March 1, 1994 Number 3

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 USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station IFSL, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807

Too Much Protection Could Be Fatal

• Threats to Whitebark Pine Survival by Ken Gibson, Entomologist

• Precommercial Thinning to Favor Whitebark Pine: The Foggy Dew project on the Twisp Ranger District, Okanogan National Forest by Pete Soderquist and John Rohrer

• Pruning Whitebark Pine to Reduce Blister Rust May Not Be Recommended by Cathy Stewart and John Schwandt

• Green Mountain Whitebark Pine Cone Collection Effort by Frederick VonBonin

• Prescribed Fire and Silvicultural Treatments in the Declining Whitebark Pine Stands In and Around the Snow Bowl Ski Area, Lolo National Forest by Vic Dupuis

• A Study of Cone & Seed Insects Affecting Whitebark Pine Regeneration by Sandy Kegley and Nancy Campbell

• Ray Hoff Retires by Dennis Ferguson

• The Effects of Blister Rust on Post-fire Regeneration of Whitebark Pine: Case History--the Sundance Burn by Diana F. Tomback, Ray J. Hoff, and Stephen F. Arno

• Effects of the Cool Summer on Cone Development by Ron Lanner

Publication and Events Alert

Too Much Protection Could Be Fatal by Stephen F. Arno, Research Forester, Intermountain Research Station, Missoula, MT

Whitebark pine ecosystems are usually associated with roadless areas, often in wilderness or national parks, so it seems logical that the preferred management would be to "leave them alone." Paradoxically, this course of "no action" is having disastrous consequences for whitebark pine in much of the northwestern United States and this decline is spreading geographically (Kendall and Arno 1990; Keane and Arno 1993; Lanner 1993). The introduced disease, white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) is the most obvious threat, but perhaps equally important are the effects of fire exclusion compounded by mountain pine beetle epidemics (Dendroctonus ponderosae). Fire exclusion favors the pine's shade tolerant competitors; it also prevents effective pine regeneration by greatly reducing the area of high-elevation burns, where whitebark pine seeds are cached by the Clark's nutcracker (Arno 1986).

Why not simply allow natural fires to return? The 15-year-old prescribed natural fire program in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness provides an opportunity to evaluate the potential for returning natural fire to whitebark pine ecosystems. This has been perhaps the most successful natural fire program in the contiguous United States partly because it is one of the largest wilderness areas and has a rather high frequency of active fire years. This program allows lightning fires to burn (as prescribed natural fires) under acceptable conditions of weather and fuel moisture and utilizes "confine" and "contain" strategies rather than direct suppression on most wildfires. Nevertheless, in the whitebark pine type modern fire intervals are 2.4 times as long as presettlement fire intervals (Brown and others, In press). Major fires in the whitebark pine type are confined largely to late summer in especially dry years, when new ignitions are out of prescription and likely to be suppressed. Also, most whitebark pine habitats are isolated atop high ridges and in presettlement times burned mostly as a result of huge fires which burned across landscapes much larger than most modern wilderness areas. Many whitebark pine habitats are located in smaller wilderness areas or near area boundaries, where it would be much more difficult to return fire to any semblance of its presettlement role using natural ignitions alone.

Ironically, fires may be more critical for whitebark pine's survival now that blister rust has inflicted heavy mortality across large areas of the northwestern United States. Although not yet a serious factor in the greater Yellowstone Park area, a blister rust epidemic is spreading toward Yellowstone from the northwest (Keane and Arno 1993) and the rust is increasing in limber pine in the Bighorn Mountains east of Yellowstone (Lundquist 1993). Burned sites offer the opportunity for whitebark pine to regenerate successfully and for rust resistant genotypes to become more abundant. Unlike the western white pine and sugar pine of lower elevations, which are also heavily damaged by blister rust, whitebark pine is slow-growing and noncompetitive. Its survival is keyed to its extreme hardiness as a pioneer species on harsh sites where competition is minimal, notably high-elevation burns.

