling establishment in recently burned areas. Natural progression of white pine blister rust throughout whitebark pine communities puts the species at risk of local extinction without human assistance, although whitebark pine may persist through chance, patchy host distribution, or natural selection. Propagation and planting of resistant whitebark pine hold the best prospects for maintaining whitebark pine in the Pacific Northwest. The spread of blister rust suggests a similar fate for all 5-needle high-elevation pines, and gaps in our knowledge of these systems should be addressed in preparation for the arrival of blister rust. References. Cottone, N. 2001. Modeling whitebark pine infected with blister rust in Mt. Rainier National Park. M.S. Thesis. St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA. DelPrato, P.R. 1999. Response of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) to white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) in Mount Rainier National Park. M.S. Thesis. St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA. 21 USDA Forest Service R6-NR-FHP-2007-01 Diaz, N.M., C.T. High, T.K. Mellen, D.E. Smith, and C. Topik. 1997. Plant associations and management guide for the mountain hemlock zone. Gifford Pinchot and Mt. Hood National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. R6-MTH-GP- TP-08-95. 111 pp. Ettl, G.J., and N. Cottone. 2004. Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis in Mt. Rainier National Park, USA: Response to blister rust infection. In H. R. Akçakaya, M. A. Burgman, O.Kindvall, C. C. Wood. P. Sjögren-Gulve, J. S. Hatfield, and M. A. McCarthy (Eds), Species Conservation and Management: Case Studies, Pp. 36-47. Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y. Franklin, Jerry F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 452 pp. Goheen, E.M., D.J. Goheen, K. Marshall, R.S. Danchok, J.A. Petrick, and D.E. White. 2002. The status of whitebark pine along the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail on the Umpqua National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-530. 22 pp. Hopkins, W.E. 1979. Plant associations of the Freemont National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. R6 ECOL-79-004. 106 pp. Schoenherr, A.A. 1992. A Natural History of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 772 pp. 22 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stuart, Trees & Shrubs
    Excerpted from ©2001 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. May not be copied or reused without express written permission of the publisher. click here to BUY THIS BOOK INTRODUCTION HOW THE BOOK IS ORGANIZED Conifers and broadleaved trees and shrubs are treated separately in this book. Each group has its own set of keys to genera and species, as well as plant descriptions. Plant descriptions are or- ganized alphabetically by genus and then by species. In a few cases, we have included separate subspecies or varieties. Gen- era in which we include more than one species have short generic descriptions and species keys. Detailed species descrip- tions follow the generic descriptions. A species description in- cludes growth habit, distinctive characteristics, habitat, range (including a map), and remarks. Most species descriptions have an illustration showing leaves and either cones, flowers, or fruits. Illustrations were drawn from fresh specimens with the intent of showing diagnostic characteristics. Plant rarity is based on rankings derived from the California Native Plant Society and federal and state lists (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Two lists are presented in the appendixes. The first is a list of species grouped by distinctive morphological features. The second is a checklist of trees and shrubs indexed alphabetically by family, genus, species, and common name. CLASSIFICATION To classify is a natural human trait. It is our nature to place ob- jects into similar groups and to place those groups into a hier- 1 TABLE 1 CLASSIFICATION HIERARCHY OF A CONIFER AND A BROADLEAVED TREE Taxonomic rank Conifer Broadleaved tree Kingdom Plantae Plantae Division Pinophyta Magnoliophyta Class Pinopsida Magnoliopsida Order Pinales Sapindales Family Pinaceae Aceraceae Genus Abies Acer Species epithet magnifica glabrum Variety shastensis torreyi Common name Shasta red fir mountain maple archy.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinus Monticola Doulg. Ex D. Don Family: Pinaceae Western White Pine
