Number
8 May 30, 1997 Number
8 May 30, 1997
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,
Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807
This issue of NUTCRACKER NOTES is dedicated to Dr. Ron Lanner whose research in the pines and nutcrackers of the world has broadened our understanding of whitebark pine ecosystems and provided us the detailed knowledge needed to manage these forest. Dr. Lanner recently retired from Utah State University and we wish him all the best. He gave an interesting lecture at the University of Montana in March 1997 that is transcribed as our featured article in this issue. This issue also contains the first of a series of columns on "whitebark pine success stories", brief summaries of planned, ongoing, and completed management projects for restoring whitebark pine. As usual, your comments are graciously requested... The editor.
Table of Contents
Management News
Research News
Features
FEATURE ARTICLE
How Nutcrackers and Jays Have Driven the Evolution of Whitebark and Limber Pines
Ronald M. Lanner
(Editors Note: This article was taken from a lecture given by Dr. Lanner at the University of Montana on March 12, 1997. The lecture was transcribed by Misha Krebs)
Introduction by Dr. Perry Brown, Dean of the U.M. School of Forestry:
It is a pleasure for me to introduce Ron Lanner whom I've known for almost thirty years. He and I served on the faculty of Utah State together in the early 70's. I went traveling and he stayed put and he has had a highly successful career at Utah State and recently retired as Professor Emeritus. I knew Ron in the early days as this guy who went to Baja, California chasing around looking at pinyons and other things like that. He has made a specialty of the pines over the years and has some insights and some ideas about how they have developed and has linked the relationships of that development to various forms of wildlife, particularly birds.
Ron Lanner:
One of the things that has struck me about pines is that they are a large group of roughly 100 species and they express a great deal of morphological diversity. The two major groups are hard pines, also called the yellow pines, and the soft pines, also called the white pines. The hard pines that we have in this area are Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and lodgepole (P. contorta), the soft pines are white pine (P. monticola) and whitebark pine (P. albicaulis). Both groups are distributed all around the globe in the Northern Hemisphere.
One way in which they differ is in their seeds. All of the other genera of the pine family invariably have small seeds with a relatively large wing which allows them to be wind-dispersed. Within the pines, however, you have many species of that kind, but also many in which the seed is relatively big and either has no wing at all or a wing so small that it doesn't work in dispersing the seed by wind. What has been learned has been that the heavy seeds, what we usually call pine nuts and which have no wing, depend on birds to disperse them. These birds are all corvids, members of the crow, jay, and nutcracker family.
In yesterday's presentation my topic was the basic natural history of the relationship between Clark's Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) and whitebark pine. What I pointed out, is that with whitebark pine, the cone will never open up, if left alone. The seeds will never come out of it because the cone stays closed. If the cone happened to fall off the tree, it would be so late in the game that the seeds would no longer be alive. The whitebark pine then is absolutely reliant on animals to get the seeds out of the cone into the ground where they can germinate and make new trees. Studies of all the animals that impinged on a whitebark pine cone crop, have shown that only Clark's Nutcracker has the capability of systematically getting the seeds out of the cones, going somewhere with them, and putting them in the ground, in such a way that the seeds which germinate can become new whitebark pines.
Whitebark pine is highly evolved, as I see it, and has all of these nice adaptations like cones that don't open. However, there are other pines, like limber pine (P. flexilis), that also depend on Clark's Nutcracker. There are other pines that have other corvids dispersing their seeds. Let us look at a couple of case histories and I'll give you my interpretation of how the peculiarities of these pines have their seeds dispersed by birds.
Wingless Seeds
There are several pines that have wingless seeds. The five members of the stone pines, a very coherent group, which include whitebark pine, Swiss stone pine (P. cembra), and Siberian stone pine (P. sibirica), all have seeds with no wings. They also share many other characteristics. A very rare Mexican pinyon pine (P. maximartinezii ) with seeds over an inch long, also has seeds with no wings. In limber pine, the seeds are roughly the size of those of whitebark pine, about like green peas. Limber pine does occasionally have blunt little rudimentary wings. Experiments have been done showing that these wings are not dispersal mechanisms. All of these are pines with wingless seeds that we know to be dependent on birds for dispersal, and in the cases where we don't know that, it's because they are species about which very little is known. For example, there are two Himalayan species and a southern Chinese species in which we simply don't understand their biology.
There is a relationship between winglessness and seed size in pines. In looking at seeds from trees of the white pine group, I will only be talking about white pine subgenus trees. I won't be talking about ponderosa, lodgepole, or those other yellow pines because seed winglessness is very rare in them. However, in the white pine group, about two-thirds of the species are bird dependent and so it has become the common condition with white pines. Wingless seeds of white pines have a tendency to be both large and heavy. There are a couple of exceptions however. For example, sugar pine (P. lambertiana) has very large and heavy seeds, but with a huge wing so they are effectively wind-dispersed. The Japanese stone pine (P. pumila), is wingless but has a relatively small seed. These are really the exceptions but in general, the wingless seeds are the big, heavy seeds.
Well, that's good news for some corvids because they live on those seeds. Wingless seeds are much easier for a bird to capture because they don't get carried away in the wind if the cone opens up. A wingless seed, if it's bigger, will also have a higher concentration of food in one place. It is in the interest of the bird that is eating these seeds to find much of the protein and fat and to find much of that rich material in one place. Wingless seed pine species generally have 50-70% fat content in their seeds. Such a rich concentration of nutritive material acts as an enticement for the birds to harvest those species. It also benefits those species by enhancing regeneration success, if their seeds are buried in the ground by the bird as stored food, which all of these corvids do (e.g. Clark's Nutcracker, Pinyon Jay, Scrub Jay, and Steller's Jay). It is of interest to the pine to have a large seed with much stored reserves in it because if that seed germinates, it has a very good start and it is capable of surviving as a seedling under more rigorous conditions than most small seeds would that have small food reserves.
Clark's Nutcrackers harvest limber pine seeds by taking them out of the open cone and dropping them through an opening beneath the tongue into a pouch that only nutcrackers have. They fill up this sublingual pouch to almost the size of a golf ball. Sometimes the bird adds 25% of its own weight in seeds and flies up to several miles and gaining considerable elevation with its load. The bird then brings the seeds up from the pouch one at a time and caches them in the soil.
Cone Orientation
I want to talk now about how the trees got the way they are today. What I am proposing is that before, when the corvids first became interested in the pine seeds, they focused on trees that looked like eastern white pine (P. strobus). Eastern white pine typifies many other species of white pine, including western white pine, that have horizontal branching and where only the uppermost branches sweep upward. These upper branches bear many cones on long stalks that hang downwards. If you get above one of these trees, as a flying bird will looking down at it, you will see mostly green foliage but not the cones, as most of them hang downwards and are concealed beneath those layered branches. These characteristics are quite general throughout these long coned, white pines that depend on wind dispersal to get their seed around.
Whitebark pine, on the other hand, illustrates some real radical differences apart from eastern or western white pine. Instead of pagoda-style layered branches that protrude horizontally, whitebark pine has branches that sweep upwards. There is also considerable branch forking at very acute angles which sweep upwards as well. The branches at the top of the tree therefore grow much more vertically and bear their cones on this almost vertically flat surface. This unique distribution of cones we find in some old trees but the cones are borne at the tops of these uprising branches and, unlike those of eastern or western white pine, the cones do not hang down and are not on long stalks. These whitebark pine cones are not loosely hanging but are rigidly attached to a very stiff branch.
