Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Pinus contorta var. contorta


Introductory

SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Cope, Amy B. 1993. Pinus contorta var. contorta. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].

ABBREVIATION : PINCONC PINCON SYNONYMS : Pinus boursieri Carr. Pinus tenuis Lemmon SCS PLANT CODE : PICO COMMON NAMES : shore pine beach pine coast pine lodgepole pine TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name of shore pine is Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud var. contorta [24,33]. Shore pine is one of four varieties of lodgepole pine. The other three varieties are [9,24]: Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia), Sierra lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana), Mendocino White Plains lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. bolanderi). This write-up will focus on shore pine. LIFE FORM : Tree FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Shore pine occurs along the Pacific Coast from Yakutat Bay, Alaska, south through the Coast Ranges to Mendocino County, California [9,10,24,31,33]. In the eastern part of its range, shore pine occurs intermittently with Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine in the Cascade Range of northwestern Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska [38]. Shore pine is also found in the Klamath Mountains of Oregon and California [49]. ECOSYSTEMS : FRES23 Fir - spruce FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES27 Redwood FRES28 Western hardwoods STATES : AK CA HI OR WA BC BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 1 Northern Pacific Border 3 Southern Pacific Border KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : K001 Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest K003 Silver fir - Douglas-fir forest K004 Fir - hemlock forest K006 Redwood forest K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest K009 Pine - cypress forest K013 Cedar - hemlock - pine forest SAF COVER TYPES : 205 Mountain hemlock 206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir 215 Western white pine 218 Lodgepole pine 223 Sitka spruce 224 Western hemlock 225 Western hemlock - Sitka spruce 226 Coastal true fir - hemlock 227 Western redcedar - western hemlock 228 Western redcedar 232 Redwood 255 California coast live oak SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Shore pine is a dominant species in the northern part of its range. Farther south, shore pine is a codominant or subdominant species. In mixed stands, shore pine may form scrubby thickets or sparse to dense groves. Other vegetation is usually sparse [1,48]. Shore pine is listed as an indicator in the following published classifications: Provisional plant community types of southeastern Alaska [1] A classification system for California's hardwood rangelands [2] Preliminary forest plant association management guide [11] Preliminary forest plant associations of the Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest [42] The Alaska vegetation classification system [46] The closed-cone pine and cypresses [48].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : The wood of shore pine is light, brittle, coarse grained, and has a high specific gravity [18,33]. Shore pine is occasionally used as fuel and produces 8,730 British thermal units per pound [18]. IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Rodents eat the seeds of shore pine [27], and porcupines consume the cambium [3]. Shore pine is of slight importance to big game but provides important edge habitat for other animals [6,42,44]. Alaskan brown bears travel through corridors of shore pine en route to feeding areas. Shore pine provides nesting habitat for yellowlegs in Alaska [11]. PALATABILITY : NO-ENTRY NUTRITIONAL VALUE : NO-ENTRY COVER VALUE : NO-ENTRY VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : Shore pine survives strong, salty winds on dry crests and wet depressions. Shore pine has helped stabilize recent sand dune expansion in California [20]. OTHER USES AND VALUES : Native Americans boiled the inner bark of shore pine for food [16]. Coastal Native Americans used the pitch of shore pine to treat open sores and chewed the buds to relieve sore throats [3]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Shore pine is a useful species for watershed stabilization [22]. It has shown potential in shelterbelt plantings because of its branching habit and winter hardiness [22,28]. Road construction should be avoided on shore pine sites where possible because of the exceptionally deep, wet woils [11]. Shore pine sites are important because they absorb excessive rainfall and regulate waterflows [11]. Shore pine is valued for the rapid early growth of seedlings [22]. Shore pine is a primary host to lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium americanum); however, infection by this parasite has been observed only in a few coastal areas of British Columbia [14,21]. Shore pine is a host to hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense), which can cause localized infections [5,30].