Pinus contorta var. contorta

License:

Regional Distribution in the Western United States

This species can be found in the following regions of the western United States (according to the Bureau of Land Management classification of Physiographic Regions of the western United States):

1 Northern Pacific Border
3 Southern Pacific Border

Source:

License:

Occurrence in North America

AK CA HI OR WA BC

Source:

License:

National Distribution

Canada

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Type of Residency: Year-round

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Type of Residency: Year-round

Source:

License:

Rights Holder:

NatureServe

Global Range: Shore pine is confined along the Pacific Coast and coastal islands from southern Alaska, through British Columbia, Washington and Oregon, to California.

Source:

License:

Rights Holder:

NatureServe

Morphology

Description

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].

References:

19. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p. [13403]
17. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
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]
3. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers. 222 p. [4208]
16. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375]
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]
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]
33. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
4. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1984. Timberline: Mountain and arctic forest frontiers. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers. 304 p. [339]
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]
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]
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]
25. Lotan, James E.; Alexander, Martin E.; Arno, Stephen F.; [and others]
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]
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]
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]

Source:

License:

Habitat

Habitat characteristics

More info for the terms: bog, peat, shrubs, tree, xeric

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].

References:

19. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p. [13403]
3. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers. 222 p. [4208]
16. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375]
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]
33. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
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]
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]
11. DeMeo, Thomas. 1989. Preliminary forest plant association management guide: Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. [Portland, OR]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.]
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]
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]

Source:

License:

Key Plant Community Associations

More info for the terms: association, codominant, hardwood

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].

References:

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]
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]
11. DeMeo, Thomas. 1989. Preliminary forest plant association management guide: Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. [Portland, OR]
42. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. [n.d.]
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]

Source:

License:

Habitat: Ecosystem

This species is known to occur in the following ecosystem types (as named by the U.S. Forest Service in their Forest and Range Ecosystem [FRES] Type classification):

FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods

Source:

License:

Habitat: Cover Types

This species is known to occur in association with the following cover types (as classified by the Society of American Foresters):

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

Source:

License:

Habitat: Plant Associations

This species is known to occur in association with the following plant community types (as classified by Küchler 1964):

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

Source:

License:

Comments: Shore pine is adapted to areas with maritime conditions such as strong salty winds. It occurs on dry crests or foothills, coastal bluffs, dunes or bogs from coastline to montane zones. Elevation range 0 to 600m (Flora of North America 1993, Cope 1993).

Source:

License:

Rights Holder:

NatureServe

General Ecology

Post-fire Regeneration

More info for the terms: root crown, secondary colonizer

Tree without adventitious-bud root crown
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

Source:

License:

Fire Ecology

More info for the terms: presence, resistance, succession

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].

References:

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]
25. Lotan, James E.; Alexander, Martin E.; Arno, Stephen F.; [and others]
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]
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]

Source:

License:

Successional Status

More info for the terms: bog, climax

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].

References:

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]
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]
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]
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]
25. Lotan, James E.; Alexander, Martin E.; Arno, Stephen F.; [and others]
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]
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]
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]
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]

Source:

License:

Regeneration Processes

More info for the term: fresh

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].

References:

3. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers. 222 p. [4208]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

Source:

License:

Growth Form (according to Raunkiær Life-form classification)

More info for the term: phanerophyte

Phanerophyte

Source:

License:

Life Form

More info for the term: tree

Tree

Source:

License:

Immediate Effect of Fire

Shore pine is sensitive to fire and probably killed by most fires.

Source:

License:

Cyclicity

Phenology

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].

References:

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

Source:

License:

Conservation Status

National NatureServe Conservation Status

Canada

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N4 - Apparently Secure

Source:

License:

Rights Holder:

NatureServe

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: T5 - Secure

Reasons: Pinus contorta var. contorta is restricted to Pacific coastal areas, however is widespread in occurrences from Alaska to California.

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.

Source:

License:

Rights Holder:

NatureServe

Trends

Global Short Term Trend: Relatively stable (=10% change)

Global Long Term Trend: Increase of 10-25% to decline of 30%

Source:

License:

Rights Holder:

NatureServe

Threats

Degree of Threat: Low

Comments: Lodgepole dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium americanum) as well as hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense) are primary threats to shore pine. Dwarf mistletoe alters tree form, suppresses growth, and reduces volume and overall wood quality of its host. Lodgepole dwarf mistletoe is also an important factor determining crown dimensions - heavily infected trees are 18% shorter, have crown bases 37% lower and 11-13% smaller diameters than uninfected trees (Godfree et al. 2002).
Due to its coastal habitat, windthrow and landslides are common factors influencing trees. Fire is not an important ecological factor for shore pine as fire is infrequent in maritime forest types (the coastal BC fire interval is 150-350 yrs), however on coastal dunes in California it is considered a fire tree. Shore pine has a moderate to low degree of fire resistance, however is probably killed by most fires (Cope 1993).

Source:

License:

Rights Holder:

NatureServe

Management

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].

References:

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]
11. DeMeo, Thomas. 1989. Preliminary forest plant association management guide: Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. [Portland, OR]
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]
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]
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]

Source:

License: