December
11, 1998 Number 10December
11, 1998 Number 10
N U T C R A C K E R N O T E S
A Research and Management Newsletter about Whitebark Pine Ecosystems
An information digest published by the Rocky Mountain Research Station, The Fire Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807
Many articles in issue of NUTCRACKER NOTES concern the highly successful symposium "Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystems" held at the Holiday Inn in Missoula, MT on Sept 9-12, 1998. This issue also continues the series on "whitebark pine success stories" which are brief summaries of planned, ongoing, and completed management projects for restoring whitebark pine. In addition, a "Whitebark Tidbits" section has been added as a forum for those who don’t want to write an extensive article, but feel they would like to report some information concerning whitebark pine ecology to the editor via email. Brief vignettes from the field are published there so all can enjoy. As usual, your comments are zealously requested... The editor.
Table of Contents
Editorial - Whitebark pine and you: A skier’s perspective
Management News
The Bear Overlook Prescribed
Fire
Prescribed Burning in Canadian
Rocky Mountain Whitebark Stands
Status of White Pine Blister Rust in Intermountain
Region White Pines
Dothistroma needle blight of limber
pine in Montana
Research News
Restoring Whitebark Pine
Ecosystems Symposium Summary
A Whitebark Pine Conservation
Cooperative
The Status of Whitebark
Pine in British Columbia
Features
Where the Rubber
Meets the Road: Whitebark Pine Success Stories
Whitebark Tidbits
Publications and Events
In Memoriam - Dr. Bob Oglivie
Whitebark pine web page
Editors Page
Whitebark Pine and You: Skicology 101 by George Howe, Ph.D., 438 University Ave, Missoula, MT 59801, Phone/FAX: 406-721-7207.
"What are those gnarly trees?" You may have asked yourself this question--or you may have been asked this by a friend or client--while riding the highest chairs at Big Sky, the Big Mountain or other ski resorts in the Northern Rockies. They may be asking about those gnarled, many-forked pine trees with the light gray branch tips. If you take the time to pick some needles, you will discover that there are five in each cluster. These are whitebark pines, and their beauty adds to many skiers’ esthetic enjoyment of the mountain experience. This is one of the reasons people ski, but too often we instructors aren’t able to answer our clients’ questions about the natural surroundings at our local resort. There’s a really interesting story in whitebark pine, and we have a wonderful opportunity to help the skiing public understand our mountain forests better. Many of these whitebark pine populations, and many others, are in serious trouble, as you may already have guessed by the number of dead or dying trees. In this case, human influence has put a species at risk, and human intervention will help with the remedy.
With the threat to the pines comes a threat to an endangered species--the grizzly bear--because whitebark pine seed is a critical source of food for the grizzlies. But it’s not the influence of ski are development that threatens whitebark pine. Many populations are failing to reproduce adequately because land managers have been so successful at putting out wildfires this century. In nature, whitebark pine reproduces almost exclusively by means of the Clark’s nutcracker. This jay-like bird plucks seeds from whitebark pine cones int the trees and "caches" (plants) them nearby or at some distance away. The Clark’s nutcracker usually caches the seeds only in exposed mineral soil in large openings in the forest. In the natural history of these forests, wildfires created these conditions. In the absence of fire this century, these openings have become overgrown with grass, forbs, shrubs and other tree species. If by chance a whitebark pine seedling should get started, it is soon shaded out by the other plants for whitebark pine can tolerate almost no shade.
Many whitebark pine populations--some that are already in trouble from fire exclusion--are now being attacked by a devastating fungus disease called white pine blister rust. This disease is not native to the Americans. It was accidentally introduced from Europe early in this century, but only recently found its way into the whitebark pine. Many trees in the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Glacier National Park are perishing from blister rust. Mountain pine beetle, a native insect, also kills whitebark pine, and always has. But until recently the pine was able to coexist successfully with the beetle. Now, populations reduced by fire exclusion or decimated by blister rust are having trouble coping with the beetle.
Man can probably solve the fire exclusion and blister rust problems. Land managers can mimic the effects of wildfire by carefully controlled burning wherever structures or people would not be put at risk. Elsewhere, many of the effects of fire can be simulated by mechanically clearing vegetation and exposing mineral soil. Clark’s nutcrackers will do the rest!
We also have real hope of winning the war on blister rust. Western white pine, a species closely related to whitebark pine, has been successfully bred for resistance. The U.S. Forest Service and several other organizations and universities have recently formed a coalition to learn more about the nature of rust resistance in whitebark pine, in hopes that we can be successful in genetically combating blister rust in whitebark pine as in western white pine. One day we may be able to replace these dying populations with healthy, rust-resistant ones.
So if that friend or client who asked you about those picturesque trees is like many of mine, she may believe that human manipulation of these forests is inappropriate. Tell her that it’s too late to avoid manipulation; humans long ago intervened in these forests by excluding fire and introducing blister rust. Now it’s up to humans to apply the remedy. Tell her that only human intervention can ensure that her grandchildren and yours will have whitebark pines to inspire them at their favorite ski resort in the 21st century.
