SPECIES: Pinus flexilis
Printer-friendly version


INTRODUCTORY


  Limber pine at St Mary's Lake, Glacier National Park. Photo by Charles Webber © California Academy of Sciences.

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Johnson, Kathleen A. 2001. Pinus flexilis. 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:
PINFLE

SYNONYMS:
No entry

NRCS PLANT CODE [115]:
PIFL2

COMMON NAMES:
limber pine
Rocky Mountain white pine

TAXONOMY:
The currently accepted scientific name of limber pine is Pinus flexilis James (Pinaceae). It is placed in subgenus Strobus, subsection Strobi of Pinus [2,21,30,43,44,52,104]. 

LIFE FORM:
Tree

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
No entry


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Pinus flexilis
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Limber pine occurs from Alberta and British Columbia south to California, Arizona, and New Mexico. It is scattered widely across the Great Basin in Utah, Nevada, and into Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. Isolated populations occur in the Dakotas [65,69,86,104,106] and Nebraska [30,109]. The U.S. Geological Survey provides a distributional map of limber pine. The Whitebark and Limber Pine Information System provides distributional information at the stand level.

ECOSYSTEMS [31]:
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper

STATES:
AZ CA CO ID MT NE NV
NM ND OR SD UT WY
AB BC

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [14]:
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands

KUCHLER [60] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K008 Lodgepole pine-subalpine forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce-fir forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce-fir forest
K022 Great Basin pine forest
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K033 Chaparral
K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K046 Desert: vegetation largely lacking

SAF COVER TYPES [28]:
206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir
208 Whitebark pine
209 Bristlecone pine
210 Interior Douglas-fir
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
219 Limber pine
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
237 Interior ponderosa pine
239 Pinyon-juniper
256 California mixed subalpine

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [99]:
109 Ponderosa pine shrubland
209 Montane shrubland
210 Bitterbrush
402 Mountain big sagebrush
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
413 Gambel oak
415 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Plant community associates of limber pine are described below by state.

California: In the Sierran subalpine, limber pine grows in association with Sierra lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana), bush chinquapin (Chrysolepis sempervirens), greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), and whitethorn ceanothus (Ceanothus cordulatus) [81]. In montane areas of southern California, limber pine is reported with white fir (Abies concolor), Jeffrey pine (P. jeffreyi), singleleaf pinyon (P. monophylla), Sierra lodgepole pine, whitebark pine (P. albicaulis), foxtail pine (P. balfouriana), Great Basin bristlecone pine (P. longaeva), western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis), curlleaf mountain-mahogany, and big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) [68,108].

Colorado: Tree associates include interior ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa var. scopulorum), Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (P. c. var. latifolia), subalpine fir (A. lasiocarpa), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca), white fir, whitebark pine, Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine (P. aristata), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Associated understory species include bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), common juniper (J. communis), big sagebrush, purple pinegrass (Calamagrostis purpurascens), spike fescue (Leucopoa kingii), and Thurber fescue (Festuca thurberi) [27,38,42,49,87,100].

Idaho: In Craters of the Moon National Monument, limber pine is commonly associated with antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), and mountain big sagebrush (A. t. var. vaseyana). Associated grasses include Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), and Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) [12,23]. In the mountains of east-central Idaho, limber pine grows in association with Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and whitebark pine [17].

Montana: Associated tree and shrub species include Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, whitebark pine, subalpine fir, quaking aspen, common juniper, creeping juniper (J. horizontalis), and Rocky Mountain juniper (J. scopulorum). Associated shrubs include snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii), and russet buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis). Associated grasses include Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), rough rescue (F. altaica), and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) [5,55,83,85,91,107].

New Mexico: In the Sandia Mountains limber pine occurs with Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, white fir, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, and corkbark fir (A. l. var. arizonica) [7]. It co-occurs with southwestern white pine (P. strobiformis) in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains [116].

Nevada and Utah: Limber pine commonly occurs in association with Rocky Mountain bristlecone, interior ponderosa (P. ponderosa var. scopulorum), Rocky Mountain lodgepole, whitebark, Jeffrey, and singleleaf pinyon pines. It also occurs with Engelmann spruce, white fir, subalpine fir, quaking aspen, common juniper, and Utah juniper (J. osteosperma). Associated shrubs include Rocky mountain maple (Acer glabrum), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), and multiple species of sagebrush, mountain-mahogany, ceanothus, currant (Ribes spp.), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), and snowberry [9,37,82,114].

Oregon: In the Wallowa Mountains of eastern Oregon limber pine commonly occurs with Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain juniper. Herbaceous associates include western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), sagebrush fleabane (Erigeron austiniae), and silverleaf phacelia (Phacelia hastata) [19].

South Dakota: A population of limber pine in the Black Hills is associated with interior ponderosa pine and white spruce (Picea glauca). Understory species include bearberry and common juniper [50].

Wyoming: Associated species reported for northwestern Wyoming include Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, whitebark pine, Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, Rocky Mountain juniper, and common juniper [13,24,70].

Published classifications that include limber pine as an indicator or dominant species are presented below:

Arizona [67,79]
California [51,92]
Colorado [8,20,25,42,49,57]
Idaho [102,103]
Montana [85,91]
North Dakota [32]
New Mexico [20,25,67,79]
Utah [41,73,127]
Wyoming [1,102,124]


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Pinus flexilis
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE:
The wood of limber pine has little commercial value. Its potential for timber and fuelwood production is low, because the trees are slow growing with irregular form [1,2,20,42,49,85,96,101]. Limber pine has been used locally for mine props and railroad ties [102].

IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
The large, wingless seeds of limber pine have high energy content. Pine "nuts" provide critical food for rodents and birds, which cache the seeds for later use. Other small mammals and birds benefit from these caches. Bears also feed from caches [62,66]. Sites with limber pine provide key winter range for deer and elk [85]. Bighorn sheep use open stands on ridges. Difficult access and low grass production result in low forage value of limber pine stands for livestock [1,42].

PALATABILITY:
Although limber pine browse is unpalatable to large mammals, it provides some food for birds and small mammals. The palatability of limber pine for livestock and wildlife has been rated as follows [26]:

                      CO      MT      ND      UT      WY
Cattle               Poor    Poor    Poor    Poor    Poor
Domestic sheep       Poor    Poor    Poor    Poor    Poor
Horses               Poor    Poor    Poor    Poor    Poor
Pronghorn            ----    ----    Poor    Poor    Poor
Elk                  Poor    Poor    ----    Poor    Fair
Mule deer            Poor    Poor    Poor    Poor    Fair
White-tailed deer    ----    ----    Poor    ----    Fair
Small mammals        ----    ----    ----    Good    Good
Small nongame birds  ----    ----    Poor    Good    Good
Upland game birds    ----    ----    ----    Good    Good
Waterfowl            ----    ----    ----    ----    Poor

NUTRITIONAL VALUE:
Limber pine browse is rated fair in energy value and poor in protein value [26]. The seeds are highly nutritious, providing amino acids, lipids, and averaging 7,178 calories per gram [64].

COVER VALUE:
The degree to which limber pine provides cover for wildlife species is as follows [26]:

                     CO       MT      ND      UT      WY
Pronghorn           ----     ----    Poor    Poor    Fair
Elk                 ----     ----    ----    Good    ----
Mule deer           ----     ----    ----    Good    ----
White-tailed deer   ----     ----    Good    ----    Good
Small mammals       Good     ----    ----    Good    Good
Small nongame birds Good     ----    Good    Good    Good
Upland game birds   ----     Good    ----    Good    Good
Waterfowl           ----     ----    ----    ----    Poor

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Because of its slow growth, limber pine has been used only to a limited extent in land reclamation projects [120]. Vegetation recovery is slow on the exposed, hot, dry, rocky sites where it is found, and soil erosion can prevent complete restoration. However, limber pine's drought tolerance and ability to survive at high elevations indicate that it has potential for use in revegetation projects [104].

Grossnickle and Reid [33] tested the feasibility of including limber pine seedlings in the reclamation of a high-elevation mining site in Colorado. The site was a molybdenum tailing pond buried in deep mine waste rock. One-year-old containerized limber pine, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce seedlings were inoculated with 3 species of ectomycorrhizal fungi prior to outplanting. Because of greenhouse colonization of seedling roots by a 4th "wild" strain of ectomycorrhizal fungus, no uncolonized seedlings were outplanted. Some of the seedlings were also treated in the field with fertilizer or sewage sludge combined with wood chips. All seedlings were protected from wind and sun with cedar shingles. During the 4th growing season, significant (p = 0.05) differences in seedling height among the fungal treatments were detected. The addition of the sewage sludge/wood chip slurry improved seedling height of all 3 species in 1 of the fungal treatments. At the end of the 4th growing season, overall survival of limber pine, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce seedlings was 60%, 52% and 62%, respectively. The authors noted that in all instances, seedling mortality appeared to be caused by unfavorable soil and climatic conditions and not by pathogen, insect, or animal damage.

Limber pine cones may yield 1,100 to 1,300 cleaned seeds per pound, and stored seed has been shown viable for at least 5 years. Freshly collected seeds may germinate without pretreatment, but cold, moist stratification of up to 90 days improves germination [59].

OTHER USES AND VALUES:
Limber pine is used in the nursery trade for landscaping [35,36,40].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Management of limber pine forests associated with Douglas-fir typically favors the growth of the economically important Douglas-fir. Of primary management importance in these areas is watershed protection and enhancement. The slow rate of vegetation recovery in areas where limber pine occurs requires dispersed, low-impact recreation to maintain the aesthetic appeal of these forests [25]. Forage productivity can be increased by periodic surface fires [29].

Limber pine trees are infected and killed by white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) throughout the tree's range. Ribes species are obligate alternate hosts of the rust [46,47,48,76,116]. Limber pine appears to have less resistance to blister rust than other North American white pines (Strobi), with greenhouse infection levels as high as 98 to 100% [45,113]. In a 3-year greenhouse study of relative seedling susceptibility to blister rust, limber pine mortality was 75% (n=348). In comparison, mortality in whitebark pine was 33% (n=207) and 86% in southwestern white pine (n=323) [45].

Limber pine is susceptible to numerous other fungal diseases [101]. It can be heavily infected or killed by limber pine dwarf-mistletoe (Arceuthobium cyanocarpum) [12,39,71,72], and is susceptible to infestation by mountain pine beetles, cone beetles, coneworms, and budworms [54,61,101].

