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

• The Importance of Whitebark Pine to Wilderness by Judith Fraser

• Concerning Authenticity of Cronartium ribicola in Pinus albicaulis by Dick Krebill, INT-Ogden

• A Coarse Scale Assessment of Whitebark Pine in the Interior Columbia River Basin by Robert E. Keane, IFSL, INT Research Station

• Notes on Fire in Whitebark Pine by Steve Arno, Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab

• Seasonal Maturation of Whitebark Pine Seed in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem by Ward W. McCaughey, INT FSL Bozeman, MT

• Genetics and Physiology of Whitebark Pine: Candidate Rust-Resistant Trees, Artificial Pollination, Vegetative Propagation by Ray Hoff, INT Moscow, (Retired)

Publication and Events Alert

The Importance of Whitebark Pine to Wilderness by Judith Fraser

"The wilderness holds the answers to questions we have not learned to ask." Anon

Whitebark pine, a significant and threatened component of high elevation ecosystems, is important to Wilderness in a multitude of ways. The spread and threat of the introduced exotic, blister rust, poses difficult questions for the those who manage Wilderness.

Ecologically, whitebark pine provides food and shelter for animals, is a factor in snow drift and melt, provides organic material for soil development, creates windbreaks and micro-climates, uses moisture and retains it, creates edge effect....the list is long. The role of trees, in a harsh environment such as timberline, is complex and critical to natural processes. Without trees the equation changes drastically. Whitebark is critical to ecosystem function and landscape appearance.

Aesthetically, whitebark pine looks and feels differently than other trees. For many people it has just "a little more magic" than other species. It survives harsh conditions and is often long-lived. The trees can be huge and statuesque, or krummholtz. Whitebark pine is often associated with a feeling of accomplishment because one generally has to take initiative and exert effort to reach it. I've heard the exhilarated comment: "We hiked clear up to the Whitebark!" It occurs where the views are spectacular and one has that "on top of the world" feeling. It is mixed with other wonderful species such as alpine larch and a multitude of flowers. There's nothing quite like the huge spreading crown in a high elevation area with few other trees. These surviving giants provide perfect spots to pitch a tent or dodge a thundershower. The dark greenness of the needles contrasts strikingly with the blue sky above or the golden needles of autumn alpine larch. Visually and botanically, whitebark is different. For those who spend time in natural settings, who slow down and interact personally, rather than through television or whipping by at 55 MPH, this sort of subtlety makes a significant difference.

Humans evolved with edges and for some of us "sense of place" is especially triggered by that special edge called timberline. A wholesale loss of whitebark pine gives us chills. Given the threat and importance, questions remain as to how fast and where we are losing whitebark pine as well as what we should do about it.

We desperately need data on the extent of blister rust infection and the condition of trees in infected areas. In many cases we don't have even the most basic inventory of where it exists or tree mortality. While it would be nice to have extremely thorough and precise data we need at least some broad brush data quickly. In both dollars and time, the price of data perfection is prohibitive.

Once infestation is identified then the most problematic question of all comes up. What do we do about it? This is an area fraught with controversy. As with many Wilderness and ecological questions there are not easy answers. My preference would be that we try potentially helpful actions (i.e.,experimentation, quickly, outside, Wilderness). We need to find strategies that work. It also would make sense to take some kind of a triage approach and look at containment, as has been done with noxious weeds. If something works, apply it elsewhere and perhaps, in carefully considered and analyzed situations, even within Wilderness.

Wilderness direction, as derived from the Wilderness Act, indicates that we shouldn't be doing a lot of tampering within designated Wilderness. This applies to tampering with structure, composition and function. The only reason we might consider justifying doing something to favor one vegetative component, even one as admittedly important as Whitebark, is because human influence brought the blister rust in the first place. (Wilderness direction generally precludes actions which favor one component thus interfering with natural processes, e.g. an action to improve game habitat.)