Because of the site fragility and low economic values associated with whitebark pine ecosystems, opportunities for enhancing whitebark pine using silviculture are few. Use of manager-ignited prescribed fires, release cuttings to favor the pine over its competitors, and aiding the propagation of natural rust resistance are the most obvious alternatives. These measures are now being tested at the Coyote Meadows study on the Bitterroot NF (Stewart and Arno 1993) and are being planned on a few other sites in western Montana. Evidence from mortality observations (Kendall and Arno 1990), permanent plots (Keane and Arno 1993), comparisons of circa. 1900 and present forest composition (Arno and others 1993), and process modeling (Keane and others 1990) suggest that unless active management is carried out on a landscape scale, whitebark pine will continue to decline in a large part of its range and may virtually disappear in some areas.

References

Arno, S. 1986. Whitebark pine cone crops: A diminishing source of wildlife food? W. J. Appl. For. 1(3):92-94.

Arno, S., E. Reinhardt, and J. Scott. 1993. Forest structure and landscape patterns in the subalpine lodgepole pine type: A procedure for quantifying past and present conditions. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-294. 17 p.

Brown, J.K., S. Arno, L. Bradshaw, and J. Menakis. In press. Comparing the Selway-Bitterroot fire program with presettlement fires. In: Proc. of Symposium on Fire in Wilderness and Park Management. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-___.

Keane, R. E. and S. Arno. 1993. Rapid decline of whitebark pine in western Montana: Evidence from 20-year remeasurements. W. J. Appl. For. 8(2):44-47.

Keane, R. E., S. Arno, J. Brown, and D. Tomback. 1990. Modelling stand dynamics in whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests. Ecol. Modelling. 51:73-95.

Kendall, K. C. and S. Arno. 1990. Whitebark pine--an important but endangered wildlife resource. pp. 264-274 In: Proc. of symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: Ecology and management of a high mountain resource. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270.

Lanner, R. M. 1993. Is it doomsday for whitebark pine? W. J. Appl. For. 8(2):47 & 70.

Lundquist, J.E. 1993. Large scale spatial patterns of conifer diseases in the Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM-53.

Stewart, C. and S. Arno. 1993. An integrated research and management study: Demonstration of whitebark pine management on the Bitterroot National Forest. Nutcracker Notes 1:3-4. On file at Intermountain Res. Sta., PO Box 8089, Missoula MT 59807.

Threats to Whitebark Pine Survival by Ken Gibson, Entomologist

Forested ecosystems are inhabited by a wide variety of insects. Whitebark pine forests are no exception. Because these forests are typically found at higher elevations, and harsher environments, fewer insects are found there. Even fewer are "pests"--species which compete with us for finite resources.

Some insects negatively affect our timbered resource. Annually, insects and diseases kill more trees in the United States than does fire. During an outbreak, some pests, such as mountain pine beetle, may infest a million or more acres and kill several million trees each year. In the last 25 years, in Montana and northern Idaho alone, an estimated one-quarter billion trees have been killed by the beetle. Though populations have declined in recent years, beetles and other insects are an ever-present management concern.

Not a wide range of insect and disease pests have been recorded on whitebark pine. Two, however, on some sites, threaten the tree's survival. The native mountain pine beetle; and an introduced disease--white pine blister rust, pose challenges to its continued existence.

A few less-important insect pests have been recorded on whitebark pine. Cones and seeds are infested a variety of insect species. Although exact impacts are unknown, these pests may reduce yearly seed production considerably. Foliage-feeding insects are not uncommon, but usually do little long-term damage. Some bark beetles, other than mountain pine beetles, occasionally kill weakened trees, or tops of stressed ones.

Whitebark pine's most important insect pest is the mountain pine beetle. Beetles seldom build to epidemic proportions in isolated, high-elevation stands. Rather, most damage has been done in whitebark pine stands adjacent to infested lodgepole pine stands. While few whitebark pine stands in the Region currently harbor beetle outbreaks, during the 1980's, when beetle populations were highest, thousands of acres of whitebark pine were infested each year. Recent surveys showed that in more seriously-affected areas, as much as 97% of whitebark pines, over 5 inches in diameter, had been killed. Overall whitebark pine mortality, attributable to the beetle, for three geographic areas sampled (Yellowstone National Park, Gallatin and Flathead National Forests), averaged 44%.