The cone of whitebark pine appears to be a very hard and inaccessible kind of cone with seeds buried somewhere inside that are very difficult to find. As we will see, this is not exactly the true situation. In fact, if we keep an eye on these cones, we find that in the fall when they mature, they only open a little bit. We can look through the slightly parted scales and see the seeds. If we then shake the cone, as the wind would, nothing falls out because the seeds are trapped inside. This is a very different situation from the cones of eastern and western white pines which open widely and, because the seed wing is attached to them, the wing is lifted in any breeze and floats the seed right out of the cone. I showed last night that those tough-looking scales of whitebark pine are really not that tough and that when the scales do loosen in the fall, the nutcracker is able to snap the scales off and remove the seeds that are held in the core of the cone with just a slight push of the bill. Because only a little bit of the cone scale breaks off, enough remains to hold the seed in place.
What we have seen here are some of the unusual pine characteristics that benefit Clark's Nutcracker. It is benefited by the fact that the cones of whitebark pine are located on the upper surface of the tree and can be easily seen by a flying bird. This means that a bird can know ahead of time where cone crops are developing and where to spend its foraging time when the seeds are ripe. The highly vertical branches are very important because it allows a bird to securely perch on one of those branches without its weight causing the branch to sway. The tightness of the connections of the cones to the branches means that the nutcracker can disassemble the cone in place or hack it off without losing its position. By contrast, there are observations of Steller's Jays trying to get seeds out of sugar pine cones, which are just a large example of eastern and western white pine cones. The way the bird does it is to fly at the cone, hit it, and dislodge a few seeds which then go drifting down to the ground. The bird tries vainly to catch them in midair and often has to pick them off the ground, making itself quite vulnerable to forest floor predators. This is an unworkable system, so sugar pine seeds are not heavily eaten by Steller's Jays. In addition, whitebark pine cones have anatomical improvements from the nutcracker's point of view. For example, a lack of tough fibers makes it possible to snap the scale off which is not present in the old-fashioned wind-dispersed pines like eastern and western white pine.
In summary then, there are many characteristics of the gross morphology of the tree as well as some of the fine points of cone anatomy that have changed from what I consider the old standard condition that we saw in the eastern and western white pines. What I am suggesting is that this is simply a natural selective result of feeding by nutcrackers. The right mutations have arisen over time within the white pine group so that opportunities have been found by the nutcrackers. I believe that the nutcrackers have responded to this with evolutionary changes of their own, but I am not going to go into that because I don't know enough about them and not enough work has been done in this area.
Delayed Germination
With the pines we see some nice linear changes in characteristics that benefit nutcrackers. Another unusual characteristic of whitebark pine, that I believe also benefits nutcrackers, is that the seeds do not all germinate at the same time. Nursery men dislike whitebark pine because of what they refer to as a high level of seed dormancy. If you harvest whitebark pine seeds from the cone that is all broken up and try to germinate them under nursery conditions or even as a houseplant, you will find that in the first year only a minor percentage of seeds will germinate. You may think that the rest are all dead but if you wait another year you will see some more come up, and then even more in the following year. I think that seed dormancy benefits nutcrackers in this way. Nutcrackers, when they make their seed caches in the ground, which can consist of anywhere from 1-15 seeds generally, will revisit those caches throughout the winter and in spring when they have to feed their young. They depend almost entirely on this food for their sustenance and for raising their young and so depend on their cached seeds until a new crop of whitebark pine seeds are available.
Each adult bird makes it own caches and they find them by remembering where they have placed the caches. Experiments have shown that they memorize the locations of over 30, 000 caches per adult bird. They remember where these are by reference to triangulation points, that is, getting the right angle from a certain stump, or getting the right angle from a certain rock. These are the points where a nutcracker digs. Birds will go down through as deep as a meter of snow and find their caches. However, each bird can only find its own caches because they don't know and do not have the data to find the caches made by other birds. If we have this staggered germination then, a cache of seeds that put up seedlings becomes a target for any bird that sees those germinating seedlings. Nutcrackers will dig around a germinating seedling in caches made by another bird and find seeds that are still lying dormant there, thus becoming food. In the following year, if caches come up a year late, then by probing around them a nutcracker can find another bird's seeds that are still lying dormant. Consequently, if you get a year when there is not a whitebark pine seed crop, there is still a mechanism to find old cached food that is still good and still has the nutritive value of ungerminated seeds.
These same characteristics that benefit nutcrackers are true, in almost all respects, of the other stone pines, including the Swiss stone pine of the Alps. The young tree looks like any white pine seedling or sapling but as the tree grows in size over the years, it develops upswept branches. It is much more like a whitebark pine than it is like the eastern or western white pine. As the tree reaches greater ages, it takes on much of the character of both whitebark pine and limber pine with the multi-forked branches that are highly vertical and with the cones on the upper surface. The cones are always at the tips of these upswept branches. Another example, the Korean stone pine (P. koraiensis) has the largest cones of any of the stone pines. Like whitebark pine, and Siberian, Swiss, and Japanese stone pines, the closed cone scales of the Korean stone pine can snap off with very little pressure, thus exposing those seeds which are held in the core of the cone. There is a bit of a difference though; if you shake this cone, about a third of the seeds will fall out because they're not as tightly held.
The Korean stone pine has another nice adaptation that we see as well in some of the Siberian stone pine seeds and this may also be an adaptation to the nutcracker. There is a little eyespot, called the hylem that is found on the seed which serves as the point of connection between the vascular system of the cone scale and the seed. The hylem functions like an umbilical cord, bringing nourishment to the seed. In several of the stone pines the hylem is very conspicuous and, similar to the eyespots found on butterfly wings that are meant as signals, this may also be a signal to the Eurasian nutcracker.
Pine Evolution
The evolution of a pine line, just as that of any other organism, is going to be largely dependent on the particular kinds of mutations that line experiences. One such line relates to limber pine, our other local wingless seeded pine, and I want to show you how I think it got that way. Mexico is a real hotbed of pine evolution and there are many pine species there. The Mexican white pine (P. ayacahuite) is, in all respects, a typical wind pine or a typical conventional white pine. It has pagoda-like horizontal branching and it has long cones that hang down from long stalks in the tree between branch layers. With very few exceptions, it has seeds that are relatively tiny with very large wings, making them extremely susceptible to wind dispersal. The seeds fall out of the open cone and open normally in the fall. Limber pine, on the hand, has the same upswept branches that are found in whitebark and very consistently so. It has all of its cones typically on the upper crown surface attached to very short stalks that are very tightly attached to the branch. Usually, it also has all of its cone bearing branches pointing upwards. We see in all of these features the same kind of morphological changes taking place in the crown, in the cones, and in the wingless seeds of limber pine that we see in whitebark and the other stone pines. Limber pine is less evolved away from the old-fashioned white pines in the sense that it still opens its cones. The scales do open fully when they dry out and nutcrackers are very quick to take advantage of that.
How did this evolution of limber pine come about? The southwestern white pine (P. strobiformis) is an intermediate link between Mexican white pine and limber pine, both geographically and morphologically. Geographically, it is found in our southwestern states of Arizona and New Mexico, and in northern Mexico. It has a branching pattern that is mostly similar to the wind-dispersed white pines, like eastern and western white pines, but has a more vertically branched crown than a typical white pine. The southwestern white pine has relatively large cones which do open up like those of limber pine, and it has large, wingless seeds. Thus, it combines some of the characteristics of limber pine with those of the much more old-fashioned Mexican white pine. This creates a continuum in these characteristics starting in Guatemala and moving northward through Mexico and the Rockies, and finally ending in the Canadian Rockies. Limber pine exists at the northern end of this series and Mexican white pine at the southern end, with an intermediate species in between. We see nutcrackers working with limber pine and I think limber pine does depend on the nutcracker in the Northern Rockies. There may also be some chipmunk caching since these cones open up and the seeds become available to ground-dwelling chipmunks, unlike those of whitebark pine. However, we only know of the nutcracker being the real establishing agent of limber pine.