One strategy often advocated is management-ignited fire. In cold, wet, high elevations, sparsely distributed whitebark pine may not be that far out of the natural range of variability. In addition to Wilderness direction, there are two principles that I think we need to look at very closely before taking any kind of action in Wilderness. First, we don't want to compound errors. There are many examples where this has happened. In Wilderness, "error" is often defined as moving away from "wild" by human influence. Secondly, we need to avoid the arrogance of tweaking. Wilderness is not a garden where we "improve" on nature. This does not mean we should never do anything. It does mean we need to think very carefully about what, when, where, why and how, we take actions in Wilderness.

Some argue that even if human influence has set a change in place, nature should then be allowed to deal with it rather than super imposing more human interference. While this is an appropriate principle there are times when we reach "the lesser of two evils". This rapidly gets complex ecologically and philosophically. There are many questions about historic range of variability. Other critical questions involve maintaining genetic stocks and artificial selection for blister rust resistance. We don't want to take any actions that are irreversible by the same token inaction could be irreversible. Arguments and insights support many stances.

Our biggest responsibility is to ask the right questions up front. We must find out the extent of damage and evaluate our options as best we can. A mix of strategies, preferably outside Wilderness first, would be the choice of many wilderness managers. I'd be happy to discuss this further with anyone interested. In addition, for those of you with blister rust, or whitebark pine expertise, this is an open invitation to visit the Anaconda Pintler, in groups smaller than 15, and help us assess where we stand with blister rust. We have many outstanding, large, uneven-aged stands of whitebark and some excellent examples of krummholtz. To date there seems to be little blister rust infection or mortality. We're waiting for the hammer to fall and would welcome your expertise and insight.

Judith Fraser
Wilderness Coordinator
Anaconda Pintler Wilderness
Duty Station: Sula RD 406-821-3201 R01F03D03A

Concerning Authenticity of Cronartium ribicola in Pinus albicaulis by Dick Krebill, INT-Ogden

White pine blister rust was first found in the Northwest in 1921, and studies suggested it had come from France to near Vancouver, BC, as early as 1910. Based on aecial characteristics and host alternation between white pines and Ribes, specialists properly identified the rust as Cronartium ribicola. Many studies were undertaken and many specimens were collected and examined over the next couple of decades. In the post-World War II years, considerable effort was directed toward developing resistance in commercial species of white pines, Pinus lambertiana, Pinus monticola, and Pinus strobus. This included countless inoculations of Ribes with aeciospores and inoculations of pines with basidiospores which form from telia on Ribes leaves. In the early 1960's, my colleague Dr. Roger S. Peterson of the Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station in Logan, UT carefully examined many blister rust specimens on both Ribes and pines, which he reported in classic publications on Peridermium and Cronartium. Amongst his findings, Roger provided a microscopic method to separate white pine blister rust from pinyon pine blister rust on Ribes, based on urediniospore characteristics. Studies in California on genetic resistance have identified strains of our white pine blister rust fungus, but they apparently are morphologically indistinguishable from one another. So far, all evidence points to a single species of the white pine blister rust in North America and in its European homeland.

But nature is full of surprises, and in Asia there are likely several different white pine blister rusts. Whereas our blister rust is limited to alternation between white pines and Ribes, in Asia there are white pine blister rusts that alternate to both Ribes and Pedicularis. Also we got a big shock in the 1980's when Japanese scientists reported the occurrence of white pine blister rusts that don't require host alternation. These fungi have a shorter nuclear cycle that allows them to go from pine to pine, much as occurs on this continent with Endocronartium harknessii in hard pines. The Japanese short-cycling blister rusts are found at high elevation mountain sites where it is advantageous to short-cycle rather than being required to go through two separate infection cycles in a short growing season. One or more of these short-cycling rusts are now also found on the Asian mainland.

Following lots of research by Japanese scientists, these rusts can be distinguished microscopically by spore size, spore wall ornamentation (requires SEM), and germ tube characteristics (especially nuclear studies using giemsa staining). With this new information, we in North America ought to be testing our blister rust to assure ourselves that we really are dealing with a single species. This is especially important as we begin to consider the use of tree improvement or natural seed orchards in a strategy toward recovery of high elevation whitebark pine forests. Testing of resistance needs to be done with the right pathogen.