    Pinus monticola Doulg. Ex D. Don Family: Pinaceae Western White Pine The genus Pinus is composed of about 100 species native to temperate and tropical regions of the world. Wood of pine can be separated microscopically into the white, red and yellow pine groups. The word pinus is the classical Latin name. The word monticola means inhabiting mountains. Other Common Names: Berg-tall, Columbia pijn, finger-cone pine, Idaho white pine, little sugar pine, mountain pine, mountain white pine, Norway white pine, pin argente, pin argente americain, pino bianco americano, pino blanco americano, silver pine, soft pine, vasterns Weymouth-tall, western white pine, Weymouth berg-pijn, Weymouth mountain pine, white pine, yellow pine. Distribution: Western white pine is native to the mountains ffrom northwestern Montana, extreme southwestern Alberta and southern British Columbia, south to Washington, Oregon and California through the Sierra Nevada to western Nevada and central California. The Tree: Western white pine trees reach heights of 180 feet, with a clear bole for 70 to 100 feet and diameters of 3.5 feet. Over mature trees may reach heights of 197 feet, with diameters of almost 6 feet. They may grow for 300 to 400 years. General Wood Characteristics: The sapwood of western white pine is nearly white to pale yellow, while the heartwood is cream to light reddish brown and may turn darker upon exposure. The wood has a slight resinous odor, but no characteristic taste. It is straight grained and has a rather coarse texture. It is also soft, light, is moderately weak in bending, moderately strong in end compression and moderately low in shock resistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Old Trees and Forests
    Identifying Old Trees and Forests IN EASTERN WASHINGTON by Robert Van Pelt Acknowledgements This guide is a companion to Identifying Mature and Old Forests in Western Washing- ton (Van Pelt, 2007). It was conceived in response to the work of the Old Growth Definition Committee. The committee was convened at the request of the Washington State Legisla- ture to map and inventory old growth forests on state trust lands managed by DNR. In the course of the committee’s work, the need became apparent for field guidance to assist field personnel in identifying individual old trees and forests. It is essential to acknowledge the people I worked with on the Old Growth Definition Com- mittee: Dr. Jerry F. Franklin, Dr. Miles Hemstrom, Joe Buchanan, Rex Crawford, Steve Curry, Sabra Hull, and Walt Obermeyer, all of whom contributed to the concepts which form the basis of this guide. Many people reviewed the text during its various iterations, which greatly contributed to improvements in both readability and scientific content: Richard Bigley Jerry Franklin Andrew Larson Ron Brightman Keala Hagman Jim Lutz Joe Buchanan Miles Hemstrom Tami Miketa Angie Cahill Sabra Hull Bob Redling Chris Earle Arthur Jacobson Jeff Ricklefs The layout and design of this guide was ably and beautifully conducted by Nancy Charbonneau and Jane Chavey of the DNR Communications Group. Photos, maps, and drawings by author except where indicated otherwise. Washington State Department of Natural Resources This guide was produced under contract as part of the ongoing research and application of new information to inform both land management and resource protection goals of Washington’s Department of Natural Resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Silvics of Western White Pine
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. SILVIGS of WESTERN WHITE PINE Misc. Pub. No. 26 November 1962 SILVICS OF WESTERN WHITE PINE By Charles A. Wellner Forester INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Ogden, Utah Joseph F. Pechanec, Director CONTENTS Page DISTRIBUTION 1 HABITAT CONDITIONS 1 Climatic 1 Edaphic 2 Physiographic 3 Biotic 4 LIFE HISTORY 5 Seeding habits 5 Vegetative reproduction 8 Germination 8 Seedling development 9 Sapling stage to maturity 10 RACIAL VARIATION 13 SPECIAL FEATURES 14 Nutrient content of leaf litter 14 Physical and chemical composition of tuipentine 14 LITERATURE CITED 15 i . SILVICS OF WESTERN WHITE PINE By Charles A. Wellner-^ Western white pine (Pinus monticola), the state tree of Idaho, is frequently called "Idaho white pine" or just "white pine" and occasionally "silver pine" or "mountain Weymouth pine" (13^, 59, 86)^/ DISTRIBUTION Western white pine grows along west coast mountain ranges from Vancouver Island and the Homathko River on the adjacent mainland in British Columbia south- ward to the San Bernardino Mountains of southern California (13, 65, 75, 83). In the interior its range is from Quesnel Lake through the Selkirk Mountains of British Columbia southward into northern Idaho, western Montana, and northeastern Washington and also into the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington and north- eastern Oregon (13, 52, 65, 75, 83). The species attains its greatest size and reaches its best stand and commercial development in northern Idaho and adjacent sections of Montana, Washington, and British Columbia (1, 48).
