An information digest published by the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station IFSL, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807

A Case for Monitoring Whitebark Pine Stands by Katherine Kendall

• Whitebark Pine Infected with White Pine Blister Rust on the Salmon National Forest by Lynn Bennett, Salmon-Challis National Forest

• Results of a Whitebark Pine Informational Survey from the National Forests of the Pacific Northwest Region by R.A. Sniezko , J. Linn, J. Beatty, S. Martinson.

• Pathogens of Whitebark Pine by Sue Hagle

• Preliminary Findings of a Whitebark Pine Cone and Seed Insect Survey by Sandy Kegley and Nancy Campbell

• Inbreeding in Natural Populations of Whitebark Pine by Glenn R. Furnier and Bruce P. Dancik

• Artificial Rust Inoculation of Whitebark Pine Seedlings -- Rust Resistance Across Several Populations by Ray Hoff

• Whitebark Pine/Fire Relationships Within a Small Roadless Area Preliminary Findings by Michael Murray

• Research & Management in Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: A Workshop Organizers' Perspective by Bryan Donner and Kate Kendall

Publication and Events Alert

A Case for Monitoring Whitebark Pine Stands by Katherine Kendall

Forty-two percent dead in western Montana and an additional 23% estimated to be gone by 1997; 90% losses in Glacier NP; 70- 96% mortality scattered throughout northern Idaho, no losses in Yellowstone NP (yet)... We are beginning to get a handle on the status of whitebark pine in parts of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. However, in spite of large and rapid declines in whitebark pine stands in its northern range and the probability of large-scale mortality in its southern range in the future, we know very little about its status in other areas.

There is no established system for assessing whitebark pine status or trends. Yet data on mortality rates and causes and levels of blister rust infection are essential for developing a management strategy for retaining whitebark pine stands. The case for requesting more support for research and management activities would be strengthened by a clear picture of the range-wide status of whitebark pine.

At the May 1994 Whitebark Pine Workshop in Glacier NP, I made a case for the need for a whitebark pine monitoring network and offered to act as coordinator, if there was interest. Nineteen people have, thus far, signed up to participate in such an effort; 9 in Montana, 4 in Idaho, 2 in Washington, and 1 each in Wyoming, Oregon, Colorado (working on whitebark in ID, MT, and WY) and Alberta. Our ultimate goal is to gather information on stands from throughout whitebark pine's range, representing all topographic and climatic types.

Bro Kinloch was not able to make the workshop in May but his group at the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, has started making observations of all high elevation California white pines, including whitebark pine. These will probably be somewhat subjective appraisals done on an informal and opportunistic basis.

I canvassed the working group as a first step in establishing standardized methods for the collection of comparable data. All agreed on the need for a quick way to assess blister rust infection levels and mortality rates in whitebark pine stands. The group consensus was to use fixed plots to monitor whitebark pine status with protocols for gathering a set, minimum amount of information for each plot. Further sampling could be tailored to the needs of the surveyor but would follow standard methods to ensure compatibility.

While most whitebark pine stands which have been previously studied are located in Montana and Idaho, even there, gaps occur in coverage. Our information will remain spotty unless people from other areas volunteer to gather information in their area. If you are interested in joining the Whitebark Pine Monitoring Network, please contact me:

Kate Kendall
National Biological Survey
Glacier Field Station, Glacier National Park
West Glacier, MT 59936

TEL:406/888-5441

FAX:406/888-5791

Internet: katherine_kendall@usgs.gov

Whitebark Pine Infected with White Pine Blister Rust on the Salmon National Forest by Lynn Bennett, Salmon-Challis National Forest

The Salmon National Forest has approximately 290,000 acres of the whitebark pine forest cover type. Whitebark pine (Pinus ablicaulis) is an important tree species, and represents a key ecosystem in landscapes on the Salmon National Forest. The seeds of the whitebark pine are considered an important food source for several species of birds and mammals. Generally the whitebark pine is considered non-commercial for timber purposes. There has been concern about a decline of whitebark pine in our geographic area. The major reasons for the decline are thought to be: the white pine blister rust fungus (Cronartium ribicola), epidemics of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), and successional replacement by shade-tolerant trees in the absence of fire (Keane and Arno 1993).