At the same time, the conventional wind-dispersed Mexican white pine in Mexico inhabits areas where there are no nutcrackers. Nutcrackers, we believe, are Asian transplants that came to this continent only a few million years ago via the Bering Strait. They brought Asian pines with them, one of which evolved into whitebark pine. Both the nutcracker and whitebark pine then are of Asian origin. Limber pine, however, is of Mexican origin, and its evolution can be traced to the Mexican white pine. In the southern part of its range, the wind-dispersed Mexican white pine inhabits a very moist climate and is perfectly able to support itself. As you come further north in its range through northern Mexico and southern Arizona and New Mexico, the climatic conditions become increasingly arid. A seed blown on the ground in these arid environments would not do very well and it is here, I believe, that jays have selected for a larger and wingless seeded southwestern white pine. There are pine seed eating jays throughout Mexico and the most important one as we come into the Rocky Mountains from Mexico is Steller's Jay. Steller's Jay today can be seen to take the seeds of the southwestern white pine. In addition, Clark's Nutcracker now comes down from the north and has spread itself into the Southwest and it continues doing to the southwestern white pine what the Steller's Jays have historically done to Mexican white pine. This has created limber pine by accentuating these trends towards highly vertical branching, a cone-laden surface on top of the tree, and large and wingless seeds. Further north, there is only the nutcracker to harvest and cache the seeds of limber pine. As a result, we have this continuum that begins in almost semitropical conditions with a conventional white pine which, through gradual changes in the morphology and behavior of that pine, evolves to survive in much more rigorous and arid areas where the seeds get buried and disseminated by Clark's Nutcracker.
This is essentially my view of the evolution of the local pines that are wingless seeded and nutcracker dependent. Within the whitebark pine group (stone pines), the various types of adaptations that have occurred in different parts of the world simply reflect the different mutations that have occurred in conventional white pine species. The evolution of these species is still progressing and if we come back here a few million years from now, and if nutcrackers persist and limber pines are still successful, we might see a limber pine that now has closed cones or some other characteristics beneficial to nutcracker harvesting. These characteristics would also have positive repercussions upon seed caching and hence regeneration, giving us a newer and updated limber pine.
A WHITEBARK PINE EDITORIAL
RESEARCH AND NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEMS: WORKING TOGETHER TO SOLVE TOUGH PROBLEMS
(Editors note: This editorial was taken, with the author’s permission, from the program of the workshop "Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project" held at the Holiday Inn, Missoula, Montana, March 11-12, 1997.)
Some of us have been with the Forest Service for many years....long enough to see the outfit go from a "can-do" attitude to a "we can’t do it because...." attitude. Most of our dollars used to be spent for on-the-ground project work; now it seems too much of our money is spent inside the walls of FS offices; planning, re-planning, posturing to preserve organizational structure, posturing to hang on to budgets, and on and on. Seemingly, our ability to produce has fallen to an all-time low. So what’s going on? Relatively new legislation affecting the way we do business.....the National Forest Management Act, the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act.....have put the brakes on. Also, the increasing complexity of western demographics brought about by large numbers of people moving to areas like western Montana has caused a new and different sort of public involvement in land management planning. Now don’t misunderstand me; these Acts and the public involvement were and are necessary. The FS needed to take a hard look at the way we were managing our forest and range resources. Clearcutting on dry forest sites was not appropriate. Building roads that eroded into nearby streams was not appropriate. Excessive roading with negative effects on fauna was not appropriate. Changing species composition through selective harvest and removing fire, with negative effects on many important forest resources, was not appropriate.
Clearly the laws and the public have helped us....made us...be sensitive to social and environmental concerns. Hopefully, we are now an enlightened agency. Research has provided the science basis needed for us to once again be productive. The Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project has provided the broad context for local forest management. We now understand that we should emulate natural disturbance processes when designing vegetation management projects. And we know how to get it done on the ground. We know how to design road systems to lay lightly on the land. We’ve closed a lot of roads to protect wildlife. We have models that let us construct abstractions of past and future forest vegetation, models that help us get a handle on changing landscape vegetation patterns through long periods of time. We have excellent models to help us analyze the economic effects of management actions on resources. We can analyze vegetation patterns in relation to fauna, recreation, fiber production, and other values. Management has asked the important questions that Research tackles. Management is competent in addressing the requirements of NFMA, NEPA, and other legislation. NFM is good at planning. Research is good at discovering answers to difficult questions and is often asked to provide biological and social insight for the planning process. Together, we know more about forest and range ecosystems than anyone else in the world; indeed, our Management and Research outfits are truly world-class!. We need to, and should, feel confident that we can manage in these ecosystems such that many resource values are optimized.
So we need to get on with it. Chief Dombeck in his February 25, 1997 address to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources plainly states the priority need to actively manage in fire-dependent ecosystems. The truth is out; western forests are infernos waiting to happen; they are not healthy and are acutely vulnerable to insects, disease, and fire. They hardly resemble the pre-1900 forests where native Americans made their homes; species mixes have changed to more susceptible species and fuel loadings have increased exponentially. "Actively manage" means simplistically to identify commodity and amenity needs, decide what levels of these needs the forest can sustain, and then go to work. For example, one amenity in the urban/wildland interface is the need for fire-resistant forest structures such that wildfire threat to dwellings and people is minimized. To address this need we need to reduce fuels through thinning and other kinds of intermediate or selective harvest and follow-up with prescribed burning; not simply let nature take its course, not get caught in an infinite planning loop. There are success stories of active management here and there, but on balance we have a long way to go.
The road ahead will not be smooth. For example, The Bitterroot Ecosystem Management/Research Project was designed to determine social needs and wants relative to forest management in the valley; to answer questions about changes in vegetation patterns; determine habitat needs of important fauna; involve the public in the science of the Bitterroot NF; and to work with land managers to develop plans and projects to restore the health and productivity of the fire-dependent ecosystems. On balance these seem like laudable goals. We’ve come a long way toward meeting those goals; witness the many studies undertaken by BEMRP, some of which are reported in this Workshop. The Bitterroot National Forest land managers worked hand-in-hand with Research in producing a very well-written and documented Decision Notice for the Stevensville West Central unit. Yet, despite using the best analytical methods available; despite the on-going effort to involve the public in the science and management of BEMRP; despite using the best scientific evidence available anywhere; despite the fact that nearly all the proposed vegetation management would be conducted on lands roaded and managed for the past 100 years or so, the Decision Notice was appealed by several environmental groups. However, the Regional Forester recently upheld the Decision Notice and disallowed the appeal, allowing the Stevensville WC project to move ahead. Good science, good planning, good on-the-ground projects.....these add up to success. We need to resolve the appeals straightforwardly, perhaps adjust some of the project work proposed; but then we need to move ahead and DO the project work. We need to do our best to stay out of court in this process, but please recognize that we may end up there. So be it. Let the courts decide. What we don’t need to do, and certainly cannot afford to do, is to fall prey to analysis paralysis. An analogy is in building a home. First comes the idea, a few concepts, and then a draft plan. The plan gets revised a time or two, but eventually the project gets underway. There may be a few changes during construction, but the changes don’t jeopardize the entire project. But what if the prospective homeowner gets into a perpetual cycle of planning...re-drafting the design ad nauseam after input from friends, neighbors, relatives and others? The home never gets built and all the money and effort that went into the planning is lost. There could be an incredible debt incurred that would take years to pay off, with nothing to show for it.