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Genetics of High Elevation Five-Needle White Pines
    Conservation Genetics of High Elevation Five-Needle White Pines Conservation Genetics of High Elevation Five-Needle White Pines Andrew D. Bower, USDA Forest Service, Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA; Sierra C. McLane, University of British Columbia, Dept. of Forest Sciences, Vancouver, BC; Andrew Eckert, University of California Davis, Section of Plenary Paper Evolution and Ecology, Davis, CA; Stacy Jorgensen, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Geography, Manoa, HI; Anna Schoettle, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO; Sally Aitken, University of British Columbia, Dept. of Forest Sciences, Vancouver, BC Abstract—Conservation genetics examines the biophysical factors population structure using molecular markers and quanti- influencing genetic processes and uses that information to conserve tative traits and assessing how these measures are affected and maintain the evolutionary potential of species and popula- by ecological changes. Genetic diversity is influenced by the tions. Here we review published and unpublished literature on the evolutionary forces of mutation, selection, migration, and conservation genetics of seven North American high-elevation drift, which impact within- and among-population genetic five-needle pines. Although these species are widely distributed across much of western North America, many face considerable diversity in differing ways. Discussions of how these forces conservation challenges: they are not valued for timber, yet they impact genetic diversity can be found in many genetics texts have high ecological value; they are susceptible to the introduced (for example Frankham and others 2002; Hartl and Clark disease white pine blister rust (caused by the fungus Cronartium 1989) and will not be discussed here. ribicola) and endemic-turned-epidemic pests; and some are affect- ed by habitat fragmentation and successional replacement by other Why Is Genetic Diversity Important? species.
    [Show full text]
  • Western White Pine Bulletin January 10, 1917 F
    Western White Pine Bulletin January 10, 1917 F. I. Rockwell Photo Credit Cover Photo: Old growth western white pine circa 1913, courtesy of the Latah County Historical Society. The photo, No. 25-03-072, is apparently one of a series taken by the American Lumberman on or about September 13, 1913 about 1/2 mile west of Collins (4 miles north of Bovill, ID). WESTERN WHITE PINE BULLETIN January 10, 1917 U.S. Forest Service Northern Region i WESTERN WHITE PINE PART I THE TREE AND THE STAND JANUARY 10, 1917 By F. I. Rockwell Transcribed by Daniel L. Miller Precision Forestry LLC 2015 ii WESTERN WHITE PINE PART I – THE TREE AND THE STAND Page INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of Publication 1 Nomenclature 1 Habit 1 THE WOOD 2 Quality 2 Physical and Mechanical Properties 2 Lumber Grades 3 Utilization 3 Annual Cut 3 Markets and Uses 4 DISTRIBUTION AND INFLUENCES AFFECTING IT 4 Range 4 Merchantable Stand 5 Factors Controlling Distribution 5 Precipitation 9 Humidity 9 Soil 10 Relative Moisture Requirements 13 Temperature 13 Aspect 14 Altitude 14 Light Requirements 18 FOREST TYPES 20 The Western White pine Type 20 General Description 20 Proportion of Western White Pine 21 Composition of the Stands 21 Codominant Associates 21 Subordinate Associates 24 The Climax Type 24 Weed Species 25 Density and Number of Trees per Acre 25 Other Interior Types 25 Northern Coast Types 26 General Description 26 Douglas Fir Type 26 Mixed Fir Type 26 Southern Coast Types 27 iii Page SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURIES 28 Fire 28 Insects 29 The Mountain Pine Beetle 29 Other Insects 30 Control
    [Show full text]
  • Western White Pine and Sugar Pine in Northwest California
    Pinaceae sugar pine Pinus lambertiana western white pine and sugar sugar pine (front) and ponderosa pine (behind) have similar bark; here in the Salmon Mountains pine in northwest California branches and cones often dangle from precipitous ridgelines Bark: reddish-brown and narrowly furrowed, flaking in small rounds that collect at the base, becoming lighter with elevation and exposure Needles: 3”-4”, grow in clusters of 5, blue-green with stomatal bloom on all sides; underside with two lines of bloom Cones: thicker scales than the western white pine and about 6 inches longer, between 10”-20”, yellow-green maturing to yellow-brown; quite sappy; present on tree year round Habitat: ridge tops and steep hillsides, gener- ally drier habitat at mid to higher elevation Pinaceae western white pine Pinus monticola cones paired with bark will distinguish this species bark color morphs from reddish (here in eastern Klamath) to gray in the western region Bark: thin and smooth in younger