Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Pinus echinata


SPECIES: Pinus echinata
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Carey, Jennifer H. 1992. Pinus echinata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: [].

ABBREVIATION : PINECH SYNONYMS : NO-ENTRY SCS PLANT CODE : PIEC2 COMMON NAMES : shortleaf pine shortleaf yellow pine southern yellow pine yellow pine shortstraw pine Arkansas soft pine old field pine TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name of shortleaf pine is Pinus echinata Mill. [24]. There are no recognized varieties or subspecies. Shortleaf pine hybridizes with loblolly pine (P. taeda), pitch pine (P. rigida), pond pine (P. serotina), and spruce pine (P. glabra) [24,25]. LIFE FORM : Tree FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY


SPECIES: Pinus echinata
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Shortleaf pine has the widest geographic range of any pine in the southeastern United States [24]. It grows in the Atlantic Coast States from southeastern New York to northern Florida; throughout the Gulf States; and inland to western Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, southern Illinois, southern Missouri, eastern Oklahoma, and eastern Texas [24,25]. Arkansas contains more shortleaf pine than any other state [37]. ECOSYSTEMS : FRES10 White - red - jack pine FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine FRES14 Oak - pine FRES15 Oak - hickory STATES : AL AR DE FL GA HI IL KY LA MD MS MO NJ NY NC OH OK PA SC TN TX VA WV BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : NO-ENTRY KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : K100 Oak - hickory forest K104 Appalachian oak forest K110 Northeastern oak - pine forest K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest K112 Southern mixed forest SAF COVER TYPES : 21 Eastern white pine 40 Post oak - blackjack oak 43 Bear oak 44 Chestnut oak 45 Pitch pine 46 Eastern redcedar 51 White pine - chestnut oak 52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak 57 Yellow-poplar 70 Longleaf pine 75 Shortleaf pine 76 Shortleaf pine - oak 78 Virginia pine - oak 79 Virginia pine 80 Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine 81 Loblolly pine 82 Loblolly pine - hardwood 110 Black oak SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Shortleaf pine is dominant in several seral communities. The published classifications listing shortleaf pine as a dominant species in community types (cts) are presented below: Area Classification Authority se US gen. forest cts Waggoner 1975 se US gen. forest cts Sheffield and others 1989


SPECIES: Pinus echinata
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : Shortleaf pine, an important commercial species, ranks second to loblolly pine in total softwood volume harvested in the southeastern United States [6,37]. After 36 years, an even-aged stand yields 5,000 to 6,000 total merchantable cubic feet per acre (350-415 cubic m/ha) [1]. The strong wood is used for lumber, plywood, structural material, and pulpwood [24]. IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Shortleaf pine seeds are an important food source for birds and small mammals [24]. Deer browse on seedlings. Stands of seedlings and saplings provide cover for bobwhite quail and wild turkey [24,42]. Old-growth shortleaf pine provides habitat for cavity dwellers [10]. PALATABILITY : NO-ENTRY NUTRITIONAL VALUE : NO-ENTRY COVER VALUE : The federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker lives in old-growth shortleaf pine with decayed heartwood [10]. VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : Because of its adaptability, shortleaf pine has potential for rehabilitating eroded areas and mine sites [24]. For best success, mine sites should have a pH between 4.5 and 6.5 and be below 2,500 feet (762 m). Shortleaf pine does best on mine sites when planted as a pure stand or mixed with other pines. It also grows well with European alder (Alnus glutinosa) [39]. OTHER USES AND VALUES : Shortleaf pine is used as an ornamental [24]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Shortleaf pine is usually managed in even-aged stands with clearcutting followed by artificial regeneration. Natural regeneration can be used, but seedbed preparation is recommended. Seed tree