DOCSLIB.ORG

Slash Pine: Still Growing and Growing! Slash Pine: Still Growing and Growing! Proceedings of the Slash Pine Symposium

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Slash Pine: Still Growing and Growing! Slash Pine: Still Growing and Growing! Proceedings of the Slash Pine Symposium Slash Pine: Still Growing and Growing! and Growing! Growing Still Pine: Slash Slash Pine: Still Growing and Growing! Proceedings of the Slash Pine Symposium Jekyll Island, Georgia April 23–25, 2002 Proceedings of the Slash Pine Symposium Symposium Pine of the Slash Proceedings 2004 The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. United States The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and Department of activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, Agriculture political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or familial status (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with Forest Service disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Southern Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Research Station Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity General Technical employer. Report SRS-76 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement of any product or service by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or other organizations represented here. PESTICIDE PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENT This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommenda- tions for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and their containers. Slash Pine: Still Growing and Growing! Proceedings of the Slash Pine Symposium Jekyll Island, Georgia April 23–25, 2002 Edited by E.D. Dickens, J.P. Barnett, W.G. Hubbard, and E.J. Jokela Hosted by Florida and Georgia Divisions of the Southeastern Society of American Foresters The University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forest Resources University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Regional Extension Forestry Sponsored by Florida and Georgia Divisions of the Southeastern Society of American Foresters The University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forest Resources University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation The Florida Division of Forestry The Georgia Forestry Commission The Georgia Center of Continuing Education U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Regional Extension Forestry U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Southern Region Published by U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station Asheville, North Carolina 28804 December 2004 i Preface This general technical report on slash pine is printed 20 years after an earlier proceedings, “The Managed Slash Pine Ecosystem” was published. It was evident in 1983 that loblolly pine was becoming the species of choice where either species could be planted, especially in areas where fiber-volume production was a high priority. Since 1997–98, forest industry activities, pine pulpwood stumpage prices, timberland ownership patterns, and the economics of growing southern pines have dramatically changed in the Southeastern United States. Many scientists and land managers are rethinking species/site selection, cash outlays, and forest management intensities. The authors of this proceedings decided to share their new knowledge of slash pine. Slash pine continues to be an important species of southern yellow pine on the southeastern Coastal Plain. While its native range is more limited than any other southern yellow pine, its value as raw material for wood products ranks third behind loblolly and shortleaf pine. Although slash pine may not produce as much wood volume or fiber on many of the sites where both loblolly and slash pine are found, it can produce more high-value, high-grade lumber than loblolly pine. Some of the papers in this proceedings either compare or include loblolly pine as a research subject, because these two species often are the only choice of pine species in the southeastern Coastal Plain. The authors’ intent is to give land managers an up-to-date guidebook on slash pine management. Although we have learned much in the last 20 years, there is still much we have to learn. The 1983 managed slash pine ecosystem proceedings has some very valuable information that remains current to this day. The reader should use his/her best judgment where conflicting opinions are presented; pine study findings may contradict one another due to several abiotic, biotic, management, and other factors. The efforts of many people made the slash pine symposium possible. The following is a list of those who contributed to planning; conference program organization; making local arrangements; lining up sponsors and exhibits committees; and inviting symposium speakers, moderators, and reviewers. Planning Committee: Jill Barbour, John Bridges, Chris Carey, Steve Chapman, David Dickens, Mark Frye, George Hernandez, John Holzaepfel, Bill Hubbard, Eric Jokela, Susan King, Charlie Marcus, Mike Mengak, Jarek Nowak, and Larry Thompson Conference Chair: Bill Hubbard Program Co-Chairs: David Dickens and Eric Jokela Sponsors and Exhibits Committee: John Bridges, Steve Chapman, and David Dickens Local Arrangements Committee: Chris Carey, Mark Frye, and Susan King ii Contents Page Page Slash Pine: Characteristics, History, Status, Wood Quality of Slash Pine and its Effect on and Trends . 1 Lumber, Paper, and Other Products . 61 James P. Barnett and Raymond M. Sheffield Alexander Clark III and Richard F. Daniels Slash Pine Tree Improvement . 