In the field season of 1994, spot field checks revealed that four areas did have whitebark pine trees with varying degrees of blister rust infection. In some areas the infected trees had lethal canker damage, while in other areas only branch flagging was observed. Infected trees were observed in the Bitterroot Mountains (Spring Creek), Beaverhead Mountains (Big Hole Pass, Miner Lakes), and the Salmon River Mountains (Wallace Lake area). Also, in 1994, University of Idaho researcher, Michael Murray, studying whitebark pine in the Beaverhead Mountains noted the blister rust on approximately 15 percent of the whitebark pine trees on the Idaho side and on 10 percent of the trees for the Montana side of the mountain range.

As the Salmon-Challis National Forest implements Ecosystem Management and incorporated landscape level analysis, health condition and trends will be considered for the whitebark pine ecosystems. The Forest plans to continue monitoring the presence of whitebark pine blister rust, and has plans to increase employees awareness of the rust and its appearance to improve field verification and inventory efforts.

Should field reconnaissance identify areas of significant mortality of the whitebark pine, then the Forest will consider its management options for maintaining these ecosystems in a sustainable condition. A key factor of consideration is that the rust is an introduced mortality agent and not part of the historic landscapes disturbance regime. Since its introduction, white pine blister rust has resulted in major loses of western white pine (Pinus monticola) in Idaho and Montana, with mortality rates of 90 percent or more in what were once vigorous well stocked stands (USDA 1982). It has also been reported that whitebark pine is several times more susceptible to blister rust than western white pine (Hoff 1992),

Keane,R.E. and S.F. Arno. 1993. Rapid Decline of Whitebark Pine in Western Montana: Evidence from 20-Year Remeasurements. West.J. Appl.For.8(2):44-47.

Hoff,R.J. 1992. How To Recognize Blister Rust Infection on Whitebark Pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note INT-406. 7p.

USDA. 1982. Forest Insect and Disease Identification and Management. USDA For. Serv., Northern Region; Idaho Dept. Lands, Insect and Disease Control; Montana Dept. of State Lands,Division of Forestry. 192p.

Results of a Whitebark Pine Informational Survey from the National Forests of the Pacific Northwest Region by R.A. Sniezko , J. Linn, J. Beatty, S. Martinson.

A whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) information survey for Oregon and Washington was initiated in December 1993. Input was sought on all aspects of whitebark pine ecology and management. Due to the preliminary nature of this survey, responses were requested by January 21. Comments were received from many areas in Oregon and Washington. Although not comprehensive, this survey gives a valuable overview on the general status of the species, its importance, and the general lack of knowledge about it, as well as a list of contact persons (mailing list as a starting point for further information). This type of survey could be useful for gathering quick, initial responses on other species or other topics, however, to be effective, a good network of contacts must be reached, a deadline for information must be established, the written request for information should be short, and a small core team should be established to facilitate collecting and summarizing responses. Below is a partial summary of responses and some additional resource information. Summary results of the entire survey are available from the authors.

Mt. Hood National Forest

Central Oregon National Forests, National Parks

The above summary was reorganized into "issue" categories where they are grouped by actions needed to respond to the comments. The issue categories are Survey Needs, Disturbance Agents, Ecology Plots, Genetics, Inventory, Wildlife and Recreation. This additional summary is available in the original report.

Pathogens of Whitebark Pine by Sue Hagle

This is a brief summary of some pathogens known to infect whitebark pine.

Additional information can be obtained by calling the Timber, Cooperative Forestry and Pest Management staff unit at Northern Region in Missoula.