Mountain pine beetles are efficient tree-killers. Adults--several hundred pairs per tree--tunnel beneath the bark, where the female lays a hundred or more eggs. Upon hatching, small, grub-like larvae feed in the inner bark--girdling the tree. In addition to feeding, which alone would kill the tree; beetles introduce a fungus which, as it grows, clogs the tree's water-conducting tissues. Between the two--destruction of the phloem and introduction of fungi into the xylem--a successfully-attacked tree almost always dies. There is one flight of adult beetles each year. Usually, broods complete their development in one year, but at higher elevations, two years may be required.

Whitebark pine, an important component of high-elevation ecosystems, is being significantly threatened by insect and disease pests. Its survival may be dependent upon silvicultural strategies employed in lower-elevation lodgepole pine stands to lessen the effects of the former, and as-yet-untested breeding programs to develop resistance to the latter.

Precommercial Thinning to Favor Whitebark Pine: The Foggy Dew project on the Twisp Ranger District, Okanogan National Forest by Pete Soderquist and John Rohrer

INTRODUCTION: The Okanogan National Forest is on the east side of the North Cascades Mountain Range and within the recently designated North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. Whitebark pine occurs at elevations above 6,000 feet and may be an important food source for grizzly bears in the North Cascades. Insect and disease epidemics and successional replacement threatens whitebark pine stands here as well as throughout the intermountain west. In young, mixed-species stands, fire suppression has favored shade-tolerant species such as subalpine fir and contributed to the severity and risk of disease epidemics.

Many wildlife species forage whitebark pine seeds directly from the trees, but, grizzly bears raid red squirrel middens where the seeds are cached. Red squirrels favor mixed-species stands with closed canopies. Managing whitebark pine silviculturally to produce cones is one method of maintaining this wildlife food source. Managing for pure, open-grown stands of cone-producing whitebark pine may be the most effective means of maintaining the species in an ecosystem. Managing young, mixed-species stands to increase growth and vigor of whitebark pine while maintaining other species may be an effective method to manage for both red squirrel habitat and cone-producing whitebark pine. It has been shown that well-spaced trees produce more seed and that effects of spacing are more pronounced in shade-intolerant species like whitebark pine. Spacing control can produce trees with a higher proportion of fully exposed crown which are more vigorous and likely to bear cones.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: No past management activities had occurred in the stand. The Foggy Dew project was a precommercial thinning treatment of one half of a 15 acre stand. The stand is located at 6,440' elevation on a northerly aspect along the upper third of the Middle Fork Ridge in the Foggy Dew drainage. The stand is composed primarily of whitebark pine (>50% based on trees per acre) in the sapling to small pole size classes. Stocking is variable, averaging 1,000 trees per acre in thickets to less than 100 trees per acre in naturally occurring openings. Other species present include subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, and subalpine larch. Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine were noted in the general vicinity, but not in the subject stand. The average age of the stand is approximately 40 years. Understory vegetation consists of seedling to sapling sized components of Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine, with understory forbs and shrubs generally lacking. Ribes is present (near the ridgetop), however no incidents of blister rust were noted. Downed woody fuel loadings occur in jackpots well-distributed throughout the stand.

General management direction from the Land and Resource Management Plan, Okanogan National Forest (12/89) is to provide recreational opportunities characterized by a predominately natural or natural appearing landscape. Stand management objectives are to promote individual tree vigor for crown development and cone production, increasing the food base for grizzly and black bears, Clark's nutcrackers, red squirrels, and several other birds and mammals (McCaughey and Schmidt, 1990, GTR-INT-270).

Target stand conditions (Table 1) were developed from target stand descriptions identified by Chew (Timber Management and Target Stands in the Whitebark Pine Zone, from Proceedings--Symposium on Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: Ecology and Management of a High-Mountain Resource, June, 1990). They are a composite of conditions identified for lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir as whitebark pine is considered to exhibit silvical characteristics that indicate a moderate tolerance during later development stages (McCaughey and

Schmidt, 1990). The target stand conditions identified therein were modified to reflect management objectives that are designed to develop stands where primary objectives are not related to timber management and grazing (McCaughey, pers. comm., 8/92).