The Whitebark and Limber Pine Information System provides a database for storing and analyzing data on site characteristics, stand structure, regeneration, and mortality and infection rates from white pine blister rust and other damaging agents.


BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Pinus flexilis
© 2010 Lee Dittman
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Limber pine is a slow growing, long-lived species, sometimes taking several hundred years to reach maturity [26,75]. Mature trees may exceed 1000 years of age [53,96,127]. Limber pine stands are broadly even-aged [89], though populations also occur in uneven-aged stands and on very harsh sites as widely spaced, isolated individuals [96,102,112]. Trees often have an irregular or multi-stem growth form, and rarely reach over 50 feet (15 m) [11,120,127]. At high elevations they sometimes form krummholz [11,127]. Trunks may reach 6.5 feet (2 m) in diameter [41]. The species is cold and drought tolerant. Trees are ectomycorrhizal, have deep taproots, and are very windfirm [33,120].

Cones of limber pine are cylindrical, 3 to 6 inches (8-15 cm) long. They release their seeds if not preyed upon (see Regeneration Processes). The seeds are large (7-12 mm long) and sometimes have a vestigial wing [21,63,74].

RAUNKIAER [88] LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Limber pine reproduces entirely from seed; it does not layer lower branches in the soil [22,122]. Seeds are not effectively dispersed by wind. Small mammals and birds, especially Clark's nutcrackers and pinyon jays, disperse limber pine seeds [63,64,66,110,125]. The minimum seed-bearing age of limber pine ranges from 20 to 40 years. There are 2 to 4 years between large seed crops [58,59,101]. Seeds from krummholz trees have low germination potential [66]. 

Clark's nutcrackers have co-adapted an important mutualism with limber pine and are the primary harvester and disperser of its seeds. Limber pine regeneration on burns is largely from germinants of Clark's nutcrackers seed caches [63,64,66,110,125]. The birds begin harvesting seeds in late August, while the cones are still green and slightly closed. They remove the cones by pecking them loose, fly them to perches, and peck between the scales to remove the seeds. As cones begin to open on the trees in September, Clark's nutcrackers remove exposed seeds. An individual bird can store as many as 125 seeds in its sublingual pouch, then flies to a cache area and deposits numerous caches from its pouchful of seeds. In a burned-over area in northern Utah, Clark's nutcrackers cached an estimated 12,140 seeds per acre (30,000/ha) in 1 year [62,101,112]. 

Mating system: Limber pine seed dispersal by corvids leads to a genetic population structure different from that of wind-dispersed conifers with respect to patterns of gene flow and genetic relationships among neighboring trees. The seed caching by birds influences the distribution, population age structure, and spacing of limber pine. Clusters of seedlings germinating from a single cache may generate multi-stemmed growth forms that contain 2 or more distinct genotypes. A consequence of this growth form is a tendency toward clumped stand structure. Because seeds within an individual cache were often collected from a single parent tree, trees within clumps may be more closely related compared to trees from neighboring clumps [64,110,113], although multi-stemmed growth is most often a result of apical meristem damage that results in several leaders on an individual tree [123]. Tomback and Linhart [112] found that on 361 limber pine sites in Colorado, 30% showed clumping. Several genetic studies have shown that from 0 to 82% of  individuals within limber pine clumps are closely related [101,117,123]. On the Pawnee National Grassland, clump members were related, on average, as nearly half-sibs. Genetic consequences of this kinship include possible inbreeding. On the plus side, closely related trees within clumps often form roots grafts, which may increase survivorship and fitness of the entire clump [123].

Pollen phenology also influences gene flow. In Colorado, most sites that differ in elevation by more than 1,300 feet (400 m) in elevation do not have overlapping pollination periods, restricting pollination between populations that are widely separated by elevation; however, pollen transfer between intermediate populations and a high level of gene flow via bird-dispersed seeds appear to maintain interpopulation gene flow [97].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Limber pine grows across a wider range of elevations that any other tree species in the central Rocky Mountains [94], inhabiting some of the driest sites capable of supporting trees [11,85,102,111]. In many high-elevation sites it occupies or forms the upper treeline [30,69,83,94,122], but in northern parts of its range it is found at low elevations along plains grassland edges [22,94,96]. It typically occurs on steep, rocky, well-drained, windswept, and nutrient-poor sites on exposed ridges and summits [1,10,11,32,42]. Limber pine is often reported growing on calcareous soil [11,19,85]. It is also reported on soils derived from many other types of parent material [12,17,23,42,68,101].

Ground cover and litter accumulation in limber pine stands are often sparse, accumulating only under individual trees [11,127]. Severe sheet erosion of fine particles often occurs from summer convection storms over sparsely vegetated sites. Snowpack accumulations on limber pine sites may be light as a result of high insolation and winter winds [127].

Site preference often separates limber pine and whitebark pine, which is ecologically similar in many respects [112]. Limber pine has a wider geographical distribution and altitudinal range than whitebark pine. Relative to whitebark pine, limber pine occurs on warm, dry sites at low and middle elevations. Where their ranges overlap, the 2 species sometimes grow together on droughty soils. Occasionally, limber pine grows at higher elevations than whitebark pine. South of the range of whitebark pine in California, Colorado, Nevada, and southern Wyoming, the more drought-resistant limber pine replaces whitebark pine and may form the alpine treeline [74,112,121].