7 Prescribed Fire and Slash Pine . 66 Tim L. White and Tom D. Byram A.J. Long, A. Behm, L. Cassidy, J. DiMartino, D. Doran, D. Freeman, J. Helmers, K. Keefe, A. Miller, Slash Pine Establishment: What Has Changed— S. Ranasinghe, C. Randall, M. Rasser, A. Ruth, 1981–2002? . 20 D. Shipley, and A. Van Loan Marshall Jacobson Wildlife Management Issues and Opportunities Competition Control in Slash Pine in Slash Pine Forests . 79 (Pinus Elliottii Engelm.) Plantations . 23 Michael T. Mengak and Steven B. Castleberry J.L. Yeiser and A.W. Ezell Insect Enemies of Slash Pine . 84 Nutrient Management of Southern Pines . 27 Terry S. Price Eric J. Jokela Major Disease Issues with Slash Pine Planting Density Impacts on Slash Pine Stand Management . 87 Growth, Yield, Product Class Distribution, and Robert. A. Schmidt Economics . 36 E. David Dickens and Rodney E. Will Effects of Annual Pinestraw Removal and Mid-rotation Fertilization on Pine Growth in Loblolly Versus Slash Pine Growth and Yield Unthinned Plantations . 90 Comparisons . 45 E.A. Ogden and L.A. Morris Barry D. Shiver Slash Pine in Integrated Timber, Forage, and Species Deployment Strategies for the Southern Livestock Silvopastoral Systems . 98 Pines: Site Specific Management Practices for the Jarek Nowak and Alan Long Flatwoods of Georgia and Florida . 50 Thomas R. Fox Slash Pine, Pinus elliottii var. elliottii Select Bibliography . 105 An Economic Comparison of Slash and Loblolly Bryan C. McElvany, Kim D. Coder, and Pine under Various Levels of Management in the E. David Dickens Lower Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain . 56 Coleman W. Dangerfield, Jr., E. David Dickens, Index of Authors . 146 and David J. Moorhead iii iv SLASH PINE: CHARACTERISTICS, HISTORY, STATUS, AND TRENDS James P. Barnett and Raymond M. Sheffield1 Abstract—Slash pine is the premier tree species on many sites throughout the South. Its ease of establishment and early growth, however, has extended its range to many sites where its performance has been less than ideal. For that reason, the acreage and volume of slash pine are declining. Nonetheless, it will continue to be the favored species on many sites where it is the most appropriate and productive species. This paper reviews slash pine’s important silvical characteristics, its history of use and management, and the status and trends of this important resource. INTRODUCTION inches long in fascicles of two and three on the same tree. Typical slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm. var. elliottii) is an They are dark, glossy green, and tufted at the ends of excellent timber tree and one of the most important pine tapering branches. They extend back some distance along species in the Southern United States. Many prefer it for its the branch and persist until the end of the second season. fast growth and excellent utility for fiber, lumber, poles, and Cones are 4 to 6 inches long, ovoid conic, and sessile gum naval stores. The habitat and preferred sites within its (fig. 1). They usually remain on the tree until the second natural range include poorly drained flatwoods and stream summer. Cones are reddish brown, lustrous, and armed with edges, as well as seasonally flooded areas such as bays a sharp spine. The seeds are about one-fourth inch long, and swamps. dark brown-black mottled, with thin, translucent wings about 1 inch long. The ease and success of planting slash pine have signifi- cantly increased in its range. Extensive planting and natural regeneration of open agricultural and forest land brought a sharp rise in slash pine acreage between 1952 and 1970 (Sheffield and others 1983). Much of the planting was on sites that did not favor slash pine, and where performance was less than optimal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Quarterly Journal of the Florida Native Plant Society
    Volume 28: Number 1 > Winter/Spring 2011 PalmettoThe Quarterly Journal of the Florida Native Plant Society Protecting Endangered Plants in Panhandle Parks ● Native or Not? Carica papaya ● Water Science & Plants Protecting Endangered Plant Species Sweetwater slope: Bill and Pam Anderson To date, a total of 117 listed taxa have been recorded in 26 panhandle parks, making these parks a key resource for the protection of endangered plant species. 4 ● The Palmetto Volume 28:1 ● Winter/Spring 2011 in Panhandle State Parks by Gil Nelson and Tova Spector The Florida Panhandle is well known for its natural endowments, chief among which are its botanical and ecological diversity. Approximately 242 sensitive plant taxa occur in the 21 counties west of the Suwannee River. These include 15 taxa listed as endangered or threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 212 listed as endangered or threatened by the State of Florida, 191 tracked by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 52 candidates for federal listing, and 7 categorized by the state as commercially exploited. Since the conservation of threatened and endangered plant species depends largely on effective management of protected populations, the occurrence of such plants on publicly or privately owned conservation lands, coupled with institutional knowledge of their location and extent is essential. District 1 of the Florida Sarracenia rosea (purple pitcherplant) at Ponce de Leon Springs State Park: Park Service manages 33 state parks encompassing approximately Tova Spector, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 53,877 acres in the 18 counties from Jefferson County and the southwestern portion of Taylor County westward.