I think that may be where we in the Forest Service now are....long on planning but short on doing. The debt is increasing....forests susceptible to fire, insects, and disease....adversely affecting commodity and amenity values. The debt is increasing....over 3 billion dollars annually to run an agency whose productivity is declining dramatically. The debt is increasing.....exponential world population growth that will place exponential demands on dwindling forest resources. It’s time to show courage, intellect, and ability. We can establish realistic production goals for forest resources. It’s time to show the public that we know what we are doing, and that what we do is important. Management and Research need to continue to work together. The alternative may be that NFM becomes merely a custodial agency that fights fires and empties garbage cans and that Research is abolished. This is not acceptable to me; is it acceptable to you? I think not. We need to regain our "can-do" attitude.
Clinton E. Carlson, Team Leader
Bitterroot Ecosystem Management/Research Project
USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station
Forestry Sciences Lab
P.O. Box 8089
Missoula, MT 59807
Phone: 406-542-4151
MANAGEMENT NEWS AND NOTES
Appropriate Intermediate
Harvest Treatments to Restore or Maintain Ecosystem Health and Function:
A 1996 Silviculturist Revalidation Case Study in Whitebark Pine on the Helena
National Forest
by
Jack Kendley, Helena National Forest
Introduction
This study evaluates the opportunities to use intermediate treatments to achieve desired conditions of landscape composition, structure and function for the whitebark pine ecosystem, and assesses the magnitude of this type of opportunity on the Helena National Forest. Basically, there have been no intermediate treatments of whitebark pine in the National Forests of Montana east of the Continental Divide. Analysis for the Poorman Environmental Impact Statement is currently underway on the Helena National Forest and it targets an area with whitebark pine for treatment. This analysis is an operational prescription for that treatment area.
Some portions of this treatment area have the opportunity to utilize intermediate treatments to improve ecosystem health, but intermediate treatments will not address the total needs of this forest type. This case study includes two prescriptions for management of the area; one prescription involves an intermediate treatment, while the other prescription is a regeneration treatment. Both types of treatment are needed to totally address concerns for the viability of the whitebark pine forest. As will be concluded in this study, the opportunities for some types of treatment in the whitebark pine system may be limited by to the tools available for stand manipulation.
Location and Ecological Setting
These stands lie directly east of the Continental Divide on Granite Butte, about 10 miles southeast of Lincoln, Montana. The vicinity is densely forested with occasional meadows, especially along ridges. Soils are derived from granitic parent material and are thin and rocky. Elevations range from 7000 to 7600 feet. Slopes are gentle, between 10% and 30% with an east to southeast aspect. The treatment area is located in the Middle Rocky Mountain Steppe-coniferous forest and alpine meadow province, and is within the Rocky Mountain Front section. The climate is cold continental with an average temperature of 36 to 45 degrees F, and a growing season of 45 to 90 days. Average annual precipitation is 25 to 30 inches. Principle disturbance regimes include fire, insects and disease, and windthrow. (USDA Forest Service, 1994).
The habitat type of the entire area is abies lasiocarpa/xerophyllum tenax-vaccinium-scoparium phase (Pfister, et al 1977) This is a cold snowy forested environment with a severe winter climate. This habitat type is within firegroup seven (Fisher and Clayton, 1983) usually dominated by lodgepole pine due to a relatively active fire frequency which maintains these forests in a seral stage. The Blackfoot Landscape Analysis concluded that historically there were relatively frequent stand replacing fires and estimated "most stands would reach age 100....but very few stands survived beyond 150 years." Evidently, this is not the case for the treatment area. It is probable that the juxtaposition of meadows to the west, coupled with a change in aspect at the Continental Divide reduces fire intensity which has allowed the stands to survive longer on the landscape. (Older stands are observed immediately adjacent to the leeward crest of many mountain ranges on the Forest.) There are firescars on trees within the treatment area which indicates fire has not been absent on the landscape, but it has been of a non-lethal intensity. Another underburning fire would not seem probable given the forest's current successional state with its downed and ladder fuels.
Stand Description
Species composition and structure varies within the area proposed for treatment. At the crest of the Continental Divide a stand of nearly pure whitebark pine exists. This stand accumulates heavy snow drifts which are frequently present into mid-summer. Presumably this colder and more severe microclimate excludes species other than whitebark pine. Moving to the east, mixed stands with overstory compositions of 25% whitebark pine, 25% subalpine fir and 50% lodgepole pine develop. These stands are generally around 250 years old and display old growth character. A variety of pathogens infect these forests. Lodgepole pine is severely infected with dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) and displays firescars and associated heart rot. Eighty percent of the whitebark pine is heavily infected with white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) and 50% of this species is dead. Subalpine fir is somewhat younger, in the 100 to 150 year old range and displays no pathogens. Although this is a severe, high elevation site, timber harvest can be utilized for stand modification. Timber volumes range from 8 to 10 MBF/acre. At the eastern edge of the treatment area composition changes to 100% lodgepole pine. This stand ranges between 200 and 300 years old, and is decadent with a severe dwarf mistletoe infection. Timber volumes in this portion of the treatment area average 15 MBF/acre.
The treatment area generally has a multi-storied structure. Advanced regeneration of 200 to 1000 stems per acre of subalpine fir is present in seedling through pole sized material, occasional poorly formed whitebark pine seedlings are also present. Fuels are moderate and range from 15 to 20 tons per acre of log sized materials. In the southwestern portion of the treatment area overstory mortality has released a pole sized component of lodgepole pine creating a two-storied structure.
Forest Plan Direction
The Forest Plan has designated the eastern ½ of the treatment area as T-3 management direction. (Helena National Forest Plan 1986). This management area consists of lands with forest and security characteristics that provide important spring and summer requirements for all big game species. In addition these lands contain productive timber producing sites that are suitable for timber management. Timber management practices will follow the modification visual quality objective. Openings created by timber harvest are limited to less than 40 acres and must again provide hiding cover before adjacent areas may be harvested. The western ½ of the treatment area is within W-1 management direction of the Forest Plan. This management area emphasizes management of big game wildlife habitat (in this case summer range) and optimizing wildlife habitat potential, including old growth. Management practices will generally follow the partial retention visual quality objective, but exceptions may occur on a case by case basis to meet management objectives. Timber may be harvested only if it can be used as a tool to maintain or enhance wildlife habitat values; this management area is in the unsuitable base.
Discussion
Ecosystem Dynamics
Two different fire intensities affect these forests which to a great extent determines their structure and composition. Both types of fire favor whitebark pine in their own way. A low intensity (non-lethal) fire may maintain whitebark pine as a seral climax because the tree is more likely to survive low intensity underburns than are its associates of subalpine fir, lodgepole pine and spruce. More severe, lethal crown fires may kill all trees on the site but the whitebark pine's unique mutualistic relationship with the Clark's nutcracker allows the tree to disperse into recently disturbed areas faster than associated species. (Morgan, Bunting, Keane and Arno, 1994). The importance of the Clark's nutcracker to the reproduction of the whitebark pine is obvious, by retaining this bird's habitat we also encourage "God's tree planters" to continue with their work. Whitebark pine is interesting not only in the unique niche it occupies, but in the niche it creates. The seed is important not only to the Clark's nutcracker and the red squirrel but also to another interesting species, Ursus horibillis, the grizzly bear. This threatened species raids the middens of the red squirrel, and this food source provides an important portion of the bear's diet. Both black and grizzly bear utilize whitebark pine seed as a food source, but their dependence on whitebark pine varies. In maritime climates the importance of whitebark pine seed is reduced because bears may dine on berries and other shrubs. In more severe, continental climates bear dependence on whitebark pine as a food source increases due to the lack of availability of dining options. (Mattson and Reinhart 1994) If the whitebark pine forests are not reliable food sources, either by cone crop failures or by limited availability, the population of bears may be reduced, reflecting a degraded habitat.