Table 1 -- Stand Target Conditions.

An alternative that allows a more conservative approach, which removes fewer trees during initial stocking control, provides for effectiveness monitoring, and recognizes the potential for further basal area management at a future date (possibly 20-40 years hence) was selected. This approach is favored because it will allow resource managers the opportunity to assess the success of the initial treatment, and determine whether additional stocking level control will be needed to meet objectives for improving forage habitat. The stand management prescription scheduled a best tree thinning from below to an average of 450 trees per acre. Species in order of crop tree preference and stocking was whitebark pine (50%), Engelmann spruce (20%), subalpine fir (20%), and lodgepole pine/subalpine larch (10%).

This treatment was accomplished with TE&S habitat improvement funding, by a crew of 5 in 3 days in September 1992. Monitoring plots were established in the thinned and unthinned portions of the stand. We are considering a comprehensive whitebark pine inventory of our district to identify management concerns and opportunities.

The Foggy Dew project was appealed by the Cascades Chapter of the Sierra Club. The appellants misinterpreted the project as a logging operation that was inappropriate, unnecessary, and inconsistent with the Forest Plan. The district decision was upheld as the stand management prescription was determined to be within Land and Resource Management Plan guidance.

Pruning Whitebark Pine to Reduce Blister Rust May Not Be Recommended by Cathy Stewart and John Schwandt

INTRODUCTION: Pruning of western white pine has been shown to be particularly effective in improving white pine survival and volume, especially in areas of moderate rust hazard, because pruning removes the branch cankers that would otherwise kill the tree. Therefore, surveys were conducted on the Bitterroot National Forest last year to determine if similar treatments might be worthwhile in stands of whitebark pine. The surveys were funded with Forest Pest Management pre-suppression funds to determine the potential need for pruning white pine blister rust cankers and to delineate areas for treatment.

METHODS: Surveys were a combination of stand exam plots and walk-through formats. Procedures called for adapting the basic stand exam to include some additional blister rust information that would help determine infection levels. Location of branch cankers was used to classify trees as prunable (cankers 6-24 inches from bole), lethally infected (cankers more than 6 inches from the bole) or safe (cankers greater than 24 inches from the bole).

RESULTS: Stand exam crews on the Stevensville and Darby Ranger Districts surveyed 1,500 acres and 1,300 acres, respectively, of high elevation stands to determine the status of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) and the potential need for canker pruning. Stand conditions were highly variable with measurable impacts from the 1920's mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreak, fire suppression and white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) infection. Whitebark pine was found to be more prevalent on south aspects in the Sapphire Mountains on the Bitterroot National Forest with subalpine fir and Douglas-fir more common on the north aspects. Many stands were composed of dead whitebark pine (due to 1920's mountain pine beetle outbreak and some more recent blister rust mortality) in the overstory with subalpine fir encroaching in the understory.

The blister rust infection levels were heavier in the Bitterroot Mountains on the west side of the Forest compared to the Sapphire Mountains on the east side and were also heavier on the north end of the Forest compared to the south end. The data showed that many sapling trees were heavily infected and that only a small portion were prunable. Most infections were well within 24 inches of the bole, and many were less than 6 inches from the bole.

DISCUSSION: Pruning and thinning were accomplished on an experimental basis but pruning was determined to be less feasible. After a meeting in the field with several pathologists and foresters, we decided that pruning would NOT be advised in these stands because there were very few prunable trees, and pruning would be contrary to stands developing natural resistance to blister rust.

Ray Hoff has found that white bark pine stands are developing resistance, and that pruning of susceptible trees would only prolong this natural function by maintaining susceptible genotypes for longer periods of time.

At this time we are not sure if this decision would be applicable in all stands, but suspect it might be the case in many stands. However, pruning might have a role in areas where we might be faced with total elimination of whitebark pine by blister rust before resistance can develop. Thinning to favor whitebark pine over subalpine fir, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine appears to be a feasible method to improve the survival of whitebark pine in these ecosystems. The effects of these treatments should be monitored, however, since thinning has been shown to increase infection rates in western white pine.