As a first step, here are measurements of aeciospores of C. ribicola specimens which we had collected and curated at the Intermountain Station laboratory in Provo, UT:

In addition I measured aeciospores from specimens of limber pine, sugar pine, and western white pine, finding their spores very similar in size to those from whitebark pine. These sizes all fit within the range of spore sizes the Japanese report for C. ribicola and are well below the sizes they report (roughly 20-25 x 28-32 microns) for their short-cycling rusts. For the record, it is preferred to measure more spores and to also examine other characters such as wall thickness, ornamentation, and bald spots. Peterson usually examined 50 spores, and the Japanese report measurements on 200.

I encourage others to microscopically examine our blister rust, and better yet to run inoculation, isozyme, and DNA tests to verify its authenticity. Meanwhile, I'll continue looking at spores the old fashioned way.

Imazu, M. and M. Kakishima. 1995. The blister rusts of Pinus pumila in Japan. IN: Rusts of Pines, Proceed. IUFRO Working Party Conf., Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 27-36.

Imazu, M., M. Kakishima, and K. Katsuya. 1991. Morphology, cytology, and taxonomy of stem rusts on five-needle pines in Japan. In: Rusts of Pines, Proceed. IUFRO Rusts of Pine Working Party Conf., Sept. 18-22, 1989, Banff, Canada, pp. 76-91

Peterson, R.S. 1967. The Peridermium species on pine stems. Bull. Torrey Botanical Club 94: 511-542

Peterson, R.S. 1973. Studies of Cronartium (Uredinales). Rept. Tottori Institute (Japan) 10: 203-223

A Coarse Scale Assessment of Whitebark Pine in the Interior Columbia River Basin by Robert E. Keane, IFSL, INT Research Station

Background: Over the last year, many people from many government agencies and private institutions have been busily compiling a scientific assessment of the Interior Columbia River Basin (ICRB). Numerous spatial data products have been generated from this immense effort, including a wide variety of coarse scale GIS data layers describing current and historical vegetation conditions. I was curious as to the treatment of whitebark pine ecosystems in this coarse scale analysis. Presented here is a comparison of the historical and current conditions of whitebark pine across the ICRB.

Spatial Data Layers: Three current and three historical vegetation data layers developed at 1 km² pixel size were used in this summary. Discussion of the multitude of assumptions made for creation of these maps would be too lengthy for discussion here. However, the following is a brief summary describing how these maps were made.

The Potential Vegetation Type Map (PVT Map) was produced by assigning coarse scale PVT's to biophysical settings. The PVT's were developed at a series of workshops attended by scientists and land managers. Biophysical settings were mapped from elevation, aspect, slope and soil characteristics by geographical region. The Historical PVT Map was roughly the same as the Current PVT Map with changes made were historical data did not match conditions portrayed by Current PVT Map. The Current Cover Type Map was developed by Hardy and Burgan (1995) from satellite imagery and displays the distribution of major SAF forest cover types and SRM range types across the basin. Jack Losensky developed the Historical Cover Type Map from archived maps, pubs and photos. This map portrays vegetation conditions at approximately the turn of the century (circa 1900). The Current Structural Stage Map was created using discriminant analysis statistical techniques from fine-scale data layers delineated from aerial photography. The Historical Structural Stage layer was generated stochastically based on historical records of structural stage by cover type by county. Each data layer was created for input to the simulation model CRBSUM. Additional information on these data layers and the model can be obtained in a variety of impending publications.

Results: Two PVTs could support whitebark pine: 1) the Spruce-Fir PVT (upper subalpine climax spruce and subalpine fir types on harsh, cold sites), and 2) the Whitebark Pine/Alpine Larch PVT (high elevation mosaic of whitebark pine and alpine larch climax types). Two cover types contained whitebark pine as a dominant: 1) Whitebark Pine (WBP, SAF 208), and 2) Whitebark Pine / Alpine Larch (WBP/AL, CRB 10) (designed for ICRB Assessment). The following Table 1 shows the aerial extent (km²) of these cover types across the 2 PVTs for historic and current conditions.