MANAGEMENT NEWS AND NOTES
The Bear Overlook Prescribed Fire on the Stevensville Ranger District, Bitterroot National Forest by Steve Arno, The Fire Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT. Ph: 406-329-4813, email: sarno/rmrs_missoula@fs.fed.us
Thursday, October 8, 1998, dawned with partial overcast and threats of rain. The day before had been sunny and warm, but burning crews were committed elsewhere. The previous weeks had some good burning weather, but we had to wait until October for a hard frost (low 20's deg. F.) that would kill herbs and shrub leaves creating dry fine fuels that allow fire to spread under cool conditions.
By noon the prescribed fire team had climbed the 2,000 vertical feet from the roadhead to the top of the burn unit, but we were greeted by dark skies and an impending rain squall. Temperatures were in the low 50's, humidity was above 60 percent, and occasional wind gusts presaged the onset of a squall. It was hard to imagine any significant burning could be done. Still, with season-ending rain and snow on its way, this appeared to be our last chance, and we were here and ready.
Lighting began at 12:20 p.m. and, at first, only occasional jackpots of previously felled firs and other patches of fuel burned well. The burn boss decided to "pour on the coal," assembling many igniters to lay carefully coordinated strips in a dense pattern. Wind gusts increased, and despite the cold, humid weather, this tactic produced significant fire intensity for two hours before driving rain and sleet shut us down.
Viewing the scene a few days later, about 40 acres of the 170-acre unit had been lit. This had burned mostly in stand-replacement patches ranging in size from narrow strips to 2 or 3 acres. This was probably not unlike some of the historic fires that burned in mixed severities across whitebark pine and fir-covered ridgetops. It was a good year for whitebark pine cones, and the Clarks nutcrackers were still around in the treetops chattering and busily harvesting any seeds left. Hopefully they have made seed caches in the burn patches.
Progress is being made in learning how to apply prescribed fire. Next year we hope to finish burning this unit, and to accomplish burns on the Salmon and Clearwater National Forests as well. Red slash in these latter burn areas may allow fire to spread without having to wait for a killing frost.
Prescribed Burning in Canadian Rocky Mountain Whitebark Stands by Robert C. Walker, Fire & Vegetation Specialist, Parks Canada, Lake Louise, Yoho and Kootenay, Box 220, Radium Hot Springs, BC, Canada. FAX: (250) 347-9050, phone: (250) 347-6155, email: rob_walker@pch.gc.ca
Lake Louise, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks Field Unit (LLYK) is planning to conduct two small prescribed burns in whitebark pine stands this fall. This project is designed to assess the use of prescribed burning to maintain whitebark pine communities as part of the Canadian Rocky Mountain Subalpine ecosystem. Sampling transects will be established this summer in these stands and several other sites to be burned over the next few years. The prescribed burns follow on the heels of a recently completed study of the population genetics of whitebark pine in the Canadian Rockies. The study documented previously unknown levels of blister rust infestation throughout Banff, Jasper, Kootenay and Yoho National Parks. The study results can be found in Stuart-Smith, G.J. 1998. Conservation of whitebark pine in the Canadian Rockies: blister rust and population genetics. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
Status of White Pine Blister Rust in Intermountain Region White Pines by Jonathan Smith and James Hoffman, Forest Health Protection, Boise Field Office, 1750 Fornt Street, Boise, ID 83702. Phone: 208-373-4221, email: jhoffman/r4,boise
Recent investigations have documented high levels of white pine blister rust (WPBR) in the whitebark pine and limber pine of the Rocky Mountain Region. However, in the Intermountain Region, little is known about the disease which occurs on whitebark, limber, western white, sugar, and potentially, bristlecone pines. We formally surveyed white pines at 100 sites, and collected incidental sample data at an additional 27 sites within the Intermountain Region. Objectives were to investigate WPBR incidence, intensity, damage, mortality and spread. Overall incidence of WPBR was 59% across the entire region, but varied substantially between national forests, and sample locations. Intensity within infected stands averaged 36% and ranged from 2% to 100%. Incidence and intensity appear to have increased dramatically in the northern portion of the Intermountain Region over the past 30 years, but the southward spread of the disease has slowed, and does not appear to be an immediate threat to Great Basin white pines. We found no evidence of a corridor of infected white pines between the northern Rocky Mountain or Sierra Nevada and a satellite infection on the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico. Smaller diameter trees suffered top kill and mortality more frequently than larger diameter trees. Only 34 of approximately 5,000 trees inspected appeared to have died as a result of white pine blister rust infection, but mortality is expected to increase sharply in portions of the Intermountain Region as cankers from recent infections reach main tree stems.
(Editors note: This is an abstract of the report cited in the new publications section of NUTCRACKER NOTES)
Dothistroma needle blight of limber pine in Montana by Taylor, J.E. and J.W. Schwandt. USDA Forest Service Rpt. FHP-98-4. Forest Health Protection. Northern Region, Box 7669, Missoula, MT 59807. Phone:406-329-3463. email: jtaylor/r1
Dothistroma septospora appears to be associated with mortality of Pinus flexilis in Montana. Nine monitoring plots have been established at several Montana locations. Mortality has been monitored on four plots on the Lewis and Clark National Forest since 1996 and ranged from 12-45%, with 85% of the mortality attributed to D. septospora. The remaining five plots were established in 1998 at locations near Livingston and Wise River. Mortality data are not yet available on the newly established plots; however, trees on these plots were rated for percent of crown affected by D. septospora. Seventy-two percent of the trees were rated as having 75% or greater of their crown affected. Monitoring of existing plots for defoliation and mortality associated with D. septospora will continue into the future, and additional surveying and monitoring may be undertaken if the current outbreak continues or if new areas of infection are discovered.