The Clark's nutcracker seed caches provide the main means of reproduction for whitebark pine. (Hutchins 1994) They may cache seed up to 10 miles from its source at several hundred feet difference in elevation. (McCaughey 1994) Seed transfer guidelines for whitebark pine east of the Continental Divide have not been developed, but the transfers made by the nutcracker may lead one to conclude that whitebark pine is genetically a generalist in its environmental adaptations. Another strength of adaptation to a variety of sites for germination comes from the potential for whitebark pine to be multi-genetic. Seeds are cached in groups and seedlings and trees are often observed growing in groups. This allows flexibility for the fittest individual to survive in a variety of different climates. (McCaughey 1994)
The whitebark pine ecosystem is currently degraded by two major disruptions of ecosystem dynamics, and is under threat from a potential third. White pine blister rust was introduced to the continent in 1910 through a contaminated shipment of eastern white pine seedlings from Europe. This fungus attacks five-needle pines, girdles and kills them. Fire suppression has also placed selective pressure against whitebark pine. Non-lethal fires which historically underburned stands of whitebark pine and killed climax species have been suppressed. This allows more tolerant species to grow, occupy the stand and shade out the moderately intolerant whitebark pine. The lack of lethal fires has also selected against the whitebark in that lethal intensity fires which created favorable conditions for regeneration of whitebark pine are more limited due to fire suppression. (Morgan, Bunting, Keane and Arno 1994) Whitebark pine populations are shrinking within occupied range, and not expanding to new sites. The third source of change for the white bark pine forest is attack by mountain pine beetle. These epidemics are periodic events in the landscape. Attack of whitebark pine generally occurs when an epidemic swells through the lower elevation lodgepole pine forests and advances upward into the whitebark pine stands. (McCaughey 1994) When such an epidemic begins is somewhat stochastic. However, as fire suppression continues, more and more of the West's forests are becoming older and larger and therefore more susceptible to large scale attack by the beetle.
Under historic conditions whitebark pine forests were much more numerous on the landscape, although they were still confined to the subalpine/alpine forest interface. Lethal crown fires were more frequent so more early seral habitat was provided for the regeneration of whitebark pine. Low intensity fires within whitebark pine forests also impeded succession which maintained dominance of whitebark pine in a stand. Whitebark pine is a pioneer to mid-seral species which is favored by relatively frequent disturbance regimes. (Hoff, Hagel and Krebill 1994). The absence of white pine blister rust would have favored significantly larger populations of whitebark pine on the landscape.
Target Stand
Management objectives for the treatment area are two fold, there are two target stands within the treatment area. Between 1% and 8% of existing populations of whitebark pine may be genetically resistant to white pine blister rust. (Keane and Morgan 1994). It is imperative that populations of whitebark pine be protected from lethal fires and competition with climax tree species in order for potentially rust resistant trees to have an opportunity to reproduce. Existing stands with a whitebark pine component will have all species other than whitebark pine removed. The target stand will be a forest dominated by whitebark pine which is maintained in a mid seral stage with very few climax species present in the understory. Due to the degree of mortality, and consequent open nature of the forest, some regeneration of whitebark pine may become established within these stands, however there may not be enough sunlight for these understory trees to prosper. Eventually only white pine blister rust resistant trees will be present in these stands. These trees will then serve as a seed source for new generations of rust resistant whitebark pine.
An additional management objective is to develop early seral sites which will encourage the regeneration of whitebark pine. This can be achieved in portions of the treatment area which do not presently have a significant whitebark pine component, but are still within the ecological amplitude of the species. The target stand for this area will be a mix of whitebark pine and lodgepole pine which will naturally regenerate following clearcut harvesting. This forest will progress through a variety of successional stages from seedling through mature forest. Intermediate treatments will encourage whitebark pine to be as numerous on the landscape as possible. If 1/4 of the mature forest is whitebark pine the prescription will be a success. Whitebark pine regeneration that grows to mature stature would be demonstrating significant resistance to white pine blister rust.
Managing for regeneration of whitebark pine is are not without complicating agents. If populations of the tree become small enough, nutcracker seed consumption could destroy most of the seed crop. The tree does not begin producing cone crops until it is around 100 years old which will force whitebark pine through its rust resistance selection process for at least the next century. However, the target stands do restore the structure which was present in the whitebark pine forest before fire suppression, and an early seral stand will provide an area for the expansion of the tree. Currently whitebark pine is in a period of significant decline due to attack by white pine blister rust, advancing forest succession, loss of early seral stages for regeneration and exposure to the threat of attack by mountain pine beetle. Survival of the tree as a viable component of the landscape is not assured. (Hoff, Hagel and Krebill 1994).
Anticipated Results
The anticipated results are two-fold. In areas where whitebark pine currently exists competing vegetation of subalpine fir and lodgepole pine will be removed from the overstory. This will allow for dominance of whitebark pine in these stands by reversing succession and reducing the probability of a lethal intensity fire. The area to be clearcut will provide an early seral area for the regeneration of whitebark pine. Some of the trees which are currently surviving the white pine blister rust epidemic may be resistant to the fungus. The clearcut will provide a site for the Clark's nutcracker to cache seed and plant future forests of whitebark pine. The treatment should stabilize existing forests with a whitebark pine component, provide an early seral site for whitebark pine regeneration, and promote natural selection for white pine blister rust resistance.
Relationship to the Forest Plan
The treatment is reasonably congruent with the Helena National Forest Plan. The T-3 (timber management/big game summer range) goals include: supplying the habitat needs of a variety of non game species...providing for healthy stands of timber...encouraging vegetative diversity...and controlling insects and disease through timber harvest, among others. The stand to be clearcut is within this T-3 management area. This site will continue to be managed for timber production as the site will be regenerated with both whitebark and lodgepole pine. W-1 management goals are seemingly targeted at big game but also include, "optimizing wildlife habitat including old growth...where timber harvest may be used as a tool to enhance wildlife values, and...where control, if insect and disease epidemics develop, the control methods should ...minimize the impacts to big game and other wildlife values." The current structure of the stands preclude active management of the forests with prescribed fire due to ladder fuels and heavy downed fuels. Timber harvest is the least disruptive method to actively manipulate the forests. Retention of whitebark pine in the landscape is of essential concern for wildlife values and species diversity.
The Poorman Environmental Impact Statement is analyzing a variety of treatment alternatives, some of which create openings greater than forty acres. The District wildlife biologist has emphasized a need to retain cover as a linkage along the crest of the Continental Divide. He has also expressed concern that a meadow adjacent to the northern edge of the treatment area be left undisturbed for big game. These concerns will be incorporated into final unit design whichever alternative is selected by the Environmental Impact Statement. There would be a conflict with the T-3 opening size restriction of forty acres if an alternative is selected which exceeds that size. This is not an uncommon conflict with recent timber sale design on the Forest.