Table 2 illustrates the extent (km²) of each structural stage for historic and current conditions summed across both cover types and both PVTs.

Discussion: Several interesting statistics are evident in Table 1. First, the current extent of whitebark pine (about 2.3 million acres or approximately 1% of the ICRB) seems to be somewhat lower than expected. This is probably because many whitebark pine stands were confused with lodgepole pine in the satellite imagery classification. I expected an estimate in excess of 3 million acres.

Next, the decline of whitebark pine is depicted quite well in Table 1 where there is a 45% decrease in whitebark pine from historical to current times. Moreover, the loss of whitebark pine is mainly in the PVT's where it is seral (Spruce-fir PVT). About 98% of whitebark pine's historical cover is lost from the Spruce-fir PVT. These areas are probably now occupied by lodgepole pine and subalpine fir (Arno et al. 1993). These statistics agree with many recent findings on whitebark pine decline (Arno 1986, Keane and Arno 1993, Kendall and Arno 1990).

Lastly, there is an even distribution of the land area in the structural stages across whitebark cover types in historical conditions, but a skewed current structural stage distribution with most land area in the old forest, single strata (Table 2). This structural stage is primarily a consequence of repeated, low intensity surface fires. However, the structural stage classification technique used to create the Current Structural Stage Map also added widely scattered stands to this stage. These low density stands of whitebark pine are common in PVTs where whitebark pine is the indicated climax species. Therefore, the structural stage distribution results seem consistent to what we would expect. The old forest, single strata forests occur mostly in the WBP/AL PVT. The even distribution of structural stages under historical conditions probably indicates a mixed fire regime in the Spruce-Fir PVT where whitebark pine cover types are in all stages of development (Arno 1986).

Summary: Although the current and historical extents of whitebark pine in the ICRB seem low, the declining trend agrees with current research results. Over the last 100 years there seems to be about a 45% loss in area of whitebark pine cover types, primarily in the Potential Vegetation Types where it is a seral species. Structural stage data seem to support the notion that fires in these PVTs were mixed in severity creating a mosaic of structural stages on the landscape.

Arno, S.F. 1986. Whitebark pine cone crops; a diminishing source of wildlife food? Western Journal of Applied Forestry 1(3):92-94.

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. 17 p.

Hardy, C. and R. Burgan. 1995. Mapping coarse scale cover types in the Interior Columbia River Basin. In preparation.

Keane, R.E., and S.F. Arno. 1993. Rapid decline of whitebark pine in western Montana: Evidence from 20-year remeasurements. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 8(2):44-47.

Kendall, K.C., and S.F. Arno. 1990. Whitebark pine -- an important but endangered wildlife resource. In: Proceedings of the symposium: Whitebark pine ecosystems: Ecology and management of a high mountain resource, March 29-31, 1989, Bozeman, Montana, USA. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Pages 264-274.

Notes on Fire in Whitebark Pine by Steve Arno, Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab

Brown and others (1994) recently compared the prescribed natural fire program in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness with presettlement fire history. Between 1979 and 1990 about 150,000 acres of burning occurred in the 1.3 million acre Wilderness under the prescribed fire program, perhaps the most extensive such program in the U.S. Most of this treatment occurred from wildfires that were allowed to burn under confine or contain strategies (with little or no suppression) and prescribed fires resulting from lightning ignitions. Presettlement and recent fires were compared by eight major forest zones in the Selway-Bitterroot. The greatest differences between historic and recent rates of burning were found in the ponderosa pine and whitebark pine zones. In both of these types recent burning was less than half the annual acreage of presettlement burning. In the whitebark pine type it appears that modern fires were restricted because they normally will burn only in the height of very active fire seasons, and under those conditions managers chose to extinguish new ignitions.