Preliminary Findings of a Whitebark Pine Cone and Seed Insect Survey by Sandy Kegley and Nancy Campbell

Forest Pest Management personnel from Region One field offices in Coeur d'Alene and Missoula initiated a survey of cone and seed insects in whitebark pine this past summer. Out of 19 sites visited that had mature trees suitable for cone collection, only 3 sites had second year cones. The 3 sites were Gisborne Mountain, Priest River Experimental Forest in Idaho; Schweitzer Mountain near Sandpoint, Idaho; and Big Mountain near Whitefish, Montana. Cones were collected at these sites and examined for insect damage. We covered most of the cones we found with wire cages by mid-July. All cones that we did not cover were severely pecked by Clark's nutcrackers by the time they were ripe in August. Cones sent to the Forest Service nursery in Coeur d'Alene that were collected by John Montgomery from the Freezeout Ridge area near St. Maries, Idaho were also examined for insect damage. External evidence (frass or boring dust) and/or larvae of a coneworm, Dioryctria sp. were found in a high percentage of the cones examined.

Location	# cones examined	% with coneworm damage
Gisborne Mtn.	296	67
Schweitzer Mtn.	50	48
Big Mtn.	7	100
Freezeout Ridge	201	75

Insect infested cones are now being reared for adult emergence and identification to species. Other, less conspicuous insects may also be discovered through rearing and dissection. This was a poor cone crop year and insect infestations may be abnormally high due to the few cones available for colonization. However, this is evidence that insects are infesting whitebark pine cones and may have a high impact on viable seed. We hope to continue this survey in future years to get a damage assessment of cone crops of various sizes and determine impact.

We also conducted a white pine blister rust incidence survey in all sites we visited while looking for cones. Trees were tallied as infested if one or more blister rust cankers were found. In northern Idaho and western Montana, incidence rates in mature trees ranged from 50-96% and in regeneration from 32-92%. Incidence rates were much lower east of the Continental Divide, 17% in mature trees and 20% in regeneration.

Inbreeding in Natural Populations of Whitebark Pine by Glenn R. Furnier and Bruce P. Dancik

In,Proceedings, 12th North American Forest Biology Workshop, The Role of Physiology and Genetics in Forest Ecosystem Research and Monitoring, pg. 161, 1992, Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Canada, Published by; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, 1235 Queen Street East, P.O. Box 969, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 5N5, Ph. (705) 946-2981.

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is distributed in the montane and subalpine zones of northwestern North America. Seeds of this species are disseminated by animal vectors, including Clark's nutcracker, a member of the crow family. Nutcrackers will collect a number of seeds at one to a few trees and then cache them by burying 1-15 seeds in a cluster. This behavior leads to clusters of whitebark pine stems. Using allozyme analysis of two whitebark pine populations in Alberta, we previously reported (Evolution 41:607-612, 1987) that members of these clusters are more closely related than would be expected if seeds were distributed randomly. We have subsequently analyzed allozymes from progenies of these trees to examine the mating system in these populations. Results indicate that this clustering of related adult trees results in a relatively high level of inbreeding in these populations. This high level of inbreeding is one possible explanation for the relatively low germination rates that have been reported for seeds of this species.

Artificial Rust Inoculation of Whitebark Pine Seedlings -- Rust Resistance Across Several Populations by Ray Hoff

In 1989 I started a progeny test (a preliminary test) with the objectives to: 1) Learn how to grow and maintain seedlings of whitebark pine and 2) Determine the level of resistance in whitebark and to see if it is associated with levels of mortality in natural stands.

With much help from Jan Scheffer (manager and part owner of the Western Forest Systems, Inc. in Lewiston, Idaho), I was able to grow and maintain most of the seedlings. I lost many seedlings, about 300 out of about 1,000, from various root rots. However I was pleased that I killed most of the seedlings with blister rust.

The blister rust data from this study is very encouraging. Natural stands with high mortality due to blister rust appears to have high resistance and those from moderate and low mortality have a much lower resistance (Table 1).

