|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta | Shore Pine
ABBREVIATION :
PINCONC
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
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Amy B. Cope, March 1993
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Cope, Amy B. 1993. Pinus contorta var. contorta. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta | Shore Pine
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
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
GLBA OLYM REDW SAJH WRST
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].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta | Shore Pine
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].
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 | Shore Pine
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 | Shore Pine
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 | Shore Pine
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 | Shore Pine
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]
Index
Related categories for Species: Pinus contorta var. contorta
| Shore Pine
|
 |