Green Mountain Whitebark Pine Cone Collection Effort by Frederick VonBonin

An effort was made in 1992 to collect seed from the Green Mountain stand of Whitebark pine on the Bly Ranger District (Table 1). The collection was cancelled due to Clark's nutcrackers and other seed-eating animals having harvested a majority of the seed prior to our collection efforts.

In the spring of 1993, the Green Mt. area again showed a potential for collection. Seven trees were identified as having acceptable cone counts, varying from 20-50 cones each. With the lack of a feasible collection the previous year, the 1993 approach was to involve several methods of protection. As an experiment, heavy aluminum foil, double layered paper bags and 12 X 22 inch GSA nylon bags with a leno mesh of appoximately 0.5mmx1.0mm were placed over branches with cones to determine which would work best against Clark's nutcrackers. The aluminum foil was wrapped around cones in a baked potato fashion. The paper bags and nylon bags were fastened using tie-straps. All were installed on June 30, 1993. Each tree received a combination of the three protection measures. A limited number of cones received no protection. A pre-collection survey was done in early September. All of the foil wrapped cones were gone. Approximately one third of the paper lunch bags and a majority of the nylon bags appeared to be intact.

Collection efforts proceeded on September 20, 1993. Actual collection showed that most bags had been effectively torn open by Clark's nutcrackers and other seed eating animals. A limited number of cones were collected from torn laundry bags and from the few paper bags that were found to be intact. We collected a quarter bushel of cones from five families.

None of the three methods proved effective. We found the foil and paper bags shredded and on the ground. The nylon bags fared better, but a majority of them had 2 to 4 inch holes torn in them. In the nylon bags that were torn open, the cones were either missing or all the seed was missing leaving only the cone stem.

Prescribed Fire and Silvicultural Treatments in the Declining Whitebark Pine Stands In and Around the Snow Bowl Ski Area, Lolo National Forest by Vic Dupuis

Whitebark pine, blister rust, fire exclusion, and loss of biological diversity are ecosystem management issues raised in two concurrent analyses taking place on the same parcel of ground on the Lolo National Forest. Analysis of the proposed Northside Timber Sale and analysis of a proposed expansion of the Snow Bowl ski area encompass a complex of stands in the head of Lavalle Creek where whitebark pine has been the predominant forest type. The ecological issues have evolved around the potential loss in biological diversity that would result should a combination of blister rust mortality and fire exclusion eliminate whitebark pine from this portion of the ecosystem. The significant management issue involves how to integrate the goals of a ski area with our ecological concern for the sustainability of whitebark pine in this system.

The project involves the Missoula Ranger District, the Snow Bowl Ski Area, and the Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory. Management actions being analyzed involve incorporating various silvicultural treatments into the ski area expansion plans and establishing a series of study plots to evaluate the effectiveness of these treatments over time. The Missoula Ranger District has developed an alternative to the Snow Bowl expansion proposal that recognizes the importance of the whitebark pine type and furthers the goals of the Snow Bowl Ski Area. The proposal being analyzed would allow permanent ski run development in the whitebark pine type while improving conditions for growth and development of whitebark pine in the leave stands between the runs. The ski area would realize added benefit because the more open stand conditions created to benefit whitebark pine represent increased opportunities for the increasing popular activity of skiing in the trees! The Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory would assist the Missoula Ranger District in development of specific silvicultural prescriptions that would be applied and install long term monitoring plots to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the treatments. While we are fairly certain that a ski area and whitebark pine can coexist in the same area in the short run, monitoring of the compatibility of downhill skiing and development of whitebark pine stands is needed to determine the longer term compatibility of these diverse and potentially conflicting uses of National Forest.

Analysis is proceeding and a decision is expected sometime this fall/winter.