Outside of wilderness, a similar problem confronts those planning manager-ignited prescribed burns to perpetuate seral whitebark pine. When it is dry enough to burn whitebark habitats, managers are reluctant or unable to burn them because lower- and mid-elevation forests are under high risk of wildfire. One method of offsetting this problem is to create red slash in the proposed burn unit by felling some fir and spruce. This fuelbed can support burning under more moist conditions.

Reference

Brown, J.K. and others. 1994. Comparing the Prescribed Natural Fire Program with presettlement fires in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Int. Jour. Wildland Fire 4(3): 157-168.

Seasonal Maturation of Whitebark Pine Seed in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem by Ward W. McCaughey, INT FSL Bozeman, MT

(Editors note: This article was synthesized from a paper that appeared in Proceedings of the symposium: Plants and their Environments: Proceedings of the First Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1991 September 16-17, Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Technical Report NPS/NRYELL/NRTR-93/XX).

Forest managers are using whitebark pine in operational plantings in an attempt to replace whitebark stands destroyed by fire and to establish cone production areas for wildlife in areas previously managed for timber production. Cone crops of whitebark pine vary significantly between years and between stands for a variety of reasons (Weaver and Forcella 1990). When climatic and tree health conditions are conducive to cone initiation, a two-year cone and seed development process begins (Kozlowski 1971). During the two growing seasons prior to maturation, insects, disease, and climatic conditions combine to reduce cone crops (Edwards 1990). Timing of cone collections is critical for providing nurseries with an abundant supply of quality whitebark seed since cone crops are infrequent and reduced because of natural factors. Collecting large quantities of mature whitebark seed is a problem even when large crops are produced because of competing seed predators such as red squirrels (Tamiascuirus hudsonicus), chipmunks (Eutamias spp.), Clark's nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana), and a host of other small mammals and birds (Arno and Hoff 1989; McCaughey and Schmidt 1990), many of which begin collecting cones prior to seed maturity. This pilot study evaluates seasonal maturation of whitebark pine seed and provides some preliminary indices for use by forest managers to better estimate when seed has matured sufficiently for collection.

Methods: Cones were collected over a seven-week period in a nearly pure stand of whitebark pine on the west slope of Palmer Mountain on the Gardiner Ranger District of the Gallatin National Forest. Fifteen cones, three each from five randomly selected trees with large crowns, were collected weekly, placed in plastic bags to retain moisture, and transported to the Forestry Sciences Laboratory in Bozeman, Montana. Immediately upon arrival in Bozeman sound cones were weighed and immersed in water in a graduated cylinder to determine the mean specific gravity for each week's collection.

Sound cones were dried in burlap bags for 60 days following the last date (September 8). Cones were not after-ripened to reduce the effects of varying drying times from cone collection to seed extraction between the seven collections. Seeds were x-rayed to determine soundness, and empty seeds were discarded. Sound seeds were surface sterilized by soaking in 40 percent Clorox bleach for 10 minutes, rinsed 10 times in distilled water with an additional 12-hour rinsing in running tap water to remove any residual Clorox (Wenny and Dumroese 1987), and then air dried. Dried seeds were placed on germination blotter paper in plastic germination boxes and left in dry-cold conditions (2 ^oC) for 85 days. Seeds were them imbibed and stratified at 2 ^oC for 45 days. Seed boxes were then placed in a germination chamber with 12 hours of light at 25 ^oC (day) and 12 hours of darkness at 15 ^oC (night) temperature) Jacobs and Weaver 1990). When radicals emerged, germination was recorded. Based on the total number of sound seed, percent germination was calculated for each collection after 24 weeks in a germination chamber.

Analysis: Percentage of whitebark pine seeds germinating was used as a measure of seed maturity. Germination percentages were computed on a per cone basis as the number of seeds germinated from each collection date divided by the total number of sound seeds. Zero percent germination was weighted as a value of [1/4n)] to stabilize variance (Bartlett 1947) where n is the total number of sound seeds for that cone. The arc sine transformation of the square root of percent germination was used to stabilize variance in all statistical analyses (Snedecor and Cochran 1980).