trees, becoming dark gray and broken into Range* map for: western white pine (Pinus monticola) circular plates in western Klamath; reddish in east, with rectangular blocking patterns Needles: 5 per fascicle, 2”-4”, underside with faint line down midrib; sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) lacks stomatal bloom Cones: 5”-8”, cylindrical, curved, and darker on inner * based on Little (1971),Griffin and Critchfield (1976), and Van Pelt (2001) surface of scale, light brown near tip, on tree year round Habitat: 1500’-8000’, Michael Kauffmann | www.conifercountry.com growing in low river valleys (western Klamath) to high serpentine ridges, associ- ating with many species; eastern Klamath generally above 6000’ with more uniform stands.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 1. Western White Pine (Pinus Monticola)
    40 - PART 1. CONSENSUS DOCUMENTS ON BIOLOGY OF TREES Section 1. Western white pine (Pinus monticola) 1. Taxonomy The largest genus in the family Pinaceae, Pinus L., which consists of about 110 pine species, occurs naturally through much of the Northern Hemisphere, from the far north to the cooler montane tropics (Peterson, 1980; Richardson, 1998). Two subgenera are usually recognised: hard pines (generally with much resin, wood close-grained, leaf fascicle sheath persistent, two fibrovascular bundles per needle — the diploxylon pines); and soft, or white pines (generally little resin, wood coarse-grained, sheath sheds early, one fibrovascular bundle in a needle — the haploxylon pines). These subgenera are called respectively subgenus Pinus and subgenus Strobus (Little and Critchfield, 1969; Price et al., 1998; Gernandt et al., 2005). Occasionally, one to about half the species (20 spp.) in subgenus Strobus have been classified instead in a variable subgenus Ducampopinus. Western white pine (Pinus monticola Dougl. ex D. Don) belongs to subgenus Strobus (Syring et al., 2007). Pinus monticola was classified by Critchfield and Little (1966) as one of 14 white pines in section Strobus, subsection Strobi, now call section Ouinquefoliae and subsection Strobus, respectively. Earlier classifications have varied in the number of species assigned to subsection Strobus, but P. monticola has consistently been grouped with the New World species P. ayacahuite, P. lambertiana, and P. strobus and the Old World species P. wallichiana (synonym P. griffithii) and P. peuce (Critchfield, 1986). A molecular phylogeny of the genus Pinus, based on the nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer (nrITS), did not support separation of subsection Strobus from either subsection Cembrae or subsection Krempfianae (Liston et al., 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • White Pine Blister Rust Resistance in Pinus Monticola and P
    GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-240 White Pine Blister Rust Resistance in Pinus monticola and P. albicaulis in the Pacific Northwest U.S. – A Tale of Two Species Richard A. Sniezko,1 Angelia Kegley,1 and Robert Danchok1 Western white pine (Pinus monticola Dougl. ex D. Don) and whitebark pine (P. albicaulis Engelm.) are white pine species with similar latitudinal and longitudinal geographic ranges in Oregon and Washington (figs. 1 and 2). Throughout these areas, whitebark pine generally occurs at higher elevations than western white pine. Both of these long-lived forest tree species are highly susceptible to white pine blister rust, caused by the non-native fungus Cronartium ribicola, and both have suffered extensive mortality in many parts of their range (Aubry et al. 2008, Fins et al. 2001, Geils et al. 2010, Schwandt et al. 2010). The high susceptibility of these two species to blister rust has limited their use in reforestation and restoration. In July 2011, due to multiple threats, including blister rust, whitebark pine was added as a candidate species eligible for protection under the United States Endangered Species Act and assigned a listing priority number of 2, which means the threats are of high magnitude and are imminent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Gene conservation efforts with whitebark pine are underway (Mangold 2011; Sniezko et al. 2011b). Genetic diversity and genetic resistance to pathogens and insects are a species’ primary defense and avenue to evolving in the face of threats such as blister rust and climate change. Several operational programs in forest tree species to utilize this natural genetic resistance to help mitigate the impacts of invasive pathogens are well underway (Sniezko 2006; Sniezko et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetics of Western White Pine R