A Study of Cone & Seed Insects Affecting Whitebark Pine Regeneration by Sandy Kegley and Nancy Campbell

Much of the decline of whitebark pine throughout the western United States is due to the introduction of white pine blister rust and periodic outbreaks of mountain pine beetle. There is a need to promote natural regeneration of whitebark pine and to supplement it artificially, perhaps with rust resistant nursery stock. To date, virtually nothing is known about the role cone and seed feeding insects play in the regeneration of this species. In western white pine, seed bugs (Leptoglossus occidentalis), cone beetles (Conophthorus ponderosae), and coneworms (Dioryctria abietivorella) can destroy 50-80% of the cone crop each year in seed orchards. Losses in whitebark pine may be similar.

This summer, Region 1 Forest Pest Management personnel in the Coeur d'Alene and Missoula field offices will initiate a survey of whitebark pine at selected sites across the Region to identify the insects affecting the cones and determine their impacts. Due to sporadic cone production, this survey will continue over several years to insure that the assessment will include cone crops of various sizes. The project will eventually lead to efficient monitoring methods for assessing cone and seed insect population levels and management strategies to reduce their impact.

We are requesting information on the location of areas of whitebark pine with cones that will mature in 1994. If anyone has any information on areas that had conelets last summer, please contact us.

Ray Hoff Retires by Dennis Ferguson

Intermountain Station genetics researcher Ray Hoff will retire at the end of January, 1994, after 33 years with INT.

Ray's research over the years has concentrated on the genetics of host/pest systems. He studied western white pine/white pine blister rust. He found 12 resistance mechanisms that protected western white pine from blister rust or slowed the growth of blister rust. Some resistance mechanisms are controlled by single genes, others are controlled by many genes. Ray was the leader in defining and implementing a breeding program to incorporate multiple gene resistance into populations of western white pine.

Other host/pest systems that Ray investigated include needle diseases of lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir. He also investigated western gall rust of lodgepole and ponderosa pine. He studied resistance to Armillaria root rot in western white pine and western larch. Pitch nodule moth, terminal weevil on lodgepole pine, and gouty pitch midge on ponderosa pine all caught his scientific interest.

Ray's advice and assistance was sought from local, national, and international forest managers. And, for 18 years, he was Project Leader for the genetics and silviculture research work unit in Moscow.

Ray's wife, Bettie, recently retired. They plan to travel, birdwatch, ski, play tennis, and hike. Ray also plans to continue some of his research on white pine blister rust in whitebark pine. We asked Ray what would he like to be remembered for, and what advice he has for fellow workers. He answered, "Two things are that I have added a little bit more knowledge concerning the resistance of western white pine to blister rust, and two, that I added some knowledge of the variation of resistance in several conifers to various natural pests. This data should be useful in programs such as tree improvement, biodiversity, and ecosystem management."

Ray's parting advice is, "Be involved in every aspect of your research; biology takes many years to understand. Keep your eyes wide open; new ideas and opportunities are everywhere." And last he said, "Have fun at what you are doing; working for Forest Service Research is one of the choice jobs."

The Effects of Blister Rust on Post-fire Regeneration of Whitebark Pine: Case History--the Sundance Burn by Diana F. Tomback, Ray J. Hoff, and Stephen F. Arno

In northern Idaho the Selkirk Range, Kaniksu National Forest, is an area heavily impacted by white pine blister rust. In 1967 wildfire burned over 22,600 ha of montane and subalpine zone forest, including seral whitebark pine communities. The burn, named for the point of origin of the fire, Sundance Mountain, provided a unique opportunity to compare whitebark pine regeneration density and the density distribution of regeneration with the similarly-aged Sleeping Child and Saddle Mountain burns of western Montana, which occur in areas of lower blister rust incidence. We were also interested in examining both the incidence and severity of blister rust infection in whitebark and western white pine and in determining any factors that might predict incidence and severity of infection.