Elevations reported in the literature for limber pine are as follows:

7,500 to 11,000 feet (2,290-3,350 m) in California [80]
5,000 to 12,500 feet (1,500-3,800 m) in Colorado [27,42,49]
4,000 to 6,000 feet (1,200-1,800 m) in Montana [85,91]
6,500 to 11,500 feet (2,000-3,500 m) in Nevada [114]
5,000 to 7,000 feet (1,500-2,100 m) in Oregon [19]
6,000 to 11,600 feet (1,830-3,540 m) in Utah [123]

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
According to Tomback and Linhart [112] limber pine (and whitebark pine) "are pioneering species that are either seral or topoedaphic climax species under different environmental conditions. In fact, seed dispersal by Clark's nutcrackers to outlying sites, treeline, and other harsh environments essentially increases the ecological niche breadth (in the Hutchinsonian sense) of these species. Clark's nutcrackers can maintain climax communities, colonize previously unforested sites, or initiate succession."

The later stages of succession in xeric subalpine forests vary due to differences in sites and seed availability. In the Colorado subalpine, Rebertus and others [89] studied conifer population age structure and succession on 3 burns greater than 100 years old. The sequence of conifer colonization appeared to be consistent: 1st limber pine, then Engelmann spruce, and later subalpine fir, with a delay between the 1st limber pine and later subalpine fir of as long as 140 years. The authors suggested that the early advantage of limber pine was due to avian seed dispersal and exceptional drought tolerance in seedlings. Spatial analysis suggested that limber pine facilitated the establishment of the other 2 species by providing shade or wind protection. On the xeric to slightly xeric sites, limber pine formed broadly even-aged, non-regenerating populations that were gradually replaced by the spruce and fir. On the most extreme sites, limber pine formed all-aged, self-maintaining populations with no evidence of replacement by the other species. The authors note that in lower elevation stands along the Front Range, limber pine is successional to Douglas-fir. In the even lower Pawnee National Grasslands of Colorado, limber pine forms all-aged, self-replacing populations. "Hence, many successional pathways could be operating at different sites or stages in stand development."

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Limber pine cones ripen from August to September, and seeds are dispersed from September to October [26,44,58,59]. Cones open in the fall. Observed dates for phenological events of mature in limber pine east of the Continental Divide in Montana and Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, are given here [93]:

Shoots start: April 30 to June 6
Buds burst: April 30 to June 26
Pollen starts: June 20 to July 14
Pollen ends: July 4 to July 22
Shoots end: June 22 to August 5
Winter buds formed: June 11 to August 16
Cones full size: August 15 to August 16
Cones open (seed dispersal): August 23 to August 30

Also see Regeneration Processes regarding pollen phenology.


FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Pinus flexilis
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
The thin bark of young limber pine trees does not protect them from even low-severity fires. Because the bark at the base of older trees is often 2 inches (5 cm) thick, these trees can withstand stem scorch from low-severity fires. Terminal buds are somewhat protected from the heat associated with crown scorch by the tight clusters of needles around them [1,29,53,85,127].

Wildfires are less frequent in limber pine communities than in other conifer habitats because of limited productivity and fuel accumulation associated with poor soil development, short growing seasons, and late snowmelt [29,53,78,85,96,117,127]. Keeley and Zedler [53] categorized 38 pines within a series of 5 fire predictability regimes. They include limber pine among those pines growing in areas with very low site (and therefore fuel) productivity and unpredictable fire return intervals of up to 1000 years. Where enough biomass accumulates to carry fires, limber pine may be cached by Clark's nutcrackers and establish in burned sites previously dominated by other conifers [53,66].

Where limber pine grows in association with other trees, the fire regimes of those species are relevant. Fire regimes for some associated communities or ecosystems are listed here:
Community or Ecosystem Dominant Species Fire Return Interval Range (years)
sagebrush steppe Artemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata 20-70 [15]
mountain big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana 20-60 [5,16]
Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis 10-70 (40**) [119,126]
curlleaf mountain-mahogany* Cercocarpus ledifolius 13-1000 [6,95]
mountain-mahogany-Gambel oak scrub Cercocarpus ledifolius-Quercus gambelii < 35 to < 100 
western juniper Juniperus occidentalis 20-70 
Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum < 35 
Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir Picea engelmannii-Abies lasiocarpa 35 to > 200 
pinyon-juniper Pinus-Juniperus spp. < 35 
whitebark pine* Pinus albicaulis 50-200 [15]
Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine* Pinus contorta var. latifolia 25-300+ [3,90]
Sierra lodgepole pine* Pinus contorta var. murrayana 35-200
Jeffrey pine Pinus jeffreyi 5-30
Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine* Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum 2-10 
Arizona pine Pinus ponderosa var. arizonica 2-10 [15]
quaking aspen (west of the Great Plains) Populus tremuloides 7-120 [15,34,77]
mountain grasslands Pseudoroegneria spicata 3-40 (10)** [3]
Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir* Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca 25-100 
oak-juniper woodland (Southwest) Quercus-Juniperus spp. < 35 to < 200 [15]
*fire-return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the species summary
**mean

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [105]:
Initial offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer (on-site or off-site seed sources)


FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Pinus flexilis
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Limber pine is often killed by fire because of its relatively thin bark. Keeley and Zedler [53] argue that the lack of evolution of thick, fire-resistant bark in this species is a result of very long and unpredictable fire return intervals in the unproductive sites where it occurs. The degree of stem scorch usually determines the extent of fire injury to trees. Young trees are usually killed by any fire that scorches their stems. Mature trees with thicker bark can survive [29]. The vulnerability of this species to fire is reduced by the open stand structure, sparse fuels, and sparse undergrowth of limber pine communities [85,101].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
No entry

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Regeneration of limber pine end Engelmann spruce was assessed in a high-altitude area disturbed by fire in 1905. The south-facing sites were on Niwot Ridge in Colorado's Roosevelt National Forest. The uppermost elevation of the burn reached slightly below the tree limit at about 11,000 feet (3,355 m). Although limber pine regeneration at the uppermost elevation is less than at lower elevations, limber pine colonization at all elevations began shortly after the fire. The author found no evidence that treeline changed following the fire [98]. Postfire regeneration of limber pine is a consequence of seed dispersal and caching by Clark's nutcrackers [53,66].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
In 1976 spring prescribed burning was conducted in open-canopy limber pine stands in the Little Belt Mountains of central Montana at about 5,500 feet (1,675 m) [55]. Further general site descriptions appear in Keown 1982 [56]. Air temperatures ranged from 55 to 65 degrees Fahrenheit (13-18 oC). Relative humidity was 20% to 40%, and winds were calm to 25 miles per hour (40 km/h). Fuel moisture was 7%. The management objective was to improve understory browse and forage. Limber pine mortality at postfire year 1 was 20% in grassy stands and as high as 80% in shrubby stands [55].

The Research Project Summary Response of vegetation to prescribed burning in a Jeffrey pine-California black oak woodland and a deergrass meadow at Cuyamaca State Park, California, provides information on prescribed fire and postfire responses of many plant community species including limber pine.

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Fischer and Clayton [29] suggest that limber pine growing in open stands can be maintained by periodic fires that reduce the undergrowth. Where limber pine and Douglas-fir codominate, fire can be a thinning agent that slightly favors limber pine over Douglas-fir in the younger age classes.


Pinus flexilis: References


1. Alexander, Robert R.; Hoffman, George R.; Wirsing, John M. 1986. Forest vegetation of the Medicine Bow National Forest in southeastern Wyoming: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-271. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 39 p. [307]

2. Andresen, John W.; Steinhoff, Raphael J. 1971. The taxonomy of Pinus flexilis and P. strobiformis. Phytologia. 22(2): 57-70. [332]

3. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest fire history in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. [11990]

4. Arno, Stephen F. 2001. Community types and natural disturbance processes. In: Tomback, Diana F.; Arno, Stephen F.; Keane, Robert E., eds. Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press: 74-88. [36694]

5. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. [342]

6. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. [350]

7. Baisan, Christopher H.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1997. Interactions of fire regimes and land use in the central Rio Grande Valley. Research Paper RM-RP-330. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [27450]

8. Baker, William L. 1984. A preliminary classification of the natural vegetation of Colorado. The Great Basin Naturalist. 44(4): 647-676. [380]

9. Banner, Roger E. 1992. Vegetation types of Utah. Journal of Range Management. 14(2): 109-114. [20298]

10. Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. 1977. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1002 p. [388]

11. Barney, C. W. 1980. Limber pine. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 98-99. [22521]

12. Barrington, Mac; Bunting, Steve; Wright, Gerald. 1988. A fire management plan for Craters of the Moon National Monument. Cooperative Agreement CA-9000-8-0005. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Range Resources Department. 52 p. Draft. [1687]

13. Beetle, Alan A. 1961. Range survey in Teton County, Wyoming. Part 1. Ecology of range resources. Bull. 376. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station. 42 p. [417]

14. 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]

15. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GRT-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p. [36581]

16. Burkhardt, J. Wayne; Tisdale, E. W. 1969. Nature and successional status of western juniper vegetation in Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 22(4): 264-270. [564]

17. Butler, David R. 1986. Conifer invasion of subalpine meadows, central Lemhi Mountains, Idaho. Northwest Science. 60(3): 166-173. [571]

18. Cole, David N. 1981. Vegetational changes associated with recreational use and fire suppression in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon: some management implications. Biological Conservation. 20: 247-270. [18872]

19. Cole, David N. 1982. Vegetation of two drainages in Eagle Cap Wilderness, Wallowa Mountains, Oregon. Res. Pap. INT-288. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 42 p. [658]

20. Coxworth, E. C. M.; Bell, J. M.; Ashford, R. 1969. Preliminary evaluation of Russian thistle, Kochia, and garden atriplex as potential high protein content seed crops for semiarid areas. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 49: 427-434. [7]

21. Critchfield, William B. 1986. Hybridization and classification of the white pines (Pinus section Strobus). Taxon. 35(4): 647-656. [7858]

22. Daly, Christopher; Shankman, David. 1985. Seedling establishment by conifers above tree limit on Niwot Ridge, Front Range, Colorado, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 17(4): 389-400. [729]

23. Day, T. A.; Wright, R. G. 1989. Positive plant spatial association with Eriogonum ovalifolium in primary succession on cinder cones: seed-trapping nurse plants. Vegetatio. 80: 37-45. [9304]

24. Despain, Don G. 1973. Vegetation of the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming, in relation to substrate and climate. Ecological Monographs. 43(3): 329-355. [789]

25. DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A. 1983. Climax forest series of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel, Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on Southwestern habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 45-53. [779]

26. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]

27. Douglass, Margaret M.; Douglass, John R. 1955. The distribution and growth of the limber pine in Colorado. Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Science Journal. 4(7): 46- 47. [822]

28. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]

29. Fischer, William C.; Clayton, Bruce D. 1983. Fire ecology of Montana forest habitat types east of the Continental Divide. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-141. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 83 p. [923]

30. Flora of North America Association. (2000). Flora of North America north of Mexico. Volume 2: Pteridophytes and gymnosperms, [Online]. Available: http://hua.huh.harvard.edu/FNA/ [2001, March 27]. [36990]

31. 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]

32. Girard, Michele Marie. 1985. Native woodland ecology and habitat classification of southwestern North Dakota. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. 314 p. Dissertation. [1025]

33. Grossnickle, Steven C.; Reid, C. P. P. 1982. The use of ectomycorrhizal conifer seedlings in the revegetation of a high-elevation mine site. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 12(2): 354-361. [34712]

34. Gruell, G. E.; Loope, L. L. 1974. Relationships among aspen, fire, and ungulate browsing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 33 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. [3862]

35. Gundell, Herbert C. 1974. The limber pine. Horticulture. 52(12): 18-19. [34711]

36. Gutknecht, Kurt W. 1989. Xeriscaping: an alternative to thirsty landscapes. Utah Science. 50(4): 142-146. [10166]

37. Hanley, D. P.; Schmidt, W. C.; Blake, G. M. 1975. Stand structure and successional status of two spruce-fir forests in southern Utah. Res. Paper INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [8860]

38. Hansen-Bristow, Katherine J.; Ives, Jack D. 1984. Changes in the forest-alpine tundra ecotone: Colorado Front Range. Physical Geography. 5(2): 186-197. [3276]

39. 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]

40. Heit, C. E. 1973. Propagation from seed. Part 24. Testing and growing limber and Mexican border pines. American Nurseryman. 137: 8-9; 64-74. [20643]

41. Henderson, Jan A.; Mauk, Ronald L.; Anderson, Donald L.; [and others]. 1977. Preliminary forest habitat types of the Uinta Mountains, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Department of Forestry and Outdoor Recreation. 94 p. [1126]

42. Hess, Karl; Alexander, Robert R. 1986. Forest vegetation of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in central Colorado: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-266. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [1141]

43. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]

44. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 1: Vascular cryptograms, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 914 p. [1169]

45. Hoff, R. J.; McDonald, G. I. 1993. Variation of virulence of white pine blister rust. European Journal of Forest Pathology. 23: 103-109. [24199]

46. Hoff, R.; Bingham, R. T.; McDonald, G. I. 1980. Relative blister rust resistance of white pines. European Journal of Forest Pathology. 10(5): 307-316. [1177]

47. Hoff, Ray J. 1992. How to recognize blister rust infection on whitebark pine. Res. Note INT-406. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 7 p. [19509]

48. Hoff, Raymond J.; Ferguson, Dennis E.; McDonald, Geral I.; Keane, Robert E. 2001. Strategies for managing whitebark pine in the presence of white pine blister rust. In: Tomback, Diana F.; Arno, Stephen F.; Keane, Robert E., eds. Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press: 346-366. [36710]

49. Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1980. Forest vegetation of the Routt National Forest in northwestern Colorado: a habitat classification. Res. Pap. RM-221. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 41 p. [1179]

50. Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-276. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [1181]

51. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]

52. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume I--checklist. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 622 p. [23877]

53. Keeley, Jon E.; Zedler, Paul H. 1998. Evolution of life histories in Pinus. In: Richardson, D. M., ed. Ecology and biogeography of Pinus. Boston: Cambridge University Press: 219-250. [29471]

54. Kegley, Sandy. 1995. A study to determine the impact of cone and seed insects on whitebark pine. In: Mathiasen, Robert L., compiler. Proceedings, 43rd annual western international forest disease work conference; 1995 August 29-September 1; Whitefish, MT. Coeur d'Alene, ID: Idaho Department of Lands: 115-117. [27701]

55. Keown, L. D. 1977. Interim report: Black Tail Hills Prescribed Fire Project: implementation and results. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest. 9 p. [12233]

56. Keown, Larry D. 1982. An evaluation of qualitative plant responses to prescribed burning on a central Montana ecosystem. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 17 p. [14925]

57. Komarkova, Vera. 1986. Habitat types on selected parts of the Gunnison and Uncompahgre National Forests. Final Report Contract No. 28-K2-234. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 270 p. [1369]

58. Krochmal, Arnold; Krochmal, Connie. 1982. Uncultivated nuts of the United States. Agriculture Information Bulletin 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 89 p. [1377]

59. 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]

60. 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]

61. Langor, David W. 1989. Host effects on the phenology, development, and mortality of field populations of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). The Canadian Entomologist. 121(2): 149-157. [28088]

62. Lanner, Ronald M. 1980. Avian seed dispersal as a factor in the ecology and evolution of limber and whitebark pines. In: Dancik, Bruce; Higginbotham, Kenneth, eds. Proceedings, 6th North American forest biology workshop; 1980 August 11-13; Edmonton, AB. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta: 15-48. [1404]

63. Lanner, Ronald M. 1985. Effectiveness of the seed wing of Pinus flexilis in wind dispersal. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(2): 318-320. [1402]