The portion of the harvest area which contains whitebark pine is in the W-1 management area which has a partial retention visual quality objective. The proposed harvest will not attain that scenery objective in the foreground. However, this departure from objectives for scenery resources is justifiable given the urgent need to stabilize the whitebark pine forest. A concern does materialize in the compliance of the clearcut prescription with the regeneration timeframes of the National Forest Management Act. This law requires sites be reforested within 5 years of final harvest. Whitebark pine germinates three years following sowing. (McCaughey 1990) If there is not whitebark pine cone crop at the time of harvest the clearcut treatment area may not regenerate within the NFMA timeframe requirements. For this reason, and the fact that the clearcut area is within the suitable base for timber management, the target stand includes a significant component of lodgepole pine. Cultural treatments through the rotation should encourage the presence of whitebark pine.
Conclusions
Whitebark pine populations are being severely reduced due to the combined effects of white pine blister rust and advancing succession. The range of the tree is shrinking and the majority of trees within that range are being attacked by an introduced disease. The tree and the species which rely upon it for their survival are in serious consequence. By actively managing individual stands we may promote the species towards a sustainable structure and hasten its evolution towards blister rust resistance. Active intervention is necessary at the stand level to insure survival of the species and its associates at the landscape level. Probably the greatest challenge to management of existing stands of whitebark pine is the removal of ladder fuels and the heavy ground fuels which have developed since fire suppression and with advanced succession. The opportunity to mechanically treat slash with dozer piling allows the reduction of fuels with a relatively "safe" fuel treatment. The stands could not have been treated with prescribed fire with any reasonable expectation of whitebark's surviving. Harvest of merchantable volume within a stand of whitebark pine is attainable, but these are not highly productive timber growing sites. Stands may be managed using timber harvest as a tool for the initial entry, but maintenance of the desired stand structure and composition will need to rely on low intensity underburning.
Several roaded passes on the Helena National Forest traverse a narrow band of whitebark pine forest. In some of these passes the slopes are gentle and in these areas it is possible to harvest trees and mechanically treat slash to restore the structure and composition of these forests. Mechanical treatment is the most precise tool available for management of these forests.
On more isolated, depauperate or steep sites existing stands of whitebark pine may not be manageable using only prescribed fire because of advanced succession and heavy downed and ladder fuels. In these areas the best management option to promote whitebark pine relies on the creation of early seral successional sites to promote regeneration of the tree from nutcracker caches. This may be accomplished with prescribed fire, but this is a more difficult prescription to implement due to the risks associated with stand replacing prescribed fire. If such a treatment is applied to a landscape scale which uses natural fire breaks it is feasible for this treatment to be successfully employed.
A deeper appreciation has come about with a better understanding of the importance of the tree to the grizzly bear, and the severe decline the tree is undergoing due to advancing succession and direct mortality from white pine blister rust. This tree functions as a keystone species in its relationships with the Clark's nutcracker and the grizzly bear. This is a time for forest managers to attempt to "keep all the parts" and actively manage stands for the stabilization of existing whitebark pine forests and the creation of stands which will be favorable for the tree's reproduction. Complacency will result in local extinctions of the species and associated unraveling of the quilt of life.
Perhaps one of the greatest needs is to disseminate research conclusions to the people who manage the tree. There will always be a need for more research and data, but it is definitely now a time to act. We must get the attention of people who induce change on the landscape and insure they understand the need for action. Stand manipulation of whitebark pine should be considered and attempted. We can learn from our success and from our mistakes as well, but in order for that to occur, we must first do something.
Whitebark Pine Restoration on the Salmon-Challis National Forest: The Upper Musgrove Creek Project
by
Diane Schuldt and Breck Hudson,
Salmon-Challis National Forest, Cobalt Ranger District
P.O. Box 729, Hwy 93 South
Salmon, ID 83467, Phone: 208-756-5100, DG:R04F13B
Whitebark pine communities in Central Idaho differ in some respects from those in western Montana where much of the research to date has been conducted. Pure whitebark pine stands and mixed conifer stands with significant (10%+) whitebark pine begin at somewhat lower elevations (approximately 8,000 feet elevation) in Central Idaho than whitebark pine communities elsewhere. Mixed stands of Douglas-fir and whitebark pine occur at the upper limits of the Douglas-fir zone and appear to exist as stable communities over a long period of time. Central Idaho whitebark pine communities often occur in small patches or islands surrounded by other timber types as compared to the extensive whitebark pine forest in other areas. The pure whitebark pine stands at the highest elevations are still fairly vigorous compared to whitebark pine stands elsewhere which have been often heavily infected with blister rust.
On the Salmon & Challis National Forests in Central Idaho, whitebark pine is recognized as an important and unique community type. The overall Forest management objective is maintenance and, where possible, expansion of whitebark pine. However, whitebark pine or mixed conifer forest with a whitebark pine component are undergoing successional change which may eventually limit whitebark pine distribution. Climax stands of subalpine fir have established within the whitebark pine community type and there is evidence of widespread mountain pine beetle epidemics in the past. In order to maintain and perpetuate whitebark pine stands, a combination of management techniques will probably be needed in many areas to set back the successional clock and restore historical ecosystem processes in these forests.
Last year the Salmon/Cobalt Ranger District asked Bob Keane from the Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory to help determine the most effective means of maintaining and enhancing whitebark pine communities on the Salmon & Challis National Forests. In October 1996, Bob visited the District for a field review of some of the District's whitebark pine sites. Bob concluded that the high elevation (near or above 9,000 feet), pure whitebark pine stands are in early to mid-seral condition and are quite vigorous and healthy, with little evidence of blister rust infestation. These stands represent a significant seed source to help maintain the species across the Forests.
However, active management at the lower elevations of whitebark pine distribution may be required to provide connectivity between higher elevation stands and to maintain the historical elevational distribution of the species. Reducing the density of lodgepole pine may also be necessary to reduce the risk of mountain pine beetle epidemics. Reduction of basal area, especially of lodgepole pine and subalpine fir, could provide more resources to whitebark pine (water, nutrients, space, etc.) and encourage more vigorous stands. Fire, whether prescribed natural or management ignited, along with mechanical silvicultural treatments, may be the most efficient tool to meet desired conditions for whitebark pine on the Forests.
The Fire Sciences Laboratory suggested a cooperative project studying the efficacy of various treatments to promote whitebark pine regeneration in Central Idaho. The project area chosen is located in the headwaters of Musgrove Creek, a tributary to Panther Creek in the Salmon River Basin. Elevations in the vicinity of the project area which support stands of whitebark pine range from 8,000 to over 9,000 feet. The whitebark pine stands in Musgrove Creek are representative of sites on the forest where conifer species are able to form more or less continuous forest before reaching the uppermost elevations where tree growth is retarded by the harshness of the site and where tree cover becomes scattered.
The main concern for whitebark pine sites located in the Musgrove Creek project area, as with much of the Forest, is the encroachment of lodgepole pine and shade tolerant species; primarily subalpine fir and Douglas-fir, but also Engelmann spruce occasionally. The goal of this cooperative project is to determine which management practices are most effective to perpetuate whitebark pine; prescribed fire, release cuttings, and possibly commercial harvest. These treatments are intended to encourage seed caching by Clark's nutcrackers to establish natural regeneration and invigorate and promote growth of existing whitebark pine stands. More specific objectives (taken from Keane and others 1994) are to determine:
Identified treatments are modeled after Keane and others (1994) and include a combination of mechanical treatment and/or prescribed burning. Up to four units are proposed with the following:
Results of this study will help determine how to manage whitebark pine communities for perpetuation on the Salmon and Challis National Forests in Central Idaho.