    [Show full text]
  • Report SFRC-83/01 Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity
    Report SFRC-83/01 Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity NATIONAL b lb -a'*? m ..-.. # .* , *- ,... - . ,--.-,, , . LG LG - m,*.,*,*, Or 7°C ,"7cn,a. Q*Everglades National Park, South Florida Research Center, P.O.Box 279, Homestead, Florida 33030 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................... 1 STUDYAREA ............................ 1 METHODS .............................. 3 RESULTS .............................. 4 Figure 1. Distribution of the indigo snake in southern Florida ..... 5 Figure 2 . Distribution of the indigo snake in the Florida Keys including Biscayne National Park ............. 6 DISCUSSION ............................. 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................ 13 LITERATURE CITED ......................... 14 APPENDIX 1. Observations of indigo snakes in southern Florida ....... 17 APPENDIX 2 . Data on indigo snakes examined in and adjacent to Everglades National Park ................. 24 APPENDIX 3. Museum specimens of indigo snakes from southern Florida ... 25 4' . Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity Report ~F~~-83/01 Todd M. Steiner, Oron L. Bass, Jr., and James A. Kushlan National Park Service South Florida Research Center Everglades National Park Homestead, Florida 33030 January 1983 Steiner, Todd M., Oron L. Bass, Jr., and James A. Kushlan. 1983. Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity. South Florida Research Center Report SFRC- 83/01. 25 pp. INTRODUCTION The status and biology of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi, the largest North American snake (~awler,1977), is poorly understood. Destruction of habitat and exploitation by the pet trade have reduced its population levels in various localities to the point that it is listed by the Federal government as a threatened species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Canadian Entomologist
    The Canadian Entomologist Vol. 107 Ottawa, Canada, March 1975 No. 3 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ATTEMPTS BY INTRODUCTIONS AGAINST PEST INSECTS IN THE FIELD IN CANADA B. P. BEIRNE Pestology Centre, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia Abstract Can. Ent. 107: 225-236 (1975) This is an analysis of the attempts to colonize at least 208 species of parasites and predators on about 75 species of pest insects in the field in Canada. There was colonization by about 10% of the species that were introduced in totals of under 5,000 individuals, 40% of those introduced in totals of between 5,000 and 31,200, and 78% of those introduced in totals of over 31,200. Indications exist that initial colonizations may be favoured by large releases and by selection of release sites that are semi-isolated and not ecologically complex but that colonizations are hindered when the target species differs taxonomically from the species from which introduced agents originated and when the release site lacks factors needed for introduced agents to survive or when it is subject to potentially-avoidable physical disrup- tions. There was no evidence that the probability of colonization was increased when the numbers of individuals released were increased by laboratory propagation. About 10% of the attempts were successful from the economic viewpoint. Successes may be overestimated if the influence of causes of coincidental, actual, or supposed changes in pest abundance are overlooked. Most of the successes were by two or more kinds of agents of which at least one attacked species additional to the target pests.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Notice with Attachments