This is a lot more resistance then I expected. There will likely be a few more cankers showing up but I don't expect too many. Nearly 90% of the seedlings that had cankers in September 1994 were already cankered by September 1993. Then too, more resistance will likely show up--bark resistance was still low in May of 1994, but sometime after that resistance systems in the bark went into action and successfully killed the fungus in several seedlings. In September 1994 previous cankers had become bark reactions and the level of resistance took an upward jump.

There were several families that had very high resistance (Table 2). Three families in particular catch my eye. One is family 33 from the Gisborne stand, a stand with 90% mortality. Family 33's main resistance mechanism was premature shedding of blister rust infected needles. This means that (using western white pine as a model) sometime between the 9th month and the 12th month after artificial inoculation the infected needles dropped off. This very effectively separates the fungus from the primary infection court, the needle, and the stem. The second is family 17 from Lunch Peak also a stand with over 90% mortality by blister rust. In May 1994 only three seedlings out of the 24 were resistant but in September of 1994 eleven more trees showed resistance due to reactions in the stem that killed the fungus. A third kind of resistance is illustrated by a third family. This is family 20 from Lunch Peak. It has 13 seedlings out of 25 that were resistant to blister rust via a trait called fungicidal short shoot. Here the fungus grows down the needle and when it grows into the short shoot some kind of reaction is turned on that kills the fungus. It is recognized by seedlings that have blister rust needle spots in nine months and twelve months after inoculation but never show up with a canker. A fourth reaction is also evident and this is a trait called "no spot no canker". This trait could be an escape, i.e., for some reason they did not become inoculated. In this test I favor escape since six out of the eight seedlings with no spots/no canker were from low mortality stands.

The high amount of variation among the families within stands is really exciting as is the presence of some genes for resistance even in the low mortality stands.

The remainder of the test data is shown in Table 3. This is stand data where the seed collections of the individual trees from the stands where bulked. Not much to say about this data except that many more seedlings are needed to really characterize the rust resistance within these stands. In the future 100 or more seedlings will be included.

This is just the first test and with it we have gained additional information on the nature of resistance to blister rust in whitebark pine and we have found several trees that we use for seed orchards, if that is what we wish to do, and we can increase the numbers of resistant seedlings by rooting. The next step is to locate and collect seed from many more resistant candidates from the entire range of whitebark pine, especially for those areas that have been decimated by blister rust. Maybe in the next inoculated progeny test we could also incorporate DNA and enzyme analysis. If we are lucky maybe we will find useful associations.

Whitebark Pine/Fire Relationships Within a Small Roadless Area Preliminary Findings by Michael Murray

Our study area has been chosen to represent a small wilderness area. This is characteristic of many areas supporting whitebark pine in the Northern and Intermountain regions of the Forest Service where a majority of roadless and wilderness areas are less than 101,000 hectares (250,000 acres) in size. The study area occurs on the Salmon and Beaverhead National Forests straddling the Continental Divide (West Big Hole). The study has been designed to achieve the following objectives: (1) describe the historical frequency, size, spatial pattern, and severity of fire in the study area; (2) estimate past and present abundance of whitebark pine and determine if this is linked to fire history; and (3) predict future abundance of whitebark pine based on estimated of current status.

Preliminary results suggest that fires were typically non-stand replacing events of less than 10 square kilometers (2,471 acres) in size for all forest habitat types. Historical fires in the Salmon/Beaverhead study area appear to have been more frequent at lower elevations compared to the highest elevations. At lower timberline on the west side (Idaho) fires burned at estimated intervals between 15 and 75 years, averaging 46 year fire-free intervals. Similarly, on the east side (Montana) at lower timberline fires are estimated to have occurred every 17-53 years, averaging 41 fire-free intervals. Upper forests proximate to the Continental Divide likely received fire every 60 to 300 years, averaging 136 years fire-free intervals. At middle elevations fire frequencies can be characterized as intermediate, occurring within the aforementioned frequency ranges.