silviculture requires 11 square feet basal area per acre (2.5 m sq/ha) of shortleaf pine seed trees. A shelterwood system requires 20 to 30 square feet of basal area per acre (4.6-6.9 m sq/ha) of shortleaf pine [1]. Seedbed preparation should be done early to benefit from the high viability of early released seeds [42]. Uneven-aged management requires frequent harvest of single trees and seedling establishment once every 10 years [1,24]. Shortleaf pine seedlings will establish if overstory is reduced to 45 to 60 square feet basal area per acre (10.3-13.8 m sq/ha) [1]. Control of competing understory is generally considered necessary for maintenance of shortleaf pine stands [17,37]. Hardwoods suppress shade-intolerant seedlings and saplings, and a thick litter discourages seedling establishment. However, hardwoods also prevent soil moisture loss and discourage competing herbaceous vegetation. Cain [8] suggests that the coexistence of hardwoods with shortleaf pine may be an antagonistic symbiosis. Yocum and Lawson [47] found that intensive hardwood control on southern exposures actually decreased the rate of establishment of shortleaf pine seedlings. Control of dense understory can increase the growth rate of shortleaf pine [17,29]. Lloyd and others [29] reported a 17 percent increase in 2-year shortleaf pine diameter growth after a spring felling of competing hardwoods and a 22 percent increase in diameter growth after a winter felling followed by an herbicide treatment. Cain [7] reported that control of herbaceous vegetation resulted in increases in pine growth, while control of hardwoods had little effect. After 5 years, pines on herbaceous control plots averaged more than 4 feet taller than pines on untreated plots or woody control plots. However, even on the untreated plots, pines exceeded the herbaceous and woody competitors by 6 feet. Cain [7] concluded that control of hardwood competition is not necessary if pines, hardwoods, and herbaceous species establish on a site at the same time. The relatively fast-growing shortleaf pine seedlings dominate over hardwoods in 5 to 7 years [8]. Loblolly pine outperforms shortleaf pine in loblolly's natural range because it grows faster as a juvenile. If planted together, however, shortleaf pine can survive and attain a codominant crown position in mature even-aged stands [6]. Littleleaf disease, the most serious disease afflicting shortleaf pine, affects 30 to 50 year-old trees and causes needles to turn yellow and fall off. Littleleaf disease is a recent phenomenon and occurs only where shortleaf pine has colonized severely eroded agricultural land. The disease is caused by a combination of factors: low soil nutrients, poor internal drainage, and the presence of Phytophthora cinnamomi, a soil fungus. The poor drainage allows the fungus, which attacks the feeder roots, to sporulate abundantly. Hardwoods should not be controlled where littleleaf disease is present because the soil needs to build up. Afflicted trees respond positively to large doses of nitrogen [33,42]. Mueller-Dombois and others [33] claim it is not a disease, but a dieback or decline phenomenon. Other common diseases are root rot and red heart rot. Seedlings are subject to damping off [24]. Nantucket pine tip moth (Rhyacionia frustrana) larvae bore into the shortleaf pine buds of young trees and kill the tips. Southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) attacks the bark of shortleaf pine and individuals usually die in less than 1 year [24,42]. Redheaded pine sawfly (Neodiprion lecontei), loblolly pine sawfly (N. taedae linearis), pine engraver beetle (Ips spp.), and black turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus terebrans) attack and damage shortleaf pine. The decline of old growth shortleaf pines has resulted in a decline in population of the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Death of old growth shortleaf pine is primarily from southern pine beetle. In order to minimize cavity tree mortality, site disturbances should be limited when southern pine beetle populations are elevated [10]. Acid rain is suspected of causing an abnormal decrease in growth of shortleaf pine in the past 25 years [19]. Ozone concentrations two and a half times the ambient ozone concentration cause decreased growth in shortleaf pine [36].