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT P. O. BOX 4970 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32232-0019 FEBRUARY 27, 2019 PUBLIC NOTICE Permit Application Number SAJ-2018-03124(SP-MRE) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) as described below: APPLICANT: Grand Creek Partners LLC 161 Hampton Point Drive, Suite 1 St. Augustine, Florida 32092 WATERWAY AND LOCATION: The project would affect waters of the United States (wetlands) associated with Petty Branch, a tributary to the St. Johns River. The project site is contiguous to, and west of, the intersection of Old Palm Valley Road (County Road 210) and Longleaf Pine Parkway; and, is formed by several properties (St. Johns County Property Appraiser Parcel Identification Numbers 010080-0000, 010080-0020, 010090-0000, 010090-0032, and 010510- 0010), in Sections 32 and 40, Township 5 South, Range 27 East, and Section 43, Township 6 South, Range 27 East, St. Johns County, Florida. APPROXIMATE CENTRAL COORDINATES: Latitude 30.016600° Longitude -81.613946° PROJECT PURPOSE: Basic: The basic project purpose is residential development. Overall: The overall project purpose is the establishment of a residential subdivision serving the housing market in northwest St. Johns County. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Soils: The Soil Survey of the St. Johns County, Florida identifies eleven soil types at the project site. These soil types are Adamsville fine sand (map unit 01), Astatula fine sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes (map unit 02), Holopaw fine sand, frequently flooded (map unit 47), Myakka fine sand (map unit 03), Pomona fine sand (map unit 09), Pottsburg fine sand (map unit 40), Riviera fine sand, frequently flooded (map unit 36), Samsula muck (map unit 26), Sparr fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (map unit 44), Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (map unit 06), and Winder fine sand, frequently flooded (map unit 48).
    [Show full text]
  • Fusarium Torreyae (Sp
    HOST RANGE AND BIOLOGY OF FUSARIUM TORREYAE (SP. NOV), CAUSAL AGENT OF CANKER DISEASE OF FLORIDA TORREYA (TORREYA TAXIFOLIA ARN.) By AARON J. TRULOCK A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012 1 © 2012 Aaron J. Trulock 2 To my wife, for her support, patience, and dedication 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my chair, Jason Smith, and committee members, Jenny Cruse-Sanders and Patrick Minogue, for their guidance, encouragement, and boundless knowledge, which has helped me succeed in my graduate career. I would also like to thank the Forest Pathology lab for aiding and encouraging me in both my studies and research. Research is not an individual effort; it’s a team sport. Without wonderful teammates it would never happen. Finally, I would like to that the U.S. Forest Service for their financial backing, as well as, UF/IFAS College of Agriculture and Life Science for their matching funds. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 6 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 7 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 8
    [Show full text]
  • Longleaf Pine in Virginia: History, Ecology and Restoration
    Longleaf Pine in Virginia: History, Ecology and Restoration Rick Myers Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation DCR-Division of Natural Heritage Historic Longleaf Pine Distribution ~ 90 million acres at time of European settlement Longleaf – wiregrass savannas & flatwoods of the coastal plains from North Carolina to Florida, east to Texas Longleaf – bluestem flatwoods of southeast Virginia Montane longleaf pine woodlands of northeast Alabama and northwest Georgia South Quay Sandhills near Franklin, Virginia Longleaf pine sandhills of Virginia south to Georgia Longleaf Pine History in Virginia • At time of settlement (1607), there were between 1 and 1.5 million acres of longleaf pine-dominated forests in Virginia. • Most longleaf pine was south of the James River, but range extended north to Accomack County on the Eastern Shore. • Virginia naval stores industry began in 1608 – when John Smith exported the first “tryalls of Pitch and Tarre”. Pitch was used for sealing boat hulls; tar was the grease for wagon axles. • Early transportation in Virginia depended on longleaf pine. • Both tar kilns and boxing of live trees were used to produce/collect pine tar and crude gum. Most consumed locally until 1700. • Major period of naval stores production & export was 1700 to 1840. In 1791, the port of Norfolk exported 29,376 tons naval stores. Longleaf Pine History in Virginia – Naval Stores Longleaf Pine History in Virginia • Longleaf pine was largely exhausted in Virginia by 1850. No export records of naval stores exist after 1840. • Main factors associated with loss of longleaf pine in Virginia: 1) feral hogs on open range (rooting up/eating seedlings); 2) land clearing for agriculture; 3) cessation of burning = no seedling regeneration; 4) naval stores extraction / timber removals with no regeneration.