(Editors note: This is an abstract of the report cited in the new publications section of NUTCRACKER NOTES)
RESEARCH NEWS AND NOTES
Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: A Successful Symposium by Helen Smith, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807, Ph: 406-329-4707, FAX: 406-329-4877, email: hsmith/rmrs_missoula@fs.fed.us
The 'Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystems' symposium held in Missoula, MT September 9-12, 1998 was a great success. All of the evaluations turned in at the end of the symposium indicated that the length of the symposium was appropriate and comments added indicated that the use of field trips in conjunction with lectures was very useful to illustrate the management and research activities planned and implemented in the surrounding area.
The first day was organized well, with the morning having the usual introductory material and good precursory information before embarking on an afternoon field trip to an area where whitebark pine (WBP) occurs at it's lower elevational limits with several stops as we ascended the mountain to discuss the species decline in the area, historic and current fire regimes, blister rust damage, successional dynamics, and regeneration processes. This trip was thought-provoking and laid a good foundation for the following day's lectures. It was also a great opportunity to get to know the main speakers and other participants in a setting with smaller groups, making questions and discussions easier.
The lecture layout was logical, starting with the biology of whitebark pine and its ecological relationship with animals such as Clark's nutcrackers and grizzly bears, followed by the problems threatening WBP ecosystems, and concluding with management implications. This was a great venue for the experts in each area to disseminate their information and for the symposium participants to ask them questions. Some comments from the evaluations suggested that this was a long day with too many slides, but considering the amount of information that was being presented, it was appropriate. The energy and commitment by the speakers to the cause of restoring WBP ecosystems was invigorating.
The field trip to Smith Creek on Friday was key to the success of this symposium. The incredible amount of planning and thought that went into this trip showed. To be able to see management and research ideas put to use 'on the ground' was impressive. There were eight different stops, with discussions about insects and diseases; the silvicultural and fire management planning and implementation process at Smith Creek; regeneration dynamics; adaptive variation in WBP; and an overview of WBP restoration plans on the Bitterroot, Clearwater, and Salmon-Challis National Forests. Once again, being broken up into smaller groups led to good dynamics for discussion.
I attended the optional field trip to Beaver Ridge in Idaho on Saturday. It was another good example of restoration/research efforts being implemented by land managers, with them on hand to explain their objectives and field questions.
Here are come summarized comments about the symposium submitted by participants:
`The field orientation was very valuable. It made the symposium.'
`Wonderful. More hours in the field than in the meeting rooms.'
`I liked the opening field trip, then a day of papers, then a field trip to close.'
`I'm going to use this as the a pep rally to start writing the alpine-subalp in with NE Oregon.
‘Got a lot of good information from the speakers.'
`I have initiated projects which I had questions about. The symposium answered a lot of questions.'
`The topics were excellent and the information stimulated a lot of thoughts and future questions. Field trips were an excellent addition'
`I feel I now have information and contacts to begin developing restoration treatments.'
`I got depth on several subjects. The field trips exceeded expectations and proved essential to its success.'
`It’s a rare and very worthwhile opportunity to be able to hear from so many people in such a variety of disciplines.'
`Great information, great contacts, great hands-on, tangible knowledge gain.'
`I don’t know how I could improve on this symposium.'
In summary, this symposium was well organized and invaluable information was shared by land managers, planning personnel, and researchers.
A Whitebark Pine Conservation Cooperative: New Ideas for Funding Restoration Efforts by Robert E. Keane, The Fire Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT. Ph: 406-329-4846, email: bkeane/rmrs_missoula@fs.fed.us
One of the most creative ideas to surface during the "wrap-up" session of the 1998 whitebark pine conference was the concept of forming a "cooperative" for whitebark pine management and conservation. The cooperative would be a collection of private organizations and public agencies organized to provide assistance and funding for whitebark pine restoration efforts. There are many examples of successful cooperatives established for special land management situations. The Montana Riparian Cooperative established by Drs. Robert Pfister and Paul Hansen provided timely research and technology transfer materials for riparian ecosystem management. The Inland Northwest Growth and Yield (INGY) Cooperative privately funds research and management projects in forestry and mensuration. These cooperatives are formed when the task at hand is too large or too specialized for any one organization or agency to fund. Whitebark pine restoration efforts could be best served by forming a cooperative to gain synergy and support for the vast array of potential and current whitebark pine projects.
What would the cooperative do? It could provide information to the various agencies on setting priorities, seed collection, burning prescriptions, and so on. Next, it could consolidate and synthesize current information on whitebark pine into a coarse scale recovery plan used as context for any stand-level restoration effort. The cooperative could also "market" whitebark pine restoration by providing educational materials for primary and secondary schools; preparing information for the press and elected officials; implementing public awareness campaigns to educate the public about whitebark pine; and organizing meetings, special presentations, conferences, and symposia for information sharing. Lastly, the cooperative could be a funding organization for restoration, research, and management projects on public and private lands. Government agencies and private organizations could grant monies to the whitebark pine cooperative, and the cooperative could then distribute this money to the "most deserving" projects. Possible funding sources include the USDA Forest Service’s Northern Region and Intermountain Region, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Arbor Day Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, and other environmental foundations and private individuals.