64. Lanner, Ronald M. 1996. Made for each other: a symbiosis of birds and pines. New York: Oxford University Press. 160 p. [29914]

65. Lanner, Ronald M. 1999. Conifers of California. Los Olivos, CA: Cachuma Press. 274 p. [30288]

66. Lanner, Ronald M.; Vander Wall, Stephen B. 1980. Dispersal of limber pine seed by Clark's nutcracker. Journal of Forestry. 78(10): 637-639. [1410]

67. Layser, Earle F.; Schubert, Gilbert H. 1979. Preliminary classification for the coniferous forest and woodland series of Arizona and New Mexico. Res. Pap. RM-208. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 27 p. [1428]

68. Lepper, Merry G.; Fleschner, Michael. 1977. Nitrogen fixation by Cercocarpus ledifolius (Roseacea) in pioneer habitats. Oecologia. 27: 333-338. [1442]

69. MacMahon, James A.; Andersen, Douglas C. 1982. Subalpine forests: a world perspective with emphasis on western North America. Progress in Physical Geography. 6: 368-425. [8220]

70. Marston, Richard A.; Anderson, Jay E. 1991. Watersheds and vegetation of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology. 5(3): 338-346. [21676]

71. 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]

72. Mathiasen, Robert L.; Hawksworth, Frank G. 1990. Distribution of limber pine dwarf mistletoe in Nevada. The Great Basin Naturalist. 50(1): 91-92. [11053]

73. Mauk, Ronald L.; Henderson, Jan A. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-170. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 89 p. [1553]

74. McCaughey, Ward W.; Schmidt, Wyman C. 2001. Taxonomy, distribution, and history. In: Tomback, Diana F.; Arno, Stephen F.; Keane, Robert E., eds. Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press: 29-40. [36692]

75. McCune, Bruce. 1988. Ecological diversity in North American pines. American Journal of Botany. 75(3): 353-368. [5651]

76. McDonald, Geral I.; Hoff, Raymond J. 2001. Blister rust: an introduced plague. In: Tomback, Diana F.; Arno, Stephen F.; Keane, Robert E., eds. Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press: 193-220. [36703]

77. Meinecke, E. P. 1929. Quaking aspen: A study in applied forest pathology. Tech. Bull. No. 155. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. [26669]

78. Minnich, Richard A. 1999. Vegetation, fire regimes, and forest dynamics. In: Miller, P. R.; McBride, J. R., eds. Oxidant air pollution impacts in the montane forests of southern California: a case study of the San Bernadino Mountains. Ecological Studies: Analysis and Synthesis. Vol. 134. New York: Springer-Verlag: 44-80. [30370]

79. Moir, W. H. 1983. A series vegetation classification for Region 3. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel, Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on Southwestern habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 91-95. [1672]

80. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]

81. Pase, Charles P. 1982. Sierran subalpine conifer forest. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 40-41. [8883]

82. Pase, Charles P.; Brown, David E. 1982. Rocky Mountain (Petran) and Madrean montane conifer forests. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 43-48. [8885]

83. Patten, D. T. 1963. Vegetational pattern in relation to environments in the Madison Range, Montana. Ecological Monographs. 33(4): 375-406. [1836]

84. Paysen, Timothy E.; Derby, Jeanine A.; Black, Hugh, Jr.; [and others]. 1980. A vegetation classification system applied to southern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-45. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [1849]

85. Pfister, Robert D.; Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Arno, Stephen F.; Presby, Richard C. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 174 p. [1878]

86. Potter, Loren D.; Green, Duane L. 1964. Ecology of a northeastern outlying stand of Pinus flexilis. Ecology. 45: 866-868. [1907]

87. Ranne, Brigitte M.; Baker, William L.; Andrews, Tom; Ryan, Michael G. 1997. Natural variability of vegetation, soils, and physiography in the bristlecone pine forests of the Rocky Mountains. The Great Basin Naturalist. 57(1): 21-37. [27383]

88. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]

89. Rebertus, A. J.; Burns, B. R.; Veblen, T. T. 1991. Stand dynamics of Pinus flexilis-dominated subalpine forests in the Colorado Front Range. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2: 445-458. [17449]

90. Romme, William H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs. 52(2): 199-221. [9696]

91. Ross, Robert L.; Hunter, Harold E. 1976. Climax vegetation of Montana: Based on soils and climate. Bozeman, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 64 p. [2028]

92. Rundel, Philip W.; Parsons, David J.; Gordon, Donald T. 1977. Montane and subalpine vegetation of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 559-599. [4235]

93. Schmidt, Wyman C.; Lotan, James E. 1980. Phenology of common forest flora of the northern Rockies--1928 to 1937. Res. Pap. INT-259. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [2082]

94. Schoettle, Anna W.; Rochelle, Shannon G. 1998. Ecology of limber pine (Pinus flexilis): evaluation of variation across a range of elevations. I. Site and growth characteristics. Final report draft. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 18 p. (+ Appendices). On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. [29374]

95. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. [7064]

96. Schuster, William S. F.; Mitton, Jeffry B.; Yamaguchi, David K.; Woodhouse, Connie A. 1995. A comparison of limber pine (Pinus flexilis) ages at lower and upper treeline sites east of the Continental Divide in Colorado. The American Midland Naturalist. 133: 101-111. [26558]