SPECIES: Pinus echinata
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Shortleaf pine is a medium-sized, native, evergreen conifer with relatively short needles and thin, flaky, black bark that becomes reddish brown with age [43]. Shortleaf pine attains a height of 100 feet (30 m) and a d.b.h. of 24 to 36 inches (61-91 cm). Individuals generally grow straight and have conical crowns. Shortleaf pine is capable of growing a deep taproot and is resistant to windthrow [24]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Phanerophyte (mesophanerophyte) REGENERATION PROCESSES : Seed production and dissemination: Shortleaf pine is monoecious. It begins producing seeds at 20 years of age. The cone yields 25 to 38 seeds. A good cone crop, 80,000 seeds per acre (200,000/ha), occurs every 3 to 10 years in the North and every 3 to 6 years in the South. Seeds are equipped with wings and are dispersed as far as 200 to 300 feet (61-91 m), although most fall close to the source tree [1,24]. Seedling development: Seeds on the ground are naturally stratified during the winter and epigeal germination takes place in the early spring [24]. The viability of seeds decreases as the period of seed fall progresses [42]. Exposed mineral soil aids seedling establishment [20,24]. The seedling stem grows slowly the first 2 years while the root system develops. One to three-year-old open-grown seedlings and 3 to 9-year-old shade-grown seedlings fall over and remain semiprostrate for 1 to 2 years before resuming erect positions. A permanent crook develops at the cotyledon. The crook, at ground level, is later obscured by the thickening stem after a tree reaches 8 to 10 feet (2.4-3.0 m) in height [28,32,42]. If suppressed by competition, seedlings will have poorly developed crooks [28]. Vegetative reproduction: If the crown is damaged or killed, shortleaf pine up to 6-8 inches (15-20 cm) in d.b.h. sprouts vigorously from dormant axillary buds at the root crown and dormant buds at nodes in the bole [24,28,32,42]. Rooting habits: Shortleaf pine grows a large, massive taproot in deep soil with adequate drainage, but often does not in shallow soil where the subsoil is hard or clayey [18,24,42]. Roots have a low tolerance for poor soil aeration and high water table conditions [24,32]. Lateral roots grow near the surface with 56 to 64 percent of the roots in the top 6 inches (15 cm) of soil and 17 to 25 percent from 6 to 12 inches (15-30 cm) [2]. Seedlings grown in place are more likely to have a downward-oriented root system than planted seedlings [18]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Shortleaf pine is common in the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains, the upper and lower Piedmont, and on floodplains. It ranges in elevation from 10 to 3,000 feet (3-910 m), and usually grows on south- or west-facing slopes. Shortleaf pine commonly grows on old agricultural fields [24,42]. Shortleaf pine has great adaptability, but grows best on moist, well-drained, deep, sandy or silty loam. Soils are typically Ultisols. Shortleaf pine does not grow well in soils with high pH, high calcium content, excessive internal drainage, or high organic content [24]. While shortleaf pine generally occurs with loblolly pine, shortleaf pine prevails on the drier, coarser, less acidic, and infertile sites [5,45]. Common overstory associates include scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), southern red oak (Q. falcata), water oak (Q. nigra), willow oak (Q. Phellos), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Table Mountain pine (Pinus pungens), mockernut and pignut hickories (Carya tomentosa and C. glabra), winged elm (Ulmus alata), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), red maple (Acer rubrum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana) [24,40]. (Also see SAF cover types). Common understory woody species include mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), redbud (Cercis canadensis), and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Because of shortleaf pine's wide distribution, associated understory shrubs, vines, and herbaceous species are numerous [24]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Shortleaf pine is shade intolerant and is suppressed by hardwood competition. It commonly grows in even-aged stands [24]. Shortleaf pine, a pioneer species, invades old agricultural fields. Many shortleaf pine stands became established after the Civil War when fields were abandoned [40]. Shortleaf pine invasion of oldfields begins within 5 years of abandonment, and a closed-canopy stand is formed after 10 to 15 years. A 40-year-old shortleaf pine stand may have a considerable hardwood understory. In the absence of fire, hardwoods attain dominance [2,3,5,14,42]. After 150 to 200 years, only a few relict pines may remain [3]. In the New Jersey Pine Barrens, where fire frequency is less than 10 years, pitch pine and scrub oaks (Quercus spp.) supplant shortleaf pine [26]. In Alabama, shortleaf pine will succeed longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) in the absence of fire [41]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : Shortleaf pine flowers in late March in the South and in late April in the North. Cones mature in the late summer or early fall of the second growing season [21,24]. Seed dispersal begins in late October or early November, and generally coincides with a cold front bringing low temperatures, low humidity, and high winds [42]. Seventy percent of the seeds fall in 1 month and 90 percent within 2 months [24].