A few ideas on the specifics of the new cooperative were generated from the wrap-up session. It was suggested that NUTCRACKER NOTES would be transformed with an entirely new layout and a broader audience. For example, the newsletter could be published as a high quality, glossy-finish periodical distributed by the cooperative and written for members of the environmentally concerned public as well as the current audience of land managers and researchers. The cooperative could contact high profile magazines or newspapers (Wall Street Journal, Discovery) about possible articles concerning the whitebark pine dilemma. Several people at the symposium volunteered to investigate the possibilities of creating a cooperative and to develop a preliminary organizational structure. However, more volunteers are needed to see this concept to fruition. We would appreciate any comments about this effort and comments can be send directly to the editor.
The Status of Whitebark Pine in British Columbia by Elizabeth Campbell, 780 Rue Andre Jobin, Ile Bizard, PQ H9C 1W8, Phone: 514-626-4326, email: ecampbel@generation.net
Sparked by U.S. reports of recent and rapid declines of whitebark pine, I began a survey in 1995 to examine the extent to which white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle had damaged whitebark pine in British Columbia. This work was done as part of my Master’s thesis in the Biology Department at the University of Victoria. I summarize my findings in this article.
During 1995 and 1996, I sampled 53 stands distributed throughout the range of whitebark pine in British Columbia. Whitebark pine trees in these stands were examined for evidence of white pine blister rust infection and for past or present mountain pine beetle infestation. From this data, the percentage of dead whitebark pine trees, the percentage of mountain pine beetle infested trees, and the percentage of blister rust infected trees per stand was calculated. Blister rust infection was described using two measures: % infectionmin (percentage of living trees in a stand with obvious blister rust cankers) and infectionmax (the percentage of living trees in a stand with any evidence of blister rust infection including trees with cankers, dead tops, flagged branches, and rodent gnawing). The d.b.h. of all whitebark pine trees examined was recorded. Vegetation composition and stand structure data as well as site data were collected for each stand.
Distribution of blister rust and mountain pine beetle
Infestation of whitebark pine by mountain pine beetle was rare. Only 7 of the 53 stands I sampled had signs of beetle infestation, and the number of infested whitebark pine trees within stands was very low (Table 1). The sparseness of horizontal larval galleries on many trees suggests that larvae often did not survive the winter. Past and present infestations of mountain pine beetle were restricted to stands in the southern and drier portions of the range of whitebark pine in British Columbia.
In contrast to damage by bark beetles, whitebark pine was infected by white pine blister rust throughout its range in British Columbia. Blister rust was found in at least 37 of the 53 stands sampled (i.e., using infectionmin) but probably occurred in 52 of the 53 stands (i.e., using infectionmax). Incidence of blister rust infection in stands ranged from 0 to 100 %, with an average infectionmin rate of 19 % among stands. Infectionmax averaged 36% over all stands. Mortality of whitebark pine ranged from 0 to 64% with an average of 21 % over all stands.
Individual tree mortality and blister rust infection
When examined by tree size class, whitebark pine mortality was more frequent among trees 0.1 to 10 cm and 10.1 to 20 cm in d.b.h. than among the larger trees (Table 2). The same pattern occurred for infectionmin (Table 3). Large trees appeared half as likely to be infected, but this may be largely due to difficulties in observing cankers in the crowns of large trees. In contrast, when all signs of blister rust infection were used (i.e., infectionmax), trees of the smallest diameter class (i.e., 0.1-10 cm) had lower rates of infection (Table 3). Large trees have more foliage thus, the chance of basidiospore interception is probably greater.
Table 1. Summary of mountain pine beetle infestations on whitebark pine.
|
Stand Number |
Elevation |
Na |
Number of trees infested |
Average tree diameterb |
Number of infested trees that were dead |
Number of beetle infested trees with blister rust |
|
4 |
2170 |
319 |
1 |
7.2 |
1 |
1 |
|
5 |
2320 |
6 |
3 |
10.0 |
2 |
2 |
|
7 |
1750 |
27 |
2 |
52.1 |
2 |
0 |
|
16 |
2103 |
147 |
1 |
11.3 |
1 |
0 |
|
17 |
1885 |
116 |
6 |
13.7 |
6 |
4 |
|
23 |
1950 |
89 |
1 |
15.0 |
1 |
1 |
|
48 |
1775 |
33 |
3 |
20.9 |
2 |
1 |
a N = total number of whitebark pine trees/stand, including living
and dead trees > 1.3 m tall.
b When more than 1 tree was infested the average DBH is given.
Table 2. Mortality of whitebark pine in relation to stem diameter at breast height (cm).
|
Diameter Class |
N |
Mortality (% dead trees) |
|
0.1-10 |
2597 |
21.9 |
|
10.1-20.0 |
690 |
22.3 |
|
>20.0 |
307 |
13.6 |
|
Total |
3594 |
|
Note: Pearsons ?2 test for goodness of fit was used to test for differences in mortality between diameter classes; ?2 = 18.15 (3 df; p = 0.0001)
Predicting mortality and blister rust infection rates in stands
Table 3. Infection of whitebark pine in relation to stem diameter at breast height (cm.)