Results: Percent germination as a measure of seed maturity was evaluated in relation to cone length and width and specific gravity over the 7 collection periods. Mean specific gravity was erratic but generally decreased from 1.02 for cones collected on July 27 to 0.98 for cones collected on August and then increased to 1.13 for cones collected on September 8 (Table 1). Mean cone length and width values increased for the collection dates from July 27 through August 18, then slowly decreased between August 18 and September 8 (Table 1).

Percent germination was zero for seed collected in July, 3.4 percent for August 4, and 6.3 percent for August 10, and then significantly increased to almost 26 percent for seed collected on August 18 (Table 1). Germination increased to almost 40 percent for seed collected on September 1, but then dropped to below 23 percent for seed collected on September 8. Percent germination (seed maturity) was evaluated against several whitebark pine seed characteristics measured concomitantly with percent germination. Endosperm and total lengths of sampled seed increased significantly from July 27 to August 4. Embryos were not recognizable on x-rays and were considered to be zero until the August 4 collections. Embryo and endosperm lengths increased significantly from August 4 to August 10 and from August 10 to August 18. Means of total seed length for the cone collection periods increased gradually from August 4 to August 25 and from August 25 to September 1. Mean lengths of embryo, endosperm, and the entire seed decreased significantly for collections after September 1.

Ratios of embryo and endosperm (total cavity filled) to overall seed length and embryo to endosperm length (Table 2) increased significantly from July 27 to August 4, from August 4 to August 10, and from August 10 to August 18. The embryo to endosperm ratio decreased significantly from August 25 to September 1. The mean ratio of endosperm (total cavity filled) to total seed length increased from 0.63 to 0.76 from July 27 to August 10 and significantly increased to above 0.80 for collections after August 10 (Table 2). Seed maturity, as measured by percent germination, increased significantly from 6 to more than 2% (Table 1) during the same period. Percent germination and ratio of total seed filled were higher (39.5 and 0.83, respectively) on September 1. The embryo to total seed length ratio also increased significantly from August 10 to August 18, but was constant for the remaining collections (Table 2).

Discussion: Demand for quality whitebark seed has increased in the past few years because of additional planned plantings by forest managers. Development of seed maturity indices that can be quickly obtained in the field is important because of infrequent and sometimes reduced cone crops, competition for seeds by a animals such as the Clark's nutcracker and squirrels, and the inaccessibility of whitebark pine stands. Germination of whitebark pine seeds was evaluated against indices of oven-dry seed weight, seed coat thickness, caloric content, and ash content by Hutchins and Lanner (1982). Seeds must be taken to a laboratory for evaluation of these indices. Indices evaluated in this study can be determined in the field by using a portable scale and a beaker of water to determine specific gravity and calipers and a knife to determine cone length and width, and embryo, endosperm, and total seed lengths.

Cone length, width, and specific gravity of cones on trees sampled at seasonal intervals did not indicate seed maturity (Table 1). Cone lengths and widths gradually increased from July 27 to August 18 but decreased for later collections, making them unreliable indices of seed maturity. Decreased cone dimensions with season were caused wither by shrinkage (unlikely), sampling error, or, more likely, by larger (more mature) cones being selectively removed from the trees. Nutcracker harvesting of whitebark seeds began around August 18 at this study area, and undisturbed cones were hard to find after that date. It appeared that nutcrackers and squirrels were selecting the more obvious (showy) cones . Because the only intact cones were collected, sampling was skewed toward smaller, less showy cones on later collection dates. Few intact cones were found for the September 8 collection, and these were small and dense as evidenced by small cone length and width measurements and high specific gravities (1.13) (Table 1).

Arno, S.F. and R.J.Hoff. 1989. Silvics of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-253. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 11pp.

Edwards, D.G.W. 1990. Cone prediction, collection and processing. Pages 78-102 in W.C. Schmidt and K.J. McDonald, compilers, Proceedings - Symposium on Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: Ecology and Management of a High-mountain Resource, 1989 March 29-31, Bozeman, Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Hutchins, H.E. and R.M. Lanner 1982. The central role of Clark's nutcracker in the dispersal and establishment of whitebark pine. Oecologia. 55:192-201.

Kozlowski, T.T. 1971. Growth and development of trees. Vol. 1. Seed Germination, Ontogeny, and Shoot Growth. Academic Press, New York. 443pp.

McCaughey, W.W. and W.C. Schmidt. 1990. Autecology of whitebark pine. Pages 85-96 in W.C. Schmidt and K.J. McDonald, compilers, Proceedings - Symposium on Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: Ecology and Management of a High-mountain Resource, 1989 March 29-31, Bozeman, Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran. 1980. Statistical Methods. 7th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 507pp.

Weaver, T. and F. Forcella. 1990. Cone production in Pinus albicaulis forests. Pages 68-76 in W.C. Schmidt and K.J. McDonald, compilers, Proceedings - Symposium on Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: Ecology and Management of a High-mountain Resource, 1989 March 29-31, Bozeman, Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Wenny, D.L. and R.K. Dumroese. 1987. Germination of conifer seed surface sterilized with bleach. Tree Planters' Notes 38(3):18-21.

Genetics and Physiology of Whitebark Pine: Candidate Rust-Resistant Trees, Artificial Pollination, Vegetative Propagation by Ray Hoff, INT Moscow, (Retired)

(Editors Note: This article is a continuation of an article by the same author that appeared in Nutcracker Notes #4)

Candidate Rust-Resistant Whitebark Pine Trees

In conjunction with surveying natural stands for blister rust I have, and hope others have to, been looking for blister rust resistant candidate trees. In 1994 several of these candidate trees have been tagged and description forms filled out (description form is attached). This includes such things as location, presence of cankers, cones, pollen, conelets, height, diameter and age. Tags used were ear tags for cows. These were first marked with a butane pen that burns the number into the tag and then a permanent marking pen (tag pen) is used over the burn marks. This should last for many years.

Criteria of Candidate trees:

1. Trees should be easy to climb, not over 60 to 70 feet or so depending, but big enough to produce cones.

2. Not more then a few hundred feet from a road, trail or easily described fixed point. There are lots of candidate trees in most stands so there is no need to choose trees that will be hard to find again.

I have been using the following method to number candidate trees. Candidate trees found at Pyramid pass that were found by John Schwandt and Ray and Bettie Hoff were tagged September 22, 1994 were numbered PYR.1, PYR.2, PYR.3, PYR.4, PYR.5. Candidate trees found at Northwest Peak found by Ray and Bettie Hoff September 28, 1994, were numbered NWP.1, NWP.2, NWP.3, NWP.4, NWP.5.

The main difficulty is to establish a fixed point that can be found again. In western white pine a tag was also placed on a tree next to a road or trail but this clutters things up. What we did at Pyramid Pass and Northwest Peak is to photograph fixed objects such as huge boulders, putting a cairn on a large rock, or previously blazed trees. The following is a form that should be completed after candidate trees have been selected:

Artificial Pollination

Artificial pollination of a 90% rust mortality stand with pollen from a 90% rust mortality stand and with pollen from 0% rust mortality stand. This is a cooperative study between Ray Hoff, INT, Moscow and Ward McCaughey, INT, Bozeman. Objective is to determine the growth and rust resistance of a stand that has had high mortality and is therefore highly fragmented. Rust resistance will increase but will growth and vitality be good enough to produce a new stand. Comparison would be with crosses in a stand with no mortality. Stands selected were Gisborne Lookout area, near Priest Lake, Idaho as the high mortality stand and Palmer Mountain near Gardiner, Montana just north of Yellowstone National Park.

Ten trees were selected as flower trees at each site and ten separate trees were selected as pollen trees. Crosses were completed at Gisborne in 1993 and cones collected in 1994. Still need some open-pollinated cones from Gisborne. No crosses have been made at Palmer because of weather conditions; however, sufficient pollen was produced to use at Gisborne.

Cones collected in 1994 at Gisborne were first given to Sandy Kigley, FPM at Coeur d'Alene to determine the extent of insect infestations. She found 67% of the cones infested and she is in the process of rearing out insects.