Fires commonly crossed riparian zones and ridges separating drainages. Instances of fires which spread across the Continental Divide were restricted to only a few mountain passes which supported continuous forest cover at the time of the fire, such as Goldstone Pass. Fires which spread from lower timberline to upper timberline have historically been rare. Fires which burned the upper elevation, thus particularly important to whitebark pine dynamics, were typically restricted to the upper subalpine zone. Additionally, the frequency and sizes of fires has markedly decreased since the early part of this century. Extensive fire events appear to have occurred until about 1910.

Preliminary findings suggest a significant increase in basal area of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) since 1893. Consequently, a decrease in mature whitebark pine is apparent. A mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) epidemic affected most of the study area during the early 1930's. Extensive mortality of mature whitebark pine occurred. Several upper timberline stands were reverted to earlier successional stages by the intense disturbance. Blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) mortality is estimated to be of low incidence at this time. Rust infection is estimated at less than 10% of trees on the east side, whereas the west side is slightly higher--reaching approximately 15%. Very few trees were observed to have already died from blister rust.

Research & Management in Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: A Workshop Organizers' Perspective by Bryan Donner and Kate Kendall

A workshop to exchange information about on-going and soon-to-be-initiated whitebark pine research and management projects was held on May 3, 1994 in Glacier National Park. Along with Brenda Coen (National Biological Survey, Glacier Field Station), Ward McCaughey (Intermountain Research Station), Bob Keane (Intermountain Research Station), and Ken Brewer (Flathead National Forest), we saw this workshop through from arranging for speakers to literally cleaning up afterwards. We would like to offer our perspectives on the successes of this workshop.

We felt the workshop was a great success for several reasons. First, the meeting was well attended (>120 participants) in spite of heavy competition on the same day from an Ecosystem Management symposium in Spokane featuring Dr. Jack Ward Thomas. Second, most participants were very enthusiastic. Feedback during and after the workshop was very positive. Third, the attendees represented a variety of agencies and organizations. Most were USDA Forest Service employees but there were representatives from many universities, several U.S and Canadian national parks, and the British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Other interested individuals made the effort to attend as well. Fourth, people came from a wider area than ever before with participants representing 8 states and 2 Canadian provinces. For the first time we were able to draw folks from the Pacific northwest, an area where the plight of whitebark pine has received less attention than in the Intermountain West. Many participants were local Flathead National Forest or Glacier National Park employees, but Forest Service employees came from as far as Oregon, Park Service employees from as far as Seattle, and university researchers from as far as Arizona and Colorado.

The speakers were well-prepared and provided excellent information. The morning session primarily was devoted to research activities and the afternoon was oriented towards management activities so participants heard a wide range of subjects. Not all the presentations were technical. The lead presentation was by the professional outfitter Bud Cheff, who explored Montana's whitebark pine forests as a youngster in the 1920's and told us of his observations. He included tales of collecting whitebark cones each fall with a Salish-Kootenai family and descriptions of mangy grizzly bears running through the woods with whitebark cone resin matting their fur. One participant later told us that he could have listened to Mr. Cheff all day long; another said it added great perspective to start with him.

Glacier National Park provided an excellent setting for this workshop. Although it was somewhat out-of-the-way from airports, motels, and restaurants; there were few distractions and the scenery was pretty good. An excellent lunch and dinner was catered and nobody seemed to mind too much when a steady rain fell during the half hour when lunch was served outside.

One of the most important achievements of the workshop was the bringing together of people to chart a course for subsequent work in research and management of whitebark pine. The foundation for a major international symposium focusing on whitebark pine was laid and a whitebark pine genetics working group, led by George Howe, was organized. Both the organizing committee for the symposium and the genetics working groups are now well established and have had subsequent meetings. A network to monitor the status of whitebark pine stands was proposed and is moving forward (see editorial in this issue).

Copies of the workshop proceedings, about 150 pages, are still available. If you would like a copy, just let either one of us know.