97. Schuster, William S.; Alles, David L.; Mitton, Jeffry B. 1989. Gene flow in limber pine: evidence from pollination phenology and genetic differentiation along an elevational transect. American Journal of Botany. 76(9): 1395-1403. [11037]

98. Shankman, David. 1984. Tree regeneration following fire as evidence of timberline stability in the Colorado Front Range, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 16(4): 413-417. [7491]

99. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]

100. Smith, Jane Kapler; Laven, Richard D.; Omi, Philip N. 1993. Microplot sampling of fire behavior on Populus tremuloides stands in north-central Colorado. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 3(2): 85-94. [21376]

101. Steele, Robert. 1990. Pinus flexilis James limber 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: 348-354. [13207]

102. Steele, Robert; Cooper, Stephen V.; Ondov, David M.; [and others]. 1983. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-144. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 122 p. [2230]

103. Steele, Robert; Pfister, Robert D.; Ryker, Russell A.; Kittams, Jay A. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 138 p. [2231]

104. Steinhoff, R. J.; Andresen, J. W. 1971. Geographic variation in Pinus flexilis and Pinus strobiformis and its bearing on their taxonomic status. Silvae Genetica. 20: 159-167. [2233]

105. 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. 10 p. [20090]

106. Thilenius, John F. 1970. An isolated occurrence of limber pine (Pinus flexilis James) in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The American Midland Naturalist. 84(2): 411-417. [2318]

107. Thompson, Larry S.; Kuijt, Job. 1976. Montane and subalpine plants of the Sweetgrass Hills, Montana, and their relation to early postglacial environments on the northern Great Plains. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 90(4): 432-448. [7894]

108. Thorne, Robert F. 1982. The desert and other transmontane plant communities of southern California. Aliso. 10(2): 219-257. [3768]

109. Tolstead, W. L. 1947. Woodlands in northwestern Nebraska. Ecology. 28(2): 180-188. [18407]

110. Tomback, Diana F. 2001. Clark's nutcracker: agent of regeneration. In: Tomback, Diana F.; Arno, Stephen F.; Keane, Robert E., eds. Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press: 88-104. [36698]

111. Tomback, Diana F.; Kramer, Kathryn A. 1980. Limber pine seed harvest by Clark's nutcracker in the Sierra Nevada: timing and foraging behavior. The Condor. 82: 467-468. [5585]

112. Tomback, Diana F.; Linhart, Yan B. 1990. The evolution of bird-dispersed pines. Evolutionary Ecology. 4: 185-219. [17534]

113. Tomback, Diana F.; Schuster, William S. 1994. Genetic population structure and growth form distribution in bird-dispersed pines. In: Schmidt, Wyman C.; Holtmeier, Friedrich-Karl, compilers. Proceedings--international workshop on subalpine stone pines and their environments: the status of our knowledge; 1992 September 5-11; St. Mortiz, Switzerland. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GRT-309. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 43-50. [23807]

114. TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc. 1999. Appendix C: Descriptions of land cover types found within on near Yucca Mountain and the potential transportation corridors and facilities. In: Environmental baseline file for biological resources. B00000000-01717-5700-00009 REV 00. Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System: Management and Operating Contractor, [Online]. Available: http://www.ymp.gov/documents/biology/appendixc.htm [2000, November 6]. [35852]

115. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]

116. Van Arsdel, E. P.; Conklin, D. A.; Popp, J. B.; Geils, B. W. 1998. The distribution of white pine blister rust in the Sacramento Mountains of New Mexico. In: Jalkanen, Risto; Crane, Patricia E.; Wall, James A.; Aalto, Tarmo, editors. Proceedings, 1st IUFRO rusts of forest trees working party conference; 1998 August 2-7; Saariselka, Finland. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 712. Saarijarvi, Finland: Finnish Forest Research Institute, Rovaniemi Research Station: 275-283. [30323]

117. van Wagtendonk, Jan W.; Benedict, James M.; Sydoriak, Walter M. 1998. Fuel bed characteristics of Sierra Nevada conifers. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 13(3): 73-84. [28859]

118. Vander Wall, Stephen B.; Hutchins, Harry E. 1983. Dependence of Clark's nutcracker, Nucifraga columbiana, on conifer seeds during the postfledging period. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 97: 208-214. [2425]

119. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco Area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. [19698]

120. 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]

121. Weaver, T. 2001. Whitebark pine and its environment. In: Tomback, Diana F.; Arno, Stephen F.; Keane, Robert E., eds. Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press: 41-73. [36693]

122. Weisberg, Peter J.; Baker, William L. 1995. Spatial variation in tree regeneration in the forest-tundra ecotone, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 25(8): 1326-1339. [26009]

123. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]

124. Wirsing, John M.; Alexander, Robert R. 1975. Forest habitat types on the Medicine Bow National Forest, southeastern Wyoming: preliminary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-12. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11 p. [2591]

125. Woodmansee, Robert G. 1977. Clusters of limber pine trees: a hypothesis of plant-animal coaction. Southwest Naturalist. 21(4): 511-517. [2596]

126. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1981. Demography and fire history of a western juniper stand. Journal of Range Management. 34(6): 501-505. [2659]

127. Youngblood, Andrew P.; Mauk, Ronald L. 1985. Coniferous forest habitat types of central and southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-187. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 89 p. [2684]



FEIS Home Page