Diameter class |
N |
Infectionmina |
Infectionmaxb |
0.1-10 |
2020 |
22.6 |
40.3 |
10.1-20.0 |
535 |
18.9 |
51.7 |
>20.0 |
264 |
9.8 |
52.6 |
Total |
2819 |
Note: Pearsons ?2 test for goodness of fit was used to test for differences in rates of infection between diameter size classes. Chi-squared values for Infectionmin and Infectionmax are: ?2 = 24.25 (3 df; p < 0.0001); and ?2 = 28.95 (3 df; p < 0.0001).
a Includes living trees that are infected with obvious cankers.
b Includes living trees that are infected with obvious cankers
and also trees showing other evidence of blister rust infection such as flagged
branches, dead tops and rodent gnawing, but no definate cankers.
Table 4 shows the relationships of abiotic conditions and stand characteristics to rates of mortality and blister rust infection in stands. Total tree density had a significant relationship with the rate of mortality observed in stands. Stands with a higher total tree density had significantly lower whitebark pine mortality rates. It is not readily apparent why mortality rates have a significant association with total tree density; perhaps infected trees in dense stands are more stressed and die more easily. No other abiotic or stand characters had a significant effect on the rate of mortality observed in a stand.
Abiotic conditions had no significant effect on blister rust infection rates observed in stands (Table 4).
Though the amounts of blister rust vary considerably within British Columbia, this variation could not be attributed to climate (described by Mean Summer Precipitation [MSP] and latitude). This result was surprising; I expected to see a decrease in infection rates with decreasing temperatures (northward and with increasing elevation) and in drier regional climates (e.g., the Interior Plateau where MSP = 288 mm). This finding suggests that climatic conditions throughout the range of whitebark pine in British Columbia may be quite suitable for blister rust to complete its life cycle and infect trees. Broad climate relationships, however, may be confounded by more local micro-climatic conditions. Though summer rainfall in the British Columbia Interior Plateau is relatively low, both teliospores and basidiospores germinate within a period of hours under favorable moisture conditions and a single late afternoon or evening rainfall, low lying cloud-banks, or occasional fog in this region may provide sufficient leaf oisture for infection.
Total tree canopy cover, whitebark pine basal area, total tree basal area, and stand age had a significant negative relationship with infectionmin rates (Table 4). For the stands sampled in this study, total tree canopy cover, whitebark pine basal area, and total tree basal area gave significant positive correlations with stand age; r = 0.4030, 0.3581 and 0.3209, respectively. Thus, young stands with sparse canopies, and low basal area of whitebark pine and low total tree basal area had higher infectionmin rates. While this relationship may, in part, be due to the fact that trees in open stands have greater chance infection, it is more likely that this is because cankers were simply easier to see on small trees in young stands.
The only significant relationship with infectionmax rates was the presence of Ribes spp. in the stand. Stands containing Ribes bushes had significantly greater infectionmax rates than stands without Ribes. Abiotic conditions and other compositional and structural stand characteristics did not influence the infectionmax rates.
The future of the whitebark pine in British Columbia.
Blister rust has spread throughout the range of whitebark pine in British Columbia. Though mortality rates are not as high as those reported in Montana my results indicate that the disease is more severe in British Columbia than in Wyoming, Idaho, California and Nevada. Having reached epidemic levels, white pine blister rust currently poses a serious threat to whitebark pine in British Columbia. It is likely that many of the currently infected stands will experience high levels of whitebark pine mortality over the next few decades.
Table 4. List of investigated variables and their individual relationships with mortality and infection rates in stands.
| Mortality | % Infectionmin | % Infectionmax | |||||||||||
| R2 | F | p | Effect | R2 | F | p | Effect | R2 | F | p | Effect | ||
|
Abiotic conditions: |
|||||||||||||
| Latitude | Regression |
0.0127 |
0.53 |
0.4721 |
ns |
0.0410 |
1.78 |
0.1899 |
ns |
0.1228 |
5.74 |
0.0212 |
ns |
| MSP (mm)a | Regression |
0.0009 |
0.37 |
0.5430 |
ns |
0.0488 |
2.10 |
0.1543 |
ns |
0.0428 |
1.83 |
0.1834 |
ns |
| Elevation (m) | Regression |
0.0043 |
0.18 |
0.6737 |
ns |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.9543 |
ns |
0.0583 |
2.53 |
0.1189 |
ns |
| Soil moisture b | ANOVA |
0.0828 |
1.76 |
0.1852 |
ns |
0.0186 |
0.37 |
0.6939 |
ns |
0.0031 |
0.06 |
0.9420 |
ns |
| Aspectc | ANOVA |
0.1021 |
1.05 |
0.3936 |
ns |
0.1641 |
1.82 |
0.1463 |
ns |
0.1092 |
1.13 |
0.3554 |
ns |
| Stand characteristics: | |||||||||||||
| Plant comm d | ANOVA |
0.4220 |
2.26 |
0.0400 |
ns |
0.4232 |
2.27 |
0.0391 |
ns |
0.3294 |
1.52 |
0.1782 |
ns |
| Tree canopy cover | Regression |
0.0076 |
0.31 |
0.5801 |
ns |
0.1927 |
9.78 |
0.0032 |
- |
0.0565 |
2.45 |
0.1249 |
ns |
| Density | |||||||||||||
| Pinus albicaulis | Regression |
0.0950 |
4.32 |
0.0440 |
ns |
0.0248 |
1.04 |
0.3133 |
ns |
0.0123 |
0.51 |
0.4784 |
ns |
| All trees | Regression |
0.2494 |
13.62 |
0.0004 |
- |
0.0002 |
0.01 |
0.9277 |
ns |
0.0003 |
0.13 |
0.9096 |
ns |
| Basal area | |||||||||||||
| Pinus albicaulis | Regression |
0.0183 |
0.76 |
0.3871 |
ns |
0.2581 |
14.26 |
0.0005 |
- |
0.0002 |
0.10 |
0.7521 |
ns |
| All trees | Regression |
0.0290 |
1.22 |
0.2750 |
ns |
0.1865 |
9.39 |
0.0038 |
- |
0.0036 |
0.15 |
0.7039 |
ns |
| Stand age | Regression |
0.1001 |
4.55 |
0.0387 |
ns |
0.2116 |
11.00 |
0.0019 |
- |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.9979 |
ns |
| Presence of Ribes | Regression |
0.0114 |
0.97 |
0.4956 |
ns |
0.0057 |
0.66 |
0.4230 |
ns |
0.3794 |
25.06 |
0.0000 |
+ |
Note: a probability level of (0.05/13 = 0.0038) has been Bonferroni corrected, for an overall significance level of 0.05 over 13 variables
a MSP = Mean summer precipitation (mm).