Publication and Events Alert

Keane, R.E., P. Morgan, J.P. Menakis. 1994. Landscape assessment of the decline of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex of Montana. Northwest Science 68(3): 213-229.

Schmidt, W.C. and F.K. Holtmeier. 1994. Proceedings -- International workshop on subalpine stone pines and their environment: the status of our knowledge. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-309. 321 pages.

Kendall, K.C., and B. Coen. 1994. Research and management in whitebark pine ecosystems. Workshop proceedings. Available from the authors, NBS, Glacier Park Field Station, West Glacier, MT

Tentative Schedule and Place: Big Mountain, Montana, August 29-31, 1995.  Includes field trips and presentations on whitebark pine and diseases.

Contact Jane Taylor (J.TAYLOR:R01A) for details

Holiday Inn

Missoula, Montana, September 10-15th, 1996

Purpose: To provide information from on-going and soon-to-be-initiated research and management projects for the restoration of whitebark pine on the forested upper subalpine landscape.

Description: This is a field-oriented symposium with many of the presentations conducted at research and management project sites. As a result, the enrollment for this symposium will be limited to 200 people.

Agenda: Field trips, formal presentations and poster session.

Tentative Sponsors:

• National Biological Survey, Glacier NP Field Unit

• Glacier National Park

• USDA Forest Service

  • Intermountain Research Station

• Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory

• Forestry Sciences Lab -- Missoula, Bozeman

• Lolo National Forest

• Bitterroot National Forest

• Society of American Foresters

Contact Bob Keane (B.KEANE:S22L01A) for details.

Jerome Beatty
Forest Pest Management
Pacific Northwest Region
333 S.W. 1st Ave
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, OR 97208
DG: J.BEATTY:R06A

Lynn Bennett
Salmon-Challis National Forest
P.O. Box 729
Salmon, ID 83467-0729
DG: L.BENNETT:R04F13A

Nancy Campbell
Northern Region
Timber, Cooperative Forestry and Pest Management
P.O. Box 7669
Missoula, MT 59807
DG: N.CAMPBELL:R01A

Bruce P. Dancik,
Department of Forest Science,
University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H1.

Bryan Donner
USDA Forest Service,
Flathead National Forest,
Glacier View District,
774 Railroad St. EN,
Columbia Falls, MT 59912.
PHN:406/892-4372 FAX:406/892-4134
DG: B.Donner:R01F10D06A

Glenn R. Furnier
Departments of Forest Resources and Plant Biology,
University of Minnesota,
St. Paul, MN 55108-1027, U.S.A., and

Sue Hagle
Northern Region
Timber, Cooperative Forestry and Pest Management
P.O. Box 7669
Missoula, MT 59807
DG: S.HAGLE:R01A

Ray Hoff
Intermountain Research Station
Forestry Sciences Lab
1221 South Main Street
Moscow, ID 83843
DG: R.HOFF:S22L04A

Sandy Kegley
Northern Region
Cooperative Forestry and Pest Management
Timber, Cooperative Forestry and Pest Management
Cour d'lene Field Office
Idaho Panhandle National Forests
1201 Ironwood Drive
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814-2658
DG: S.KEGLEY:R01F04A

Kate Kendall
National Biological Survey
Glacier Field Station, Glacier National Park
West Glacier, MT 59936
TEL:406/888-5441
FAX:406/888-5791
Internet: katherine_kendall@usgs.gov

Michael Murray
Dept of Forestry
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843
DG: M.MURRAY:S22L04A

Joesph Linn
Dorena Tree Improvement Center
Cottage Grove, OR 97424
DG: J.LINN:R06F15D01A

Sheila Martinson.
Timber Management
Pacific Northwest Region
333 S.W. 1st Ave
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, OR 97208
DG: S.MARTINSON:R06A

Richard A. Sniezko
Dorena Tree Improvement Center
Cottage Grove, OR 97424
DG: R.SNIEZKO:R06F15D01A

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. Articles concerning the O.J. Simpson trial will not be considered.

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