References
Keane, R.E., S.F. Arno, C.E. Carlson, and W.W. McCaughey. 1994. Applying Ecosystem Management to Perpetuate Whitebark Pine: Methods to Restore Whitebark Pine Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab. Msla, MT.
Cone and Seed Insects affecting Whitebark Pine
by
Sandra Kegley and Nancy Campbell
USDA Forest Service, Northern Region
Cooperative Forestry and Forest Health Protection
P.O. Box 7669
Missoula, MT 59807
DG:R01A
Following a preliminary survey of cone and seed insects affecting whitebark pine in 1994 (see Nutcracker Notes No. 4), an in-depth 2-year study was completed in 1995-1996. The main objective of the project was to determine the impact of cone and seed insects on regeneration of whitebark pine by sequentially exposing individual flowers, conelets, and cones to insect attack during temporal "windows" throughout their two-year growing period. Also, cone beetle (Conophthorus ponderosae) and coneworm (Dioryctria spp.) pheromone traps were evaluated for use in population monitoring.
Seven sites throughout the western United States were selected for the study at the following locations:
| Site | State | Forest | Township, Range, Sec | Aspect | Elevation | Latitude |
| Gisborne Mtn. | ID | IPNF's | T30N, R3W, Sec 29 | SE-SW | 5430 | 48 |
| Seven Devils | ID | Nez Perce | T23N, R1W, Sec 5-6 | W-NW | 8000 | 45 |
| Daisy Pass | MT | Gallatin | T9S, R14E, Sec 14 | S-SW | 9500 | 45 |
| Snowbank Mt. | ID | Payette | T13N, R3E, Sec 30 | E-SE | 7525 | 44 |
| Stormy Mtn. | WA | Wenatchee | T28N, R20E, Sec 33 | S-SW | 6100 | 47 |
| Mt. Hood | OR | Mt. Hood | T3S, R9E, Sec | S-SE | 5430 | 45 |
| Ball Mtn. | CA | Klamath | T46N, R3W, Sec 25 | W-NW | 7682 | 41 |
The following cooperators participated in the study outside of Region 1: Julie Weatherby in Region 4, and Jack Stein and Chuck Frank in Region 5, and Paul Flanagan and Beth Willhite in Region 6.
Fourteen treatments, which consisted of excluding insects with mesh bags at different times during the two-year cone development cycle, were replicated on each of 15 trees at each site. Mature cones were collected in the fall of 1996, dissected, seeds extracted and x-rayed, and all insects and insect damage recorded. Data are now being analyzed to determine insect impact on seed and the time of year where most damage occurred.
We tested Conophthorus ponderosae pheromones in traps at each site in 1995 and 1996. Cone beetles were caught at 3 sites: Gisborne Mtn., Snowbank Mtn., and Ball Mtn. Three different Dioryctria pheromones were tested in traps at two sites (Gisborne Mtn. and Ball Mtn.) in 1996 and checked at 2 week intervals. Dioryctria abietivorella adults were caught at both sites from July through early September.
The following insects have been found to date affecting second year cones, pollen, flowers, foliage, or branch tips. Many have not previously been recorded on whitebark pine.
On second year cones:
On pollen:
On flowers and foliage:
On branch tips:
A more detailed summary, including impact data and insect seasonal history, will be completed in the fall of 1997. Seeds collected in this project were given to the Forest Service Nursery in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho for white pine blister rust studies.
RESEARCH NEWS AND NOTES
by
Dr. Ron Lanner,
Professor Emeritus of Forest Resources,
Utah State University, Logan, UT
I don't usually enjoy having April Fool's Day jokes played on me, but on April 1, 1997 I sat back and relished the best I have ever experienced. I was making one of those ever-more-rare appearances on the campus of Utah State University (Logan, Utah) to check in with my unretired former colleagues. At 2:30 p.m. I stepped out of the Biology-Natural Resources Building to the walks and planted areas on its west side and was immediately greeted by the tell-tale kra-a-a-k of a Clark's Nutcracker. Soon I found myself watching a flock of seven flying over the heads of blank-faced students, and into the snow-packed limbs of an Austrian pine (Pinus nigra). They foraged from the partially opened cones of this tree, then split up into two or three groups foraging in other Austrian pines within twenty meters or so. Since most of the cones were still covered with snow from an overnight storm, foraging required probing through the snow with the bill and wedging the bill between the cone scales of mostly erect cones. Success was hard to judge, but the birds seemed to be eating and not pouching the occasional tidbits they were able to recover. After a time, they flew to the ground and foraged there, quickly picking up and swallowing occasional unidentifiable objects. I watched them for about twenty minutes. In my thirty years on campus I had never before seen or heard of a nutcracker visiting there. The closest haunts of nutcrackers to campus are the slopes of Mt. Logan, about five to ten miles to the southeast. Elevations to over 10,000 feet are available there. I returned to campus the next day at the same time, but found no nutcrackers. Have you noticed something strange here? Cones partially open in April? Well, it is not generally known, but Austrian pine is probably the only pine in the world that opens its cones and sheds its winged seeds in the spring. In Logan, I have seen cones open as early as late January and into April, whenever the sun shone upon them enough to dry them sufficiently. When that happens, they make a conspicuous cracking sound. Occasional seeds can be seen spinning to the ground. I have never seen anything about this in print, (though I have ascertained that Austrian pines in the south of France are on about the same schedule) so about two years ago I included Austrian pine cone-phenology data in a chapter on Seed Dispersal which will appear next year in a monograph tentatively entitled Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus edited by Dave Richardson (University of Cape Town), and published by Cambridge University Press. I do not remember leaving a copy of the manuscript where bird or beast could have seen it, so the intimate knowledge of Austrian pine exhibited by these nutcrackers must have another explanation. My guess is that they do a lot of scouting, even to places were we would not expect them, that they do this at all times of year, and they convey their most worthwhile discoveries--like those related to food availability -- to other flock members. What impelled them to come to campus on this particular occasion I will not guess. But I'm glad they came, and I hope they take to the academic life. They have already discovered that pine phenology is more varied than most foresters would imagine.
Preliminary Results from Whitebark Pine Seed Collections in central Idaho
by
Dana L. Perkins
Forestry Sciences Lab
Intermountain Research Station
Logan, UT 84321
D.PERKINS:S22L06A
Five bushels of cones were collected in the White Cloud Mountains, central Idaho from August 28-Sept 3, 1996. The collection sites were within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area near Railroad Ridge. One site was in the upper Big Lake Creek drainage and the other upper Jim Creek. Elevations were 9,000 to 9,200 feet, coordinates were Lat (N) 44 deg 08 min, Long (W) 114 deg 33 min. Trees with abundant cones (>100/tree) and 'good vigor' were selected as source trees. A hand forged metal cone hook was attached to a pole pruner and individual cones were cut from limbs to minimize tree damage. Half bushel quantities of cones were stored in burlap bags and hung in covered and shaded areas to dry. After a 10 day drying period, cones were transported to USDA Lucky Peak Nursery.
Lucky Peak nursery is currently conducting stratification germ tests of the seed. The Idaho State Seed Lab reported 73 percent and 79 percent seed viability based on Tetrazolium tests. Cones shelled at the nursery yielded approximately 30,000 whitebark pine seeds, or about nine pounds of seed. A half bushel of cones was retained and used for in-house experiments at the USDA, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Intermountain Research Station, Logan. Procedures were advised and assisted by Dr. Ray Brown.