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Comparison of the Physical Properties of Loblolly and Slash Pine Wood and Bark Thomas L
    1495 ARTICLE Species comparison of the physical properties of loblolly and slash pine wood and bark Thomas L. Eberhardt, Joseph Dahlen, and Laurence Schimleck Abstract: Composition of the southern pine forest is now predominated by two species, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm.), owing to fire suppression activities, natural regeneration on abandoned agricultural lands, and extensive planting. Comparison of the wood and bark physical properties of these pines is of interest in terms of the yields of usable biomass and, for the bark, its ecological functionality on a living tree. Trees from a species comparison study were used to generate wood and bark property data, on a whole-tree basis, and for stem disks collected at breast height. Models were constructed to explain the effect of relative height on wood and bark properties. When comparing the whole-tree data, slash pine wood (0.523 versus 0.498) and bark (0.368 versus 0.311) specific gravity values were higher, both offset by lower moisture contents; slash pine also produced a higher percentage of bark on a dry-mass basis (17% versus 12.5%). Unlike wood properties, bark properties showed significant between-species differences when determined at breast height alone, the exception being moisture content. In terms of yield, harvests of a green tonne of loblolly pine and slash pine would give approximately the same dry mass of wood, but slash pine provides more bark. Key words: bark thickness, moisture content, specific gravity, wood quality, yield. Résumé : La composition de la forêt de pins du sud est maintenant dominée par deux espèces, le pin a` encens (Pinus taeda L.) et le pin d’Elliott (Pinus elliottii Engelm.) a` cause des activités de suppression des feux, de la régénération naturelle sur les terres agricoles abandonnées et de la plantation intensive.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus Adamanteus) Ambush Site Selection in Coastal Saltwater Marshes
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 2020 Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) Ambush Site Selection in Coastal Saltwater Marshes Emily Rebecca Mausteller [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, Other Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Mausteller, Emily Rebecca, "Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) Ambush Site Selection in Coastal Saltwater Marshes" (2020). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. 1313. https://mds.marshall.edu/etd/1313 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. EASTERN DIAMONDBACK RATTLESNAKE (CROTALUS ADAMANTEUS) AMBUSH SITE SELECTION IN COASTAL SALTWATER MARSHES A thesis submitted to the Graduate College of Marshall University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Biological Sciences by Emily Rebecca Mausteller Approved by Dr. Shane Welch, Committee Chairperson Dr. Jayme Waldron Dr. Anne Axel Marshall University December 2020 i APPROVAL OF THESIS We, the faculty supervising the work of Emily Mausteller, affirm that the thesis, Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) Ambush Site Selection in Coastal Saltwater Marshes, meets the high academic standards for original scholarship and creative work established by the Biological Sciences Program and the College of Science. This work also conforms to the editorial standards of our discipline and the Graduate College of Marshall University.