SPECIES: Pinus echinata
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Shortleaf pine is classified as fire-resistant [4]. It is more tolerant than loblolly pine [45] and less tolerant than pitch pine [16]. It has a low susceptibility to crown fire because of its moderately high and open crown and moderately open stand structure. It is able to endure some fire defoliation [4] but is not able to survive frequent or severe fires [28]. Shortleaf pine has medium-thick bark which protects the tree and the dormant buds within the bole and at the base. Shortleaf pines up to about 30 years of age will sprout from dormant basal buds if the crown is top-killed [28,31]. Shortleaf pine regenerates well after fire since exposed mineral soil and lack of competition facilitate seedling establishment. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : crown-stored residual colonizer; short-viability seed in on-site cones off-site colonizer; seed carried by wind; postfire years one and two survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex


SPECIES: Pinus echinata
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Mature shortleaf pine is killed by high-severity crown fires, but withstands low- to moderate-severity surface fires [9,23]. Shortleaf pine is most susceptible to fire in the first 6 to 10 years after establishment [1]. Seedlings up to 5 feet (1.5 m) tall are usually top-killed, and saplings often suffer bark char, needle scorch, or needle consumption [23]. Seeds in the duff will be killed by fire [42]. Shortleaf pine mortality from fire is dependent on the degree of crown scorch, basal damage, and season of fire. After a summer fire, there was 60 percent mortality of shortleaf pines of any size that had complete crown scorch combined with extensive basal damage. After a winter fire, less than 50 percent died from similar injuries. If basal damage was not extensive but crown scorch complete, there was 30 percent mortality from the summer fire [12]. Trees greater than 5 feet (1.5 m) tall seldom die if less than 70 percent of the crown is scorched [42]. Because of thick bark, basal injury is not common. In areas with frequent fire, only 11 percent of shortleaf pine showed basal injury [14]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Sprouting: Seedlings and saplings top-killed by fire will sprout from dormant buds at the root collar. Sprouting is not as consistent in trees larger than 8 feet (2.4 m) tall [14]. There are usually 4 to 8 new sprouts per tree, but as many as 70 sprouts where fires are frequent [42]. The sprouts grow 1 to 2 feet (30-61 cm) in the first year. Multiple sprouts act as a firebreak for the central leader. When the leaders are 3 to 4 feet (1-1.2 m) tall they can survive defoliation by fire as long as the terminal leaders are not charred. Many of the sprouts die back when the leader is no longer affected by fire [20]. A well-developed basal stem crook protects dormant buds in seedlings. In a study in which 100 shade-grown 1-year-old shortleaf pine seedlings were subject to a prescribed fire, 33 percent with no basal crook sprouted, 39 percent with a slight basal crook sprouted, 81 percent with a well-developed basal crook sprouted, and 93 percent with a very well-developed basal crook sprouted [28]. Garren [14] found 56 percent of shortleaf seedlings survive by sprouting. Growth: Crown scorch usually results in growth losses in young trees. Diameter growth rate of shortleaf pine decreased as much as 75 percent after one fire [14]. In older trees, there is no growth loss if there is little or no needle scorch [23]. Trees 4 to 10 inches (10-25 cm) d.b.h. continue to grow at normal rates after severe groundfire, even if the crowns are scorched [20]. Yocum [46] found light to moderate summer fires had no effect on the growth of 60-year-old shortleaf pines in Arkansas. If trees are not damaged and hardwood and herbaceous competition is eliminated, pine growth will inrcease. Reproduction: Seeds released from on- and off-site sources will germinate in the soil exposed by fire. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : NO-ENTRY FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Fire is important to shortleaf pine management. Fire effectively prepares the necessary seedbed for shortleaf pine regeneration and can be used to control competing hardwoods [42]. Fire may not be beneficial, however, in areas where competing hardwoods sprout vigorously after fire. A controlled fire on the Cumberland Plateau in Kentucky resulted in a greater number of hardwood stems and made regeneration of shortleaf pine almost impossible [44]. Ferguson [13] concluded that an ideal fire in which hardwoods are killed and pines are not killed may be unattainable. In some areas, fire has been effective in controlling hardwoods. In the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas, 3 consecutive years of summer fires reduced the number of 5.5 inch (14 cm) d.b.h. and smaller hardwood stems [46]. In upland New Jersey and in the Piedmont, light fires at 5-year intervals are recommended as soon as the young pines are able to withstand fire [9,27]. In the Piedmont, however, understory vegetation and litter are often too moist to carry fire [9]. In eastern Texas, a headfire during the growing season with a followup fire to control the hardwood sprouts resulted in at least temporary control of hardwood stems less than 1.5 inches (4 cm) d.b.h. and negligible mortality of greater than 4 inch (10 cm) d.b.h. shortleaf pines [13]. If fire occurs 5 years after establishment, shortleaf pine will have an edge over loblolly pine because of shortleaf pine's ability to sprout. Loblolly will overtake shortleaf, however, if fire intervals are 10 years or more [45]. Shortleaf pine sprouts that start from seedlings or saplings have good form and can produce commercial timber [28]. In a mixed hardwood-pine forest, fire more frequent than every 10 years can eliminate or decrease shortleaf pine [14]. Fire-damaged trees are more susceptible to insect infestation [24]. Southern pine beetle attack on shortleaf pine is aided or induced by fire [4]. Fire should not be prescribed in shortleaf pine stands that are habitat for the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker if southern pine beetles are present. A stand infected with littleleaf disease should not be burned because fire will destroy the organic material necessary for soil build-up [42].