Our field methodology was similar to that used for the Sleeping Child and Saddle Mountain burn studies. Beginning at the edge of the unburned whitebark pine seed source at the southeastern end of the burn, we established a 3.4 km transect heading northeast into the burn. The transect followed an elevation isocline, ranging between 1,775 and 1,849 m, to control for the effects of elevation on whitebark pine regeneration densities. Two parallel plots were established every 150 m along the transect, for a total of 46 plots; each plot was 50 m long and varied in width from 2.5 to 10 m, depending on local densities of whitebark pine. All whitebark pine and western white pine regeneration was measured for height, aged, and examined for symptoms of blister rust by means of Ecodata methodology (R. E. Keane and R. J. Hoff). With the help of Jane Kees and James Koehler at the University of Colorado at Denver, the data were statistically analyzed.

First of all, we determined that the density of whitebark pine regeneration in the Sundance Burn was significantly lower (one-sixth and one-ninth, respectively) than that found in the Sleeping Child and Saddle Mountain burns. However, as determined for both Montana burns, a scatterplot of whitebark pine density vs. distance from the seed source followed a negative exponential distribution--a pattern that is probably a consequence of nutcracker seed caching behavior.

For whitebark pine, 29% of the regeneration sites had blister rust symptoms (a regeneration site may support one seedling or a cluster of seedlings); for western white pine, 22% of the regeneration sites had blister rust symptoms. Only three seedlings each of whitebark and western white pine had died and showed blister rust symptoms. Thus, to date, blister rust was not a major cause of mortality and did not account for the low whitebark pine regeneration density. However, an examination of the whitebark pine seed source revealed few live whitebark pine trees; widespread mortality of whitebark pine predating the 1967 fire had occurred as a consequence of mountain pine beetle infestation. In addition, about a third of the living, cone-producing trees were infected with blister rust. Thus, lack of seed production to date accounted for the low levels of whitebark pine regeneration and not mortality caused by blister rust.

The future outlook for current regeneration in the Sundance Burn is not optimistic. Age and height of regeneration were two important predictors of incidence of blister rust infection for both whitebark and western white pine. By way of illustration, the average age and height of infected whitebark pine seedlings were nearly twice that of uninfected seedlings. Height alone was the major predictor of severity of infection (number of cankers per seedling). Thus, as seedlings become larger, they have a greater chance of being infected, and the severity of infection may increase; as a consequence, uninfected regeneration may become infected with time.

On the other hand, even though restocking the burn may be a slow process, it is likely that a large proportion of the surviving regeneration will be resistant to blister rust. Only after resistant trees are widespread and cone-producing will restocking of burns and clearcuts again occur in a natural timeframe.

Effects of the Cool Summer on Cone Development by Ron Lanner

Over much of the West, the summer of 1993 had record low temperatures. In Utah, for example, it was the coolest summer since 1908.

Low temperatures can be expected to retard development of this year's cones and seeds, as well as that of vegetative buds that will emerge in spring '94. In the Wyoming Range, on 2-3 September, I observed a low to moderate crop of whitebark pine cones. Through binoculars many of the cones appeared small, some almost berrylike. I found no squirrel-cut cones on the ground beneath bearing trees. I saw several nutcrackers over a period of several hours perching in trees with cones, but only in the case of one tree did I observe any harvesting of seeds. I saw no nutcrackers interacting with cones in any way nor did I hear any pecking. Normally at this date I would expect active harvesting and cone pecking, and the ground littered with cone scales, cores, and cones with the "half shell" of may seeds exposed.

On September 19 I observed nutcrackers behaving in the same indifferent manner in a stand of singleleaf pinyon in the Raft River Mts., Utah. There was a moderate to heavy crop of tightly closed green cones. The cones appeared full-sized. I worked in close to numerous nutcrackers perched in cone-bearing trees, but observed no harvesting or cone-pecking. Normally by this date I would expect all the cones to be fully open and most of their seeds gone. I brought home a small sack of cones, and dried them in the shade. Normally this will open closed cones in about a week. But on October 6 about half of the cones were still closed. Eventually nearly all the cones opened. Seeds were normal.

I understand bark beetles have shown retarded development attributed to the cool summer. They may have gone into dormancy in too early a stage, in which case they may not overwinter well. It would be worthwhile to document other examples of delayed phenology if you have made such observations.