b The soil moisture index is derived by adding rated topographic position (1
= ridge top, 2 = upper slope, 3 = middle slope, 4 = lower slope, 5 = flat)
to aspect ratings and subtracting 1 for sites with shallow soils. Low moisture
index values represent dry sites and high values moist sites. Three soil
moisture classes were used for this analysis:1(very dry) = stands with index
values 1-3; class 2 (dry) = stands with index values 4 and 5; 3 (moist) =
stands with index values 6 and 7.
c Aspect was rated on a 1 – 5 scale (1 = 180 –225°; 2 = 136 – 180° 3
= 226 – 315°; 4 = 46 - 135° and 316 – 360°; 5 = 0 - 45°).
d. Refers to 11 community types identified in this study.
WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD
Whitebark Pine Success Stories
Planned projects: Lewis and Clark National Forest, Rocky Mountain RD (Brad McBratney) is planning a 50,000+ acre burn mostly in lodgepole pine but some whitebark pine sites will also be burned.... Gallatin National Forest, West Yellowstone RD (JT Stangl) is planning several burns to eliminate subalpine fir in whitebark pine areas .... Kootenai National Forest, Murphy Lake RD, (Mike Liu) is planning a large prescribed fire in the Ten Lakes Primitive Area to create habitat for whitebark pine regeneration. However, some of this area burned in a wildfire and effects have not yet been measured...... Salmon-Challis National Forest, Cobalt RD, (Breck Hudson, Diane Schuldt) is still planning to treat whitebark pine stands at the headwaters of Musgrove Creek using harvesting and prescribed fire to increase the regeneration success of whitebark pine and increase the vigor and health of existing whitebark pine stands. These stands were almost burned this fall but stormy weather prevented adequate fuel drying..... Clearwater National Forest, Powell RD (Karen Harvey and Lee Clark) is still a series of treatments to restore whitebark pine ecosystems using fire and timber cuttings. This is another burn that was almost ready to go but got called off at the last minute...
Accomplishments: Flathead National Forest, Swan Lake RD (John Engebretson) successfully burned 700 acres of whitebark pine in the Lion Creek drainage. Flathead National Forest, Glacier View RD (Wally Bennett) burned the Logan Creek prescribed fire in whitebark pine stands to encourage whitebark regeneration and eliminate the subalpine fir competition.
(Editors Note: You are encouraged to send the editor a short summary of any research project you have planned or implemented recently. Send to bkeane/rmrs,missoula on IBM 615 or bkeane/rmrs_missoula@fs.fed.us via Email to IBM 615)
As part of my annual backpack in the wild west I kept an eye out for PIAL cones on the Beartooth Plateau. Went in at Island Lake and got as far north as Cloverleaf Lakes. I did not see any sign of a whitebark pine cone crop, but I wasn't climbing trees looking for cones. This is big time whitebark pine country. I'm also not sure what the effects of white pine blister rust are, but many trees showed yellowing of needles at the lower ends of branches.... Dave Spildie, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT
Current Publications:
Baskin, Yvonne. 1998. Trouble at Timberline. Natural History Magazine 107(9):50-55.
This is a easy reading article written for the general public on the perils of whitebark pine decline. Kate Kendall, Diana Tomback, and others were interviewed and their comments summarized in this layman’s journal article. This is an excellent article to pass out at public meetings.
Bruederle, L.P., D.F. Tomback, K.K. Kelly, and R.C. Hardwick. 1998. Population genetic structure in a bird-dispersed pine, Pinus albicaulis (Pinaceae). Canadian Journal of Botany 76:83-90.
Genetic differences between nine Yellowstone whitebark pine populations were low compared with other bird-dispersed pines. But, overall results indicate genetic structure similar to other Cembrae pine.
Campbell, E. 1998. Whitebark pine forests in British Columbia: composition, dynamics, and the effects of blister rust. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. 136 pages.
A vignette from this thesis is presented in this issue of NUTCRACKER NOTES. I didn’t have a copy of this to review.
Jorgensen, S.M. and J.L. Hamrick. 1997. Biogeography and population genetics of whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27(10):1574-1585.