Two treatments were used on the seed lots, with three replicates each. One treatment was to scarify seed by shaking them in a one pound coffee can lined with 40 grit sandpaper for five minutes. The control treatment was no scarification. Seeds were then placed in plastic containers with a silica sand substrate and moistened with distilled water. Germination percentages from our in-house experiments were 50 percent over a two week period. Although germination percentages were lower than the Tetrazolium tests, this is to be expected. Approximately 170 germinants were planted in liter pots (half peat and half sand) and 100 have survived to seedlings. A middle school student, Anna Williams, using essentially the same procedures, performed a science fair experiment with the whitebark seeds and achieved 73 percent germination success! These are among the highest reported whitebark pine germination percentages that we have read or heard about. These results may not be surprising considering our daily examination of seed embryo maturity. We elected to pick cones when the seeds were mature which may be an indication of how whitebark pine seed collection should be accomplished in the future. It is also conceivable that the Railroad Ridge area may be a superior source of whitebark pine genetic material. The incidence of thousand year old live trees suggests resilience to environmental insult and demonstrates the species ability to perpetuate itself both as an upright and krummholz form. The encroachment of blister rust on these trees is a threat whose effects may devastate whitebark populations. In 1995 one tree on Railroad Ridge was observed with blister rust spores. In this area, the importance of establishment of new stands of whitebark pine, health monitoring plans and identification of white pine blister rust resistant stock is imperative to whitebark pine viability.
Towards these ends, with the 30,000 seeds collected last fall, a conservative seedling survival rate of 25 percent, we may have the potential to raise 7,500 containerized stock. This would be efficiently accomplished at the Coeur d'Alene Forest Service nursery. Because whitebark is slow-growing, a two to three year period is necessary before the seedings can be out-planted. Ideally, the outplanting of whitebark pine should be coupled with a prescribed burn.
This experiment should generate some ideas in the context of restoration ecology and raise some interesting research questions and management opportunities. Studies on tree resistance to blister rust, potential reciprocal planting and a seed protection area are a few topics worthy of future discussion with potential large payoffs for ecosystem health. Thanks to Ray Brown and Jesse Logan for supporting these efforts.
"WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD"
Whitebark Pine Success Stories
Planned projects: Kootenai National Forest, Fortine RD, (Mike Liu) is planning (summer 1997) a large prescribed fire in the Ten Lakes Primitive Area to create habitat for whitebark pine regeneration...... Salmon-Challis National Forest, Cobalt RD, (Breck Hudson, Diane Schuldt, see this issue) is planning (summer 1997-1998) a project to treat whitebark pine stands at the headwaters of Musgrove Creek using harvesting and prescribed fire to increase the regeneration success of whitebark pine and increase the vigor and health of existing whitebark pine stands...... Clearwater National Forest, Powell RD (Karen Harvey) is planning (summer 1998) a series of treatments to restore whitebark pine ecosystems using fire and timber cuttings.... Flathead National Forest, Glacier View RD (Wally Bennett) is planning (summer 1997) prescribed fire in whitebark pine stands to encourage whitebark regeneration and eliminate the subalpine fir competition.
Accomplishments: Bitterroot National Forest, Stevensville RD (Leslie Anderson, Cathy Stewart) successfully implement the first known controlled prescribed underburn for eliminating subalpine fir competition and creating nutcracker caching sites.
(Editors Note: You are encouraged to send the editor a short summary of any research project you have planned or implemented recently. Send to b.keane:s22l01a via DG or /s=b.keane/ou1=s22l01a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com via Email on DG; bkeane/int,missoula on IBM 615 or bkeane/int_missoula@fs.fed.us via Email to IBM 615)
Current Publications:
Keane, Robert E., James Menakis, and Wendel Hann. 1996. Coarse-scale restoration planning and design in Interior Columbia River Basin ecosystems: an example using whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests. In: Arno, S.F. and Hardy, C.C., editors, The use of fire in forest restoration, a general session at the annual meeting of the Society of Ecosystem Restoration "Taking a broader view". Sept 14-16, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-341. Pages 14-20.
Keane, R.E. and S.F. Arno. 1996. Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) ecosystem restoration in western Montana. In: Arno, S.F. and Hardy, C.C., editors, The use of fire in forest restoration, a general session at the annual meeting of the Society of Ecosystem Restoration "Taking a broader view". Sept 14-16, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-341. Pages 51-54.
Lanner, Ronald M. 1996. Made for each other -- a symbiosis of birds and pines. Oxford University Press. 160 pages.
Mattson, David J., Daniel P. Reinhart, Bonnie M. Blanchard. 1996. Variation in production and bear use of whitebark pine seeds in the Yellowstone area. Plants and their environments: proceedings of the first biennial scientific conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Sept. 16-17, 1991, Mammoth Hot Springs Hotel, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
Moseley, Robert K. 1996. Vascular flora of subalpine parks in the Coeur D’Alene River drainage, northern Idaho. Madrono 43(4)479-492.
Perkins, Dana L. and Thomas W. Swetnam. 1996. A dendroecological assessment of whitebark pine in the Sawtooth-Salmon River region, Idaho. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26(12):2123-2133.
WHITEBARK PINE SYMPOSIUM
The symposium: "Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystems -- A Field Workshop" is now scheduled for September of 1998 because research project results had been delayed and because of budget constraints. The tentative dates for this symposium are Sept 9-12, 1998 which is different from that reported in the last issue of Nutcracker Notes (NN#7). More information about this symposium will be published in the following issues of Nutcracker Notes and a "Date Saver" or pre-announcement of the symposium will be mailed out sometime in late May or early June. This is a field-oriented symposium so attendance will be limited to 150 people. Registration for the symposium will begin in January 1998. An admissions committee will determine who will attend if more than 150 people register.
Coming Very Soon -- to a web site near you...
As mentioned in NN#7, Bob Bell, a graduate student at UCLA, is constructing a home page for whitebark pine on the World Wide Web. Once finished, he will pass the page over to the Forest Service and they will maintain it on their home page. All editions of Nutcracker Notes will be available at this site, along with many other interesting things about this ecosystem. Got an ideas? Get them to Bob Keane and he will try to add them to the web page.
NUTCRACKER NOTES is a vehicle for the dispersal of information on all facets of whitebark pine ecosystems. Summaries of research results and management projects in whitebark pine forests are presented to provide readers state-of-the-art information. The purpose of this newsletter is to distribute timely information so that land managers and scientists can understand and deal with important ecological issues in the whitebark pine ecosystem. Issues of NUTCRACKER NOTES will be numbered consecutively and published 1-3 times a year depending on available material.
Submission of Articles: Everyone is invited to submit articles to NUTCRACKER NOTES. These articles should be mailed to Nutcracker Notes, c/o Bob Keane, Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807. If possible, they should be submitted electronically (Send to b.keane:s22l01a via DG or /s=b.keane/ou1=s22l01a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com via Email to DG; bkeane/int,missoula on USFS IBM 615 or bkeane/int_missoula@fs.fed.us via Email to USFS IBM 615) or written to a floppy disc (WordPerfect text processing) and then mailed. You are encouraged to submit articles to improve this information network.
Newsletter Format: Articles submitted to NUTCRACKER NOTES will be presented in the newsletter under three main categories: Management News and Notes, Research News and Notes, and Publication and Events Alert. Management News describes current activities, problems, observations, conditions planned or implemented by land management agencies in whitebark pine forests. Research News describes current or planned research projects in these ecosystems. Publication and Events Alert is simply a list of current events and published information that may be of interest to readers of the newsletter. The reader will find a complete all authors addresses and email addresses accompanying each article. There will usually be an editorial at the beginning of the newsletter to highlight important topics and provide a forum for opinions.
Errata and omissions: None as yet.
Bob Keane, Editor