Publication and Events Alert

Tomback, D.F., F.K. Holtmeier, H. Mattes, K.S. Carsey, and M.L. Powell. 1993. Tree clusters and growth form distribution in Pinus cembra, a bird-dispersed pine. Artic and Alpine Research. 25(4): 374-381.

Arno, S.F., E.D. Reinhardt, and J.H. Scott. 1993. Forest structure and landscape patterns in the subalpine lodgepole pine type: a procedure for quantifying past and present conditions. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-294, 17p.

Lundquist, J.E. 1993. Large scale spatial patterns of conifer diseases in the Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM-53.

WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT - RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT IN WHITEBARK PINE ECOSYSTEMS Glacier National Park, May 3, 1994

Purpose: To exchange information on on-going and soon-to-be-initiated whitebark pine research and management projects. By doing so, we hope to encourage work on this valuable species, promote the use of comparable methods, and provide avenues for collaboration.

Agenda: Presentations, panel discussions, and poster session.

Registration: Your $10 registration fee will include preceedings available upon arrival, lunch, coffee breaks, and hors d'oeuvres at a post-workshop social.

Sponsors:

National Biological Survey, Glacier NP Field Unit
Glacier National Park
Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory
Flathead National Forest
Society of American Foresters

Accommodations:

• Highlander Motel: In West Glacier. $40 single; $49 double. (406) 888-5311.

• Mini Golden Inns Motel: In Hungry Horse 10 mi. from West Glacier. $32-$42 single; $8 for each additional person. (406) 387-4313.

• Great Northern Chalets: In West Glacier. $125 for large unit sleeping 6-8 people; $95 for small units sleeping 4-6 people. (406) 387-5340.

For more information contact:

Kate Kendall / Brenda Coen (406) 888-5441

Bob Keane (406) 329-4846

_____ Number attending workshop.

_____ I plan to present a poster titled:

Please return by April 22 to:

Kate Kendall
Science Center, Glacier National Park
West Glacier, MT 59936

Steve Arno, Research Forester
Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab.
Intermountain Research Station
P.O. Box 8089
Missoula, MT 59807
(S.ARNO:S22L01A)

Victor Dupuis, Forester
Lolo National Forest
Missoula Ranger District
Bldg 24A Fort Missoula
Missoula, MT 59801
(V.DUPUIS:R01F16A)

Ken Gibson, Entomologist
USDA Forest Service, Northern Region
Timber, Cooperative Forestry and Pest Mgmt.
P.O. Box 7669,
Missoula, MT 59807
(K.GIBSON:R01A)

Ray Hoff, Retired Scientist
Intermountain Research Station
Forestry Sciences Lab.
1221 So. Main St.
Moscow, ID 83843
(R.HOFF:S22L04A)

John Rohrer, District Wildlife Biologist
Twisp Ranger District
Okanogan National Forest
Twisp WA 98856
(J.ROHRER:R06F08D04A).

John Schwandt, Pathologist
Idaho Panhandle National Forests
1201 Ironwood Dr.
Coeur d'Alene ID 83814
(J.SCHWANDT:R01F04A)

Pete Soderquist, District Silviculturist
Twisp Ranger District
Okanogan National Forest
Twisp WA 98856
P.SODERQUIST:R06F08D04A).

Cathy Stewart, Zone Silviculturalist
Bitterroot National Forest
Stevensville Ranger District
88 Main St.
Stevensville, MT 59870
(C.STEWART:R01F03D01A).

Diana Tomback, Associate Professor
Dept. Biology and Center for Environmental Sciences
Univ. Colorado at Denver
Campus Box 171, P.O. Box 173364
Denver, CO 80217-3364

Fredrick VonBonin
Bly Ranger District
Fremont National Forest
Bly OR 97622
(F.vonBONIN:R06F02D01A)

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 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, Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807. If possible, they should be submitted electronically to B.KEANE:S22L01A over the Data General, or written to a floppy disc (WordPerfect text processing) and then mailed. You are encouraged to submit articles to improve this 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. At the end of the newsletter the reader will find a complete list of all authors that submitted articles along with their addresses. There will usually be an editorial at the beginning of the newsletter to highlight important topics.

Bob Keane, Editor