This is an excellent paper on the genetic variability of whitebark pine populations. Data were collected throughout the range of whitebark pine including Canada, northern Rockies, Cascades, and Sierra Nevadas.
Lynch, E.A. 1998. Origin of a park-forest vegetation mosaic in the Wind River Range, Wyoming. Ecology 79(4):1320-1338.
This paper disputes the "remnant hypothesis" that proclaims the park-forest mosaic in upper subalpine is a remnant of past climates. The pollen record shows the decline and advance of whitebark pine with changes in climate, but the park-forest mosaic is mostly caused by fire or other disturbances. This paper is interesting in that the Wind Rivers represent the southern extent of whitebark pine in the Rockies.
Mattson, D.J. 1997. Use of lodgepole pine cover types by Yellowstone Grizzly Bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(2):480-496.
Apparently, grizzly bears don’t have a preference for any specific age or structured lodgepole pine stand. Selection of sites depends on individual bears.
Mattson, D.J. and D.P. Reinhart. 1997. Excavation of red squirrel middens by grizzly bears in the whitebark pine zone. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:926-940.
Grizzlies liked to dig up middens in lodgepole pine forests with low slopes. The larger the midden, the higher chance it was excavated. Authors recommend increasing number cone-bearing whitebark pine in lodgepole pine forests without road building.
Smith, J. And J. Hoffman. 1998. Status of white pine blister rust in Intermountain Region white pines. USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection Report No. R4-98-02. Intermountain Region State and Private Forestry, Ogden, UT.
Jim Hoffman passed this report around at the symposium. White pines were surveyed at 100 sites in Region Four and significant increases in rust incidence and intensity were measured. Of interest is the increase in rust on the Payette, Targhee, Boise, and Sawtooth National Forests, and also in Yellowstone. The abstract for this report appears in this issue of Nutcracker Notes.
Stuart-Smith, G.J. 1998. Conservation of whitebark pine in the Canadian Rockies: blister rust and population genetics. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
A copy of this thesis was not available for review.
Taylor, J.E. and J.W. Schwandt. 1998. Dothistroma needle blight of limber pine in Montana. USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection Report No. 98-04. Northern Region, Forest Health Protection, Missoula, MT.
This is a very interesting report that mentions that Dothistroma needle blight damage is easily confused with blister rust on limber pine. They found 12-45 percent mortality in limber pine on the Lewis and Clark NF with 85 percent of that mortality attributed to Dothistroma septospora.
Tomback, D.F. 1998. Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). IN: The birds of North America, No. 331. A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
This is a comprehensive summary of all current research on the Clark’s Nutcracker. This paper discusses every aspect of the bird from breeding to nesting to population demography and lastly to conservation. A real "must" for those interested in this invaluable bird.
On a sad note. Dr. Bob Ogilvie passed away of leukemia. He contributed to 1990 whitebark pine with the paper "Distribution and ecology of whitebark pine in western Canada". The following is an obituary that is being passed around the Internet.
DR. ROBERT TOWNLEY OGILVIE (1930-1998). Bob Ogilvie died on Sunday, November 29, 1998, after a short relapse of leukemia. Bob Ogilvie was born on June 27, 1930 in Briercrest, Saskatchewan. He received B.A. degree in 1953 and M.A. degree in 1955 from the University of British Columbia for his studies of soil properties of ponderosa pine plant communities, directed by Prof. Vladimir Krajina. In 1960 he received his Ph.D. degree from Washington University in Pullman for his work on "Ecology of spruce forests on the east slope of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta" directed by Prof. Rexford Daubenmire.
Bob worked for the Forest Research Branch (Alberta District) of the Canada Department of Forestry in Calgary from 1958-63. Bob's main interests were in site classification and ecology of the forests (particularly spruce and pine) of the Rocky Mountains of Alberta from Jasper National Park south to the International Border. During his tenure he collected hundreds of plant specimens and these are deposited in the herbarium of the Northern Forestry Centre (CAFB) in Edmonton. Bob produced the first checklist of the vascular plants in the Forest Research Herbarium (CAFB) in 1963. His work with the forest service resulted in a number of publications and file reports. His interest in mountain forests and alpine vegetation carried on at the University of Calgary where he became Associate Professor in 1963. He supervised several graduate students and participated in a multidisciplinary study of grizzly bear habitats directed by Dr. Stephen Herrero.
Bob's parents had a summer cottage near Bowser on Vancouver Island and Bob and his family spent many summer holidays on Vancouver Island. Bob welcomed the opportunity to move to Vancouver Island, and in September 1977 he accepted a position of Botany Curator in the British Columbia Provincial Museum in Victoria. He was Head of the Botany Division until its dissolution in 1986. When the British Columbia Provincial Museum became the Royal British Columbia Museum, Bob Ogilvie remained in the Natural History Division as botany curator till his retirement in July 1995. After his retirement Bob Ogilvie became a frequent visitor of the University of Victoria herbarium, where he worked on his old collections and wrote botanical papers. His main botanical interests were alpine flora and vegetation, seashore vegetation, and flora and phytogeography of British Columbia. In the British Columbia Provincial Museum he was an important force behind the publication of Museum Handbooks and Occasional Papers, and he was an associate editor of the Museum journal Syesis until the journal's untimely death in 1985.