    [Show full text]
  • Longleaf Pine: an Annotated Bibliography, 1946 Through 1967
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper SO-35 longleaf pine: an annotated bibliography, 1946 through 1967 Thomas C. Croker, Jr. SOUTHERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION T.C. Nelson, Director FOREST SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1968 Croker, Thomas C., Jr. 1968. Longleaf pine: an annotated bibliography, 1946 through 1967. Southern Forest Exp. Sta., New Orleans, Louisiana. 52 pp. (U. S. Dep. Agr. Forest Serv. Res. Pap. SO-35) Lists 665 publications appearing since W. G. Wahlenberg compiled the bibliography for his book, Longleaf Pine. Contents Page Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Factors of the environment. Biology........................................................................................ 2 11 Site factors, climate, situation, soil ............................................................................. 2 15 Animal ecology. Game management .......................................................................... 2 16 General botany ............................................................................................................. 2 17 Systematic botany ....................................................................................................... 6 18 Plant ecology................................................................................................................. 7 2. Silviculture...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pinus Elliottii
    This article was downloaded by: [National Forest Service Library] On: 09 August 2013, At: 12:03 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Southern African Forestry Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsfs18 Evolutionary relationships of Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii) with its temperate and tropical relatives R C Schmidtling a & V Hipkins b a USDA Forest Service, SRS, Southern Institute of Forest Genetics, 23332 Hwy 67, Saucier, MS, 39574, USA E-mail: b USDA Forest Service, NFGEL Lab., Placerville, CA, USA Published online: 09 May 2012. To cite this article: R C Schmidtling & V Hipkins (2001) Evolutionary relationships of Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii) with its temperate and tropical relatives, The Southern African Forestry Journal, 190:1, 73-78, DOI: 10.1080/20702620.2001.10434118 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20702620.2001.10434118 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesic Pine Flatwoods
    Mesic Pine Flatwoods he mesic pine flatwoods of South Florida are of FNAI Global Rank: Undetermined critical, regional importance to the biota of South FNAI State Rank: S4 TFlorida. They provide essential forested habitat for a Federally Listed Species in S. FL: 9 variety of wildlife species including: wide-ranging, large carnivores such as the Florida panther (Puma (=Felis) State Listed Species in S. FL: 40 concolor coryi) and the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus); mid-sized carnivores; fox squirrels (Sciurus niger spp.); and deer (Odocoileus Mesic pine flatwoods. Original photograph by Deborah Jansen. virginianus). They provide tree canopy for canopy- dependent species including neotropical migrants, tree-cavity dependent species, and tree-nesting species. Mesic pine flatwoods are also important as the principal dry ground in South Florida, furnishing refuge and cover for ground-nesting vertebrates as well as habitat for non- aquatic plant life (such as upland perennials and annuals). During the summer wet season, the mesic pine flatwoods of South Florida function as the upland ark for non-aquatic animals. Mesic flatwoods serve as ground bird nesting areas; adult tree frog climbing areas; black bear foraging, denning, and travelways; and essential red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) foraging and nesting habitat. At the current rate of habitat conversion, the mesic pine flatwoods, once the most abundant upland habitat in South Florida, is in danger of becoming one of the rarest habitats in South Florida. The impact of this loss on wide- ranging species, listed species, and biodiversity in South Florida could be irreparable. Synonymy The mesic pine flatwoods association of southwest Florida has been variously recognized and alluded to in the plant community literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinus Elliottii Englem. Family: Pinaceae Slash Pine
    Pinus elliottii Englem. Family: Pinaceae Slash Pine The genus Pinus is composed of about 95 species native to temperate and tropical regions of the world. There are 60 species in the New World (North America and South America) and 35 in the Old World (Eurasia and northern Africa). In the New World, there are 4 native to the West Indies, 5 in Central America, 38 in Mexico and 37 in the United States and Canada. The wood of pine can be separated microscopically into the white, red, yellow and the foxtail/pinyon pine groups. Slash pine is in the yellow pine group. The word pinus is the classical Latin name and elliottii is used in honor of Stephen Elliott (1771-1830), botanist and banker of South Carolina and author of “Sketch of the Botany of South-Carolina and Georgia”. Slash pine has two recognized varieties, the typical slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm. var. elliotti) and South Florida slash pine (Pinus elliottii var densa Little & Dorman). Other Common Names: American pitch pine, bastard pine, British Honduras pitch pine, Cuba pine, Dade County pine, Dade County slash pine, Ellotti-tall, Florida pine, Florida southern pine, Florida-tall, Gulf Coast pitch pine, longleaf, longleaf pine, longleaf pitch pine, longleaf yellow pine, meadow pine, Nicaraguan pine, pin de la Floride du sud, pinavete, pino de Florida del sur, pino di Florida del sud, pino grasso, pino pece, pino tea, pitch pine, pitchpin Americain, saltwater pine, she pine, South Florida slash pine, Southern Florida pine, southern Florida slash pine, southern pine, southern yellow pine, spruce pine, swamp pine, thong, yellow pine, yellow slash pine, Zuid-Florida pijn.
    [Show full text]