Vegetative Propagation

Grafting: Grafting of whitebark pine on western white pine and ponderosa pine. Objective is to see if whitebark pine will grow faster on western white pine or ponderosa pine root stock. A second objective is to see if it is easier to grow and maintain whitebark pine. In 1994 10 grafts of whitebark pine were made on western white pine, two were successful and they are still alive.

Rooted cuttings: Objective is to propagate seedlings of resistant whitebark pine. We could then mass produce resistant seedlings. In 1994 49 cuttings of whitebark pine were stuck, seven successfully rooted.

Phenological surveys.

I have observed:

1. That growth of whitebark pine at Gisborne starts and ends before the last frost, i.e. the new tissue most not be very susceptible to frost.

2. Cone production appears to be controlled more by weather conditions than the physiology of the tree.

A frost in 1992 killed nearly all the pollen and flowers. Although in 1993 there was no frost that killed the pollen and flowers, at least at Gisborne, weather conditions were still to wet to permit adequate pollination. In 1993 I pollinated flowers and Gisborne and had good success with cones produced in 1994; on the other hand natural pollination did not appear to be sufficient. When I was pollinating I was often covered with natural pollen and there were hundreds of flowers. In August and September these flowers had developed into fairly sizeable conelets but only about 75% the size of artificially pollinated conelets and in October nearly all of the naturally pollinated conelets aborted. Very few of the artificially pollinated conelets aborted. My explanation is that I found very few nice days that I was willing to climb the trees to pollinate, i.e., the conditions were just too wet for good pollination. Pollen bags, on the other hand, kept the flowers warmer--I also pollinated the flowers three time, which probably helped.

I think we should start a survey of natural parameters of growth in nature, and determine the association of weather conditions with flower and pollen production and conelet and cone production survival.

Publication and Events Alert

Brown, J.K. and others. 1994. Comparing the Prescribed Natural Fire Program with presettlement fires in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Int. Jour. Wildland Fire 4(3): 157-168.

Krebill, R.G., and R.J. Hoff. 1995. Update on Cronartium ribicola in Pinus albicaulis in the Rocky Mountains, USA. Proc. 4th IUFRO Rusts of Pines. Working Party Conf., Tsukuba: 119-126.

McCaughey, Ward W. 1994. Seasonal Maturation of Whitebark Pine Seed in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Pages 221-229 in Don G. Despain, Editor, Proceedings - Plants and their Environments: Proceedings of the First Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1991 September 16-17, Bammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Technical Report NPS/NRYELL/NRTR-93/XX.

Peterson, D.L. and D.R. Anderson. 1990. Content of chemical elements in tree rings of lodgepole pine and whitebark pine from a subalpine Sierra Nevada Forest. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-200. 9 pages.

Peterson, D.L. and others. 1990. Growth trends of whitebark pine and lodgepole pine in a subalpine Sierra Nevada forest, California, USA. Artic and Alpine Research 22(3):233-243.

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

Highlights

1. All day field trip Aug 30 that includes whitebark pine ecosystems

2. Blister rust damage and resistance.

3. Silvicultural treatments

4. Regeneration challenges

Lodging: Hibernation House (1-800-858-5439), Alpinglow Inn (same number)

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 Service, Glacier Field Station

• 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

• IGBC -- International Grizzly Bear Committee

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

Steve Arno
USDA Forest Service
Intermountain Fire Science Lab
Intermountain Research Station
P.O. Box 8089
Missoula, MT 59807
(S.ARNO:S22L01A)

Judith Fraser
Wilderness Coordinator
Anaconda Pintler Wilderness
Duty Station: Sula RD
(J.FRASER:R01F03D03A)

Dick Krebill
Intermountain Research Station
324 25th Street
Ogden, UT 84401
(D.KREBILL:S22A)

Ward W. McCaughey
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Intermountain Research Station
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717-0278
(W.MCCAUGHEY:R01F11A)

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

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 and provide a forum for opinions.

Bob Keane, Editor