The Native Plant Garden around the Museum was Bob's great love. The Garden, established in 1968, was in its prime when Bob came to the Museum. He soon organized daily Native Plant Garden tours where visitors learned about British Columbia plants. The tours were led by a marvelous group of volunteers that Bob and the staff of the Botany Division gathered together. Later, when the Museum support of the Native Plant Garden dwindled to a low ebb, he participated in watering the garden over one or two summers, and organized a Native Plant Garden support group. This group has gradually evolved into the active and vibrant Native Plant Study Group of the Victoria Horticultural Society. The Native Plant Study Group gained tremendously from Bob's help and his efforts towards popularization of botany. It was at the October 1998 meeting of this Group where I last met Bob.
Bob was active in numerous conservation organizations, local (Friends of Beacon Hill Park), regional (Garry Oak Meadow Preservation Society), provincial (The Land Conservancy and the now abolished British Columbia Ecological Reserves Committee) and national (The Nature Conservancy of Canada, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society). He was a long-time member of the Canadian Botanical Association where he served in the Conservation Committee. Bob's opinion was always respected as highly professional, one that reflected his rich field experience and solid botanical knowledge. With Bob's passing, we have lost the voice of a strong advocate for the protection of natural areas in British Columbia and Canada.
Bob spoke French and had a good knowledge of German. He had a tremendous overview of world literature in botany, ecology and all other sciences (such as geology and climatology) that are required for understanding vegetation ecology. I know from my discussions with him that the holistic approach to landscapes and vegetation was one thing he admired most about Professor Krajina, Bob's teacher at the University of British Columbia. Bob had a deep interest in history, art, culture and politics, liked classical music, and was an avid reader. His favorite author was Thomas Mann.
Bob was unable to cope with modern trends of government and scientific institutions where professionals are being replaced by administrators who have little or no knowledge of the field they manage. He was incapacitated when he had to deal with unprofessional decisions, and was horrified when he had to fill in and sign forms. He despised intrigues and hated empty phrases. He was a proud Scot and except for broom, he liked everything Scotch (whisky - single malt and in moderation, oatcakes, haggis, porridge, Robert Burns, etc.) and he bought me my first spurtle. As a good Scot he was stubborn and refused to deviate from his principles. He built a strong shell around his private life and not too many people were aware of his personal problems. Even to his closest friends, he presented his losing fight with leukemia as a "bad flu".
Bob was a great supporter of BEN and he contributed to BEN with quite a few articles and notes. When we worked together, he was a blind editor of BEN and read most BEN issues before I posted them. He helped me with editing the content, and corrected most of what I wrote. I am personally indebted to Bob for hiring me to the B.C. Provincial Museum in 1981, the institution where we both remained, for better or worse, till 1995. We made numerous collecting trips together, got stranded on a bare granitic mountain for several days, and were forgotten on a small island close to the Alaska border. Our collaboration resulted in a single, rather insignificant floristic paper, but on our joint trips we collected something between 15,000 and 20,000 specimens of vascular plants. These specimens are still being processed in the Herbarium of the Royal British Columbia Museum.
With Bob Ogilvie we all will miss a good friend, colleague, teacher and scientist. He will be fondly remembered by all of us whom he touched with his kindness, humor, help and knowledge.
Donations in Bob's memory may be made to the Habitat Acquisition Trust (250-995-2428) or the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre (250-370-893).
Adolf Ceska
Kate Kendall and Marilyn Blair have organized a great web site for all whitebark pine information. Its address is:
The web master, Marilyn Blair, has also reformatted all past NUTCRACKER NOTES and placed them at their own web site. The address to get to current and past issues of Nutcracker Notes is:
This site contains all the previous nine issues of Nutcracker Notes (Numbers 1 thru 9), and will contain this issue soon.
NUTCRACKER NOTES is a vehicle for the dispersal of information on all facets of whitebark pine ecosystems. Summaries of research results and management projects in whitebark pine forests are presented to provide readers state-of-the-art information. The purpose of this newsletter is to distribute timely information so that land managers and scientists can understand and deal with important ecological issues in the whitebark pine ecosystem. Issues of NUTCRACKER NOTES will be numbered consecutively and published 1-3 times a year depending on available material.
Submission of Articles: Everyone is invited to submit articles to NUTCRACKER NOTES. These articles should be mailed to Nutcracker Notes, c/o Bob Keane, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807. If possible, they should be submitted electronically (Send to bkeane/rmrs,missoula on USFS IBM 615 or bkeane/rmrs_missoula@fs.fed.us via Email to USFS IBM 615) or written to a floppy disc (WordPerfect text processing) and then mailed. You are encouraged to submit articles to improve this valuable information network.
Newsletter Format: Articles submitted to NUTCRACKER NOTES will be presented in the newsletter under three main categories: Management News and Notes, Research News and Notes, and Publication and Events Alert. Management News describes current activities, problems, observations, conditions planned or implemented by land management agencies in whitebark pine forests. Research News describes current or planned research projects in these ecosystems. Publication and Events Alert is simply a list of current events and published information that may be of interest to readers of the newsletter. The reader will find a complete all authors addresses and email addresses accompanying each article. There will usually be an editorial at the beginning of the newsletter to highlight important topics and provide a forum for opinions. There are also the short features that allow you to send the editor snippets of information about projects in your area.
Errata and omissions: None as yet.
Bob Keane, Editor
Other
Nutcracker Notes available:
return
to Nutcracker Notes homepage
return
to WPEF homepage