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Shore pine is a short-lived, native conifer [9,22,25,43]. At maturity, depending on the site, shore pine reaches heights of 20 to 50 feet (6-15 m) and d.b.h.'s of 6 to 20 inches (15-50 cm) [16,26,40,46]. The trunk is often twisted, and crown shape varies from dense and round to irregular [17,19,27]. The bark of shore pine is furrowed and up to 1 inch (2.54 cm) thick [3,9,26]. Shore pine has many branches [4,9,26]. The short, narrow leaves occur in fascicles of two [3,17,19,26,44]. The cones are persistent [19,22,33,44,49]. They are about 1.5 to 2 inches (3.8-5.1 cm) long [19,49]. Cones of shore pine are typically nonserotinous [9,10,26]. Serotiny tends to increase farther inland but is erratic and unpredictable [26]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Shore pine does not reproduce by sprouting [40]. Shore pine begins producing cones between 5 and 10 years of age [10,22]. Good seed crops usually occur every other year [10]. Owen and Molden [50] discuss development of lateral shoot terminal buds. Shore pine produces large amounts of flowers and pollen [3,9,49]. Percentage of sound seed ranges from 75 to 79 percent [9]. Fresh seed requires no stratification, but stored seed requires 20 to 30 days stratification. Seeds are viable for up to 17 years in cold storage [22]. Seed falls approximately 200 feet (60 m) from the source under normal conditions [9]. Shore pine requires absorbent soils, light, and warm temperatures for germination [8,22]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Shore pine grows in a maritime climate throughout most of its range. Annual precipitation, which falls year-round and mostly in the form of rain, is 60 to 200 inches (1,500-5,000 mm) [15,26]. Shore pine occurs from sea level to the subalpine zone (5,030 feet [1,525 m]) in Alaska [3,45]. Shore pine occurs in peat bogs and muskegs on gentle slopes and lowlands [11,19,40,42,49]. It is most common on poorly drained, deep Histosols [11,42,45]. Conditions are xeric in the southern-most part of shore pine's distribution, where it occurs in closed-cone pine and cypress communities of California [48]. Shore pine habitat here includes coastal dunes, seaside bluffs, and exposed rocky headlands; winds may be strong and salty [48]. Soils are Inceptisols, Alfisols, and Ultisols; best growth is on well-drained loams with a pH of 5 [16,26]. Here shore pine occurs at elevations between sea level and 1,690 feet (0-507 m) [33]. Overstory and understory tree species not mentioned in Distribution and Occurrence include yelow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), Mendocino White Plains lodgepole pine, bishop pine (Pinus muricata), and common juniper (Juniperus communis) [20,34,47]. Associated shrubs are huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), bog Labrador-tea (Ledum groenlandicum), bog kalmia (Kalmia polifolia), northern twinflower (Linnaea borealis), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), and crowberry (Empetrum nigrum) [1,8,41,46,47]. Commonly associated herbs are sedges (Carex spp.), naked sedge (Calamagrostis nutkatensis), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), and narrowleaf cottonsedge (Eriophorum angustifolium) [8,46,47]. Sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) is a common associate in Alaska [46,47]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Facultative Seral Species Shore pine occurs in extreme habitats that are unfavorable to other, potentially competitive species [9,49]. Windthrow and landslides are common [15]. Shore pine is a climatic climax in bog woodlands, reproducing under its own canopy [36]. Shore pine is considered a climax species in many areas [6,41,46]. Shore pine is shade intolerant [25,26,40]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : Male and female strobili are initiated late in the growing season. Development continues in the spring [26]. Pollen shedding begins in mid- to late May [9,10,26]. Cones mature between September and October, with seed dispersal following shortly afterward [22,26,40].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Fire is not an important factor in forest succession where shore pine occurs in southeastern Alaska [15]. Fire is infrequent in maritime forest types and usually is of little ecological significance [25]. The fire interval is 150 to 350 years but may not be cyclic [35]. The coastal cedar-pine-hemlock biogeoclimatic zone of British Columbia has little or no fire history. The presence of shade-tolerant firs and hemlocks and fire0sensitive species, such as shore pine, indicate that fire is rare in this area [34]. The coastal dunes where shore pine occurs in California are considered fire-free [48]. The foliage of shore pine is moderately flammable. Shore pine has a moderate to low degree of fire resistance [25]. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : Tree without adventitious-bud root crown Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Shore pine is sensitive to fire and probably killed by most fires. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : NO-ENTRY DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : NO-ENTRY FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : NO-ENTRY