    of WESTERN wH':- PINE wo-t 2 CONTENTS Page Page SUMMARY ABSTRACT ___-___ iii Crossability - - 9 II{TRODUCTIOI{ 1 D e I eteri o u s R *; ";"* e-;; ;;t Paleobotanical and Present Range --- I Other Genes -- 10 Speciation 3 Variation in Natural Stands 10 Habitats -, 3 Monoterpenes -----*- 10 Grorvth 4 Grorvth 10 SE}iTIAL REPRODUCTION - 4 Insect Resistance 11 Chromosomes 4 Induced Mutation 11 Flowering 4 Blister Rust Resistance ____ 11 Cone and Seed Bearing ____,*_ 5 Physiology of Resistance ___________ Lz Poilen Storage o IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 13 AS}JXUAL REPRODUCTION 6 Ilooting Breeding for Blister Rust Resistance, 18 G Tandem Griifting 7 Selection for Blister Rust, Resistance and Growth Rate ______ 18 G]Ii{ETICS AND BREBDII.{G 7 ?axonomy 7 LITERATURE CITED Issued December 1g?1 This pu[:licotisn is or:u irr E :;eiies cr'r thsj genelits rr$ irnp:orf*nt fslrert fr*as *i i{elrth Aiireric*: beirrg pub!ilhed by the Fsn*:si Servirs, tr.5. E*p;:rti::errl tlf drgriculfur*, in co*percf ion .n*ith the $ce ie iy slf Anr*riasn F+resters. Development oi ihi,: seris:s is in **earcl ",vilh fhe resofufi$ffis of the Wt> rld C.un:ulfurtiorr cn F*r*sl {}*rra:?ics ernd Tre"e lmprovement <rf StoekhCIlnr in I ?6"? e nd the Secsnd Werlri Consuitstiern or: F*rest .1'rve SreeetirrlS ut V\teshingfr:m, ff"{.i". in I $SS. Tits ("lnrrrritte* on f:oresf i'r*al ln"iprr.:venr*nt *{ the; Soeiefy erf &me,rir-ein f'tire:ti:rs undsr'[c::r$r the prepeirsfi;;r ** nrcnu:cripts fc,r Nsrilr Arr:er:csn lpeci**s.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Look at Pines
    How to Look at Pines Species name: __________________________________________ Growth habit: multi-branched shrub single-stemmed tree Leaves: Can you fnd both scale leaves and needle leaves? Number of needles per bundle: 1 2 3 4 5 Needle length: __________ Foliage: drooping or not drooping Female Cones: Persistent on tree?: yes or no Cone symmetry: asymmetrical symmetrical Cone prickle: present absent Cone length: __________ Seeds: wing longer than seed or wing shorter than seed Other Notable Features: Key to California’s Commonly Cultivated Pines 1. Most bundles (fascicles) with 2 needles (occasionally with 3 needles) 2. Mature plant a shrub or multi branched small tree—Mugo Pine (P. mugo) 2’ Mature plant a large, single-stemmed tree 3. Bark on old trunk breaking into large plates, some orangish in color, seed wing shorter than seed, tree crown rounded, umbrella-like—Italian Stone Pine (P. pinea) 3’ Bark on old trunk breaking into small or elongated plate, all brown or gray in color, seed wing longer than seed, tree shape varying 4. Cones persisting for years (old branches with many cones) 5. Needles mostly less than 3 inches long, cones recurved on stems—Aleppo Pine (P. halepensis) 5’ Needles mostly 3 inches long or more, cones erect to forward pointing on stems— Mondell Pine (P. eldarica) 4’ Cones falling at maturity (old cones not found on branches) 6. Twigs ofen glaucous, buds chestnut brown, bark in upper part of tree orangish- red, faky—Japanese Red Pine (P. densifora) 6’ Twigs not glaucous, buds conspicuously white, bark dark brown with deep longitudinal fssures—Japanese Black Pine (P.
    [Show full text]
  • A Range-Wide Restoration Strategy for Whitebark Pine (Pinus Albicaulis)
    United States Department A Range-Wide Restoration Strategy for of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-279 June 2012 Keane, Robert E.; Tomback, D.F.; Aubry, C.A.; Bower, A.D.; Campbell, E.M.; Cripps, C.L.; Jenkins, M.B.; Mahalovich, M.F.; Manning, M.; McKinney, S.T.; Murray, M.P.; Perkins, D.L.; Reinhart, D.P.; Ryan, C.; Schoettle, A.W.; Smith, C.M. 2012. A range-wide restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-279. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p. ABSTRACT Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), an important component of western high- elevation forests, has been declining in both the United States and Canada since the early Twentieth Century from the combined effects of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreaks, fire exclusion policies, and the spread of the exotic disease white pine blister rust (caused by the pathogen Cronartium ribicola). The pine is now a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Within the last decade, with major surges of pine beetle and increasing damage and mortality from blister rust, the cumulative whitebark pine losses have altered high-elevation community composition and ecosystem processes in many regions. Whitebark pine is a keystone species because of its various roles in supporting community diversity and a foundation species for its roles in promoting community development and stability. Since more than 90 percent of whitebark pine forests occur on public lands in the United States and Canada, maintaining whitebark pine communities requires a coordinated and trans-boundary effort across Federal and provincial land management agencies to develop a comprehensive strategy for restoration of this declining ecosystem.
    [Show full text]