SPECIES: Pinus echinata
REFERENCES : 1. Baker, James B. [n.d.]. Alternative silvicultural systems -- south. In: Silvicultural challenges and opportunities in the 1990's: Proceedings of the National Silvicultural Workshop; 1989 July 10-13; Petersburg, AK. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Timber Management: 51-60. [15024] 2. Billings, W. D. 1938. The structure and development of old field shortleaf pine stands and certain associated physical properties of the soil. Ecological Monographs. 8(3): 437-499. [10701] 3. Bormann, F. H. 1953. Factors determining the role of lolblolly pine and sweetgum in early old-field succession in the Piedmont of North Carolina. Ecological Monographs. 23: 339-358. [17289] 4. Brown, Arthur A.; Davis, Kenneth P. 1973. Forest fire control and use. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 686 p. [15993] 5. Burns, Russell M.; Barber, John C. 1989. Silviculture of southern pines. In: Burns, Russell M., compiler. The scientific basis for silvicultural and management decisions in the National Forest System. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-55. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 31-39. [10244] 6. Cain, M. D. 1990. Incidental observations on the growth and survival of loblolly and shortleaf pines in an even-aged natural stand. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(2): 81-84. [11575] 7. Cain, M. D. 1991. The influence of woody and herbaceous competition on early growth of naturally regenerated loblolly and shortleaf pines. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 15(4): 179-185. [17531] 8. Cain, Michael D. 1991. Hardwoods on pine sites: competition or antagonistic symbiosis. Forest Ecology and Management. 44: 147-160. [16957] 9. Christensen, Norman L. 1981. Fire regimes in southeastern ecosystems. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 112-136. [4391] 10. Conner, Richard N.; Rudolph, D. Craig; Kulhavy, David L.; Snow, Ann E. 1991. Causes of mortality of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55(3): 531-537. [16319] 11. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 12. Ferguson, Edwin R. 1955. Fire-scorched trees - will they live or die?. In: Modern forest fire management in the south: Proceedings, 4th annual forestry symposium; 1955 April 6-7; Baton Rouge, LA. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, General Extension Division, School of Forestry: 102-113. [11592] 13. Ferguson, E. R. 1957. Stem-kill and sprouting following prescribed fires in a pine-hardwood stand in Texas. Journal of Forestry. 55: 426-429. [13827] 14. Garren, Kenneth H. 1943. Effects of fire on vegetation of the southeastern United States. Botanical Review. 9: 617-654. [9517] 15. 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] 16. Givnish, Thomas J. 1981. Serotiny, geography, and fire in the pine barrens of New Jersey. Evolution. 35(1): 101-123. [8634] 17. Grano, Charles X. 1970. Small hardwoods reduce growth of pine overstory. Res. Pap. SO-55. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 9 p. [15418] 18. Harrington, Constance A.; Brissette, John C.; Carlson, William C. 1989. Root system structure in planted and seeded loblolly and shortlife pine. Forest Science. 35(2): 469-480. [10147] 19. Johnson, A. H.; Siccama, T. G.; Wang, D.; [and others]. 1981. Recent changes in patterns of tree growth rate in the New Jersey pinelands: a possible effect of acid rain. Journal of Environmental Quality. 10(4): 427-430. [8633] 20. Komarek, E. V. 1982. Economic and environmental evaluation of prescribed burning and alternatives. Report on Contract No. 53-43ZP-1-00839. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 192 p. [12337] 21. 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] 22. 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] 23. Langdon, O. Gordon. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on timber species in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. In: Prescribed burning symposium: Proceedings; 1971 April 14-16; Charleston, SC. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 34-44. [10420] 24. Lawson, Edwin R. 1990. Pinus echinata Mill. shortleaf 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: 316-326. [13394] 25. 