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
REFERENCES : 1. Alaback, Paul B. 1980. Provisional plant community types of southeastern Alaska. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 15 p. [18773] 2. Allen, Barbara H.; Holzman, Barbara A.; Evett, Rand R. 1991. A classification system for California's hardwood rangelands. Hilgardia. 59(2): 1-45. [17371] 3. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers. 222 p. [4208] 4. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1984. Timberline: Mountain and arctic forest frontiers. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers. 304 p. [339] 5. Baranyay, J. A.; Smith, R. B. 1972. Dwarf mistletoes in British Columbia and recommendations for their control. BC-X-72. Victoria, BC: Canadian Forestry Service, Pacific Forest Research Centre. 18 p. [16391] 6. Bartolome, James W. 1983. Overstory-understory relationships: lodgepole pine forest. In: Bartlett, E. T.; Betters, David R., eds. Overstory-understory relationships in western forests. Western Regional Research Publication No. 1. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University Experiment Station: 1-4. [3308] 7. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434] 8. Coates, K. David. 1987. Effects of shrubs and herbs on conifer regeneration and microclimate in the Rhododendron-Vaccinium-Menziesia community of south-central BC. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Thesis. Abstract. [17445] 9. Critchfield, W. B. 1978. The distribution, genetics, and silvics of lodgepole pine. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO joint meeting of working parties, Volume one:background papers and Douglas fir provenances; [Date of conference unknown]; Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Volume one. Victoria, B.C., Canada: British Columbia Ministry of Forests: 65-94. [8317] 10. Critchfield, William B. 1980. Genetics of lodgepole pine. Res. Pap. WO-37. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 57 p. [8283] 11. DeMeo, Thomas. 1989. Preliminary forest plant association management guide: Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. [Portland, OR]: [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service]. 164 p. [19017] 12. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 13. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998] 14. Hawksworth, Frank G.; Johnson, David W. 1989. Biology and management of dwarf mistletoe in lodgepole pine in the Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 38 p. [8651] 15. Arno, Stephen F.; Hoff, Raymond J. 1989. Silvics of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-253. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11 p. [1304] 16. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375] 17. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168] 18. Howard, James O.; Setzer, Theodore S. 1989. Logging residue in southeast Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p. [13189] 19. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p. [13403] 20. Jenny, H.; Arkley, R. J.; Schultz, A. M. 1969. The pygmy forest-podsol ecosystem and its dune associates of the Mendocino Coast. Madrono. 20: 60-74. [10726] 21. Kimmey, J. W. 1957. Dwarfmistletoes of California and their control. Tech. Pap. No. 19. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [16464] 22. Krugman, Stanley L.; Jenkinson, James L. 1974. Pinaceae--pine family. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 598-637. [1380] 23. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384] 24. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952] 25. Lotan, James E.; Alexander, Martin E.; Arno, Stephen F.; [and others]. 1981. Effects of fire on flora: A state-of-knowledge review. National fire effects workshop; 1978 April 10-14; Denver, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-16. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 71 p. [1475] 26. Lotan, James E.; Critchfield, William B. 1990. Pinus contorta Dougl. ex. Loud. lodgepole pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 302-315. [13393] 27. Lotan, James E.; Perry, David A. 1983. Ecology and regeneration of lodgepole pine. Agric. Handb. 606. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 51 p. [8288] 28. Low, Alan J. 1986. Tree planting in the Falkland Islands. Forestry. 59(1): 59-84. [9755] 30. Mathiasen, Robert L.; Hawksworth, Frank G. 1988. Dwarf mistletoes on western white pine and whitebark pine in northern California and southern California. Forest Science. 34(2): 429-440. [5034] 31. McMillan, Calvin. 1956. The edaphic restriction of Cupressus and Pinus in the Coast Ranges of central California. Ecological Monographs. 26: 177-212. [11884] 32. Millar, Constance I.; Libby, William J. 1989. Disneyland or native ecosystem: genetics and the restorationist. Restoration and Management Notes. 7(1): 18-24. [8071] 33. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155] 34. Parminter, John. 1983. Fire history and fire ecology in the Prince Rupert Forest region. In: Trowbridge, R. L.; Macadam, A., eds. Prescribed fire--forest soils: Symposium proceedings; 1982 March 2-3; Smithers, BC. Land Management Report Number 16. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests: 1-35. [8849] 35. Parminter, John. 1991. Fire history and effects on vegetation in three biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.; Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990 March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 263-272. [16651] 36. Pojar, Jim. 1985. Ecological classification of lodgepole pine in Canada. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Krebill, Richard G.; Arnott, James T.; Weetman, Gordon F., compilers and editors. Lodgepole pine: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1984 May 8-10; Spokane, WA; 1984 May 14-16; Vancouver, BC. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 77-88. [9442] 37. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 38. Shrimpton, D. M. 1972. Variation in the extractives from lodgepole pine sapwood and heartwood. Information Report NOR-X-18. Edmonton, Alberta:Environment Canada, Forestry Service, Northern Forest Research Centre. 22 p. [8323] 39. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090] 40. Tackle, David. 1961. Silvics of lodgepole pine. Misc. Publ. 19. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. [8287] 41. Taylor, R. F. 1932. The successional trend and its relation to second-growth forests in southeastern Alaska. Ecology. 13(4): 381-391. [10007] 42. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. [n.d.]. Preliminary forest plant associations of the Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest. R10-TP-72. Portland, OR. 126 p. [19016] 43. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names. SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573] 44. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States, their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240] 45. Ver Hoef, Jay M.; Neiland, Bonita J.; Glenn-Lewin, David C. 1988. Vegetation gradient analysis of two sites in southeast Alaska. Northwest Science. 62(4): 171-180. [19175] 46. Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T.; Batten, A. R.; Wenzlick, K. J. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 278 p. [2431] 47. Vitt, Dale H.; Horton, Diana G.; Slack, Nancy G.; Malmer, Nils. 1990. Sphagnum-dominated peatlands of the hyperoceanic British Columbia coast: patterns in surface water chemistry and vegetation. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 20: 696-711. [11739] 48. Vogl, Richard J.; Armstrong, Wayne P.; White, Keith L.; Cole, Kenneth L. 1977. The closed-cone pines and cypress. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 295-358. [7219] 49. Wheeler, Nicholas C.; Critchfield, William B. 1985. The distribution and botanical characteristics of lodgepole pine: biogeographical and management implications. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Krebill, Richard G.; Arnott, James T.; Weetman, Gordon F., compilers and editors. Lodgepole pine: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1984 May 8-10; Spokane, WA; 1984 May 14-16; Vancouver, BC. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 1-13. [9435] 50. Owens, John N.; Molder, Marje. 1975. Development of long-shoot terminal buds of Pinus contorta spp. contorta. In: Baumgartner, David M., ed. Management of lodgepole pine ecosystems: Symposium proceedings; 1973 October 9-11; Pullman, WA. Vol. 1. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Service: 86-104. [7822]


FEIS Home Page