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] 26. Little, S. 1946. The effects of forest fires on the stand history of New Jersey's Pine Region. Forest Management Paper No. 2. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 43 p. [11619] 27. Little, S.; Moore, E. B. 1949. The ecological role of prescribed burns in the pine-oak forests of southern New Jersey. Ecology. 30(2): 223-233. [11107] 28. Little, S.; Somes, H. A. 1956. Buds enable pinch and shortleaf pines to recover from injury. Station Paper No. 81. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 14 p. [11616] 29. Loyd, F. Thomas; White, David L.; Abercrombie, James A., Jr.; Waldrop, Thomas A. 1991. Releasing four-year-old pines in mixed shortleaf-hardwood stands. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G., comps., eds. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN. Vol. 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 852-857. [17731] 30. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496] 31. McCune, Bruce. 1988. Ecological diversity in North American pines. American Journal of Botany. 75(3): 353-368. [5651] 32. McQuilkin, William Everett. 1935. Root development of pitch pine, with some comparative observations on shortleaf pine. Journal of Agricultural Research. 51(11): 983-1016. [10413] 33. Mueller-Dombois, Dieter; Canfield, Joan E.; Holt, R. Alan; Buelow, Gary P. 1983. Tree-group death in North American and Hawaiian forests: a pathological problem or a new problem for vegetative ecology?. Phytocoenologia. 11(1): 117-137. [7852] 34. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 35. Sheffield, Raymond M.; Birch, Thomas W.; Leatherberry, Earl C.; McWilliams, William H. 1989. The pine-hardwood resource in the eastern United States. In: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. Proceedings of pine-hardwood mixtures: a symposium on management and ecology of the type; 1989 April 18-19; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-58. Asheville, SC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 9-19. [10252] 36. Shelburne, Victor B.; Reardon, John C.; Paynter, Valerie A. 1991. The effect of acid rain and ozone exposure on growth parameters of shortleaf pine. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G., comps., eds. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN. Vol. 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 323-331. [17732] 37. Shelton, Michael G.; Murphy, Paul A. 1991. Age and size structure of a shortleaf pine-oak stand in the Ouachita Mountains--implications for uneven aged management. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G., compilers. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural research conference: Volume 2; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 616-629. [17505] 38. 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] 39. Vogel, Willis G. 1981. A guide for revegetating coal minespoils in the eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-68. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 190 p. [15577] 40. Waggoner, Gary S. 1975. Eastern deciduous forest, Vol. 1: Southeastern evergreen and oak-pine region. Natural History Theme Studies No. 1, NPS 135. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 206 p. [16103] 41. Walker, Laurence C. 1991. The southern forest: A chronicle. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 322 p. [17597] 42. Walker, Laurence C.; Wiant, Harry V., Jr. 1966. Silviculture of shortleaf pine. Bull. No. 9. Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State College, School of Forestry. 59 p. [14569] 43. Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 347 p. [15400] 44. Williamson, Malcolm J. 1964. Burning does not control young hardwoods on shortleaf pine sites in the Cumberland Plateau. Res. Note CS-19. Columbus, OH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station. 4 p. [10999] 45. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620] 46. Yocom, Herbert A. 1972. Burning to reduce understory hardwoods in the Arkansas Mountains. Res. Note SO-145. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 3 p. [11847] 47. Yocom, Herbert A.; Lawson, Edwin R. 1977. Tree percent from naturally regenerated shortleaf pine. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 1(2): 10-11. [10643]

FEIS Home Page