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 the upcoming symposium "Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystems" to be held at the Holiday Inn in Missoula, MT on Sept 9-12, 1998. This issue continues the series on "whitebark pine success stories" which are brief summaries of planned, ongoing, and completed management projects for restoring whitebark pine. In addition, a "Whitebark Tidbits" section has been added as a forum for those who don’t want to write an extensive article, but feel they would like to report some information concerning whitebark pine ecology to the editor via email. Brief vignettes from the field are published there so all can enjoy. As usual, your comments are eagerly requested... The editor.

Editorial - Should we save whitebark pine ecosystems

Glacier National Park Initiates Project to Restore Whitebark and Limber Pine
The Van East Prescribed Fire, Swan Lake Ranger District
"Burning Down The House": A Commentary From A Wildlife Biologist

Whitebark and Limber Pine Status in the Sweet Grass Hills, Montana
Succession May Keep Old Subalpine Forests Productive
Adaptive Variation in Whitebark Pine on a Latitudinal and Elevational Gradient

Features

"Where the rubber meets the road" Whitebark pine success stories
Whitebark Tidbits
Publications and Events
Whitebark pine web page
Editors Page

Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystems --

Is it worth the effort?

The upcoming September field-oriented symposium represents the culmination of over ten years of coordinated research and technology transfer in whitebark pine ecosystems. First, there was a 1987 workshop in Bozeman, Montana attended by Yellowstone and Forest Service scientists and managers discussing future whitebark pine research and management projects. Then came the 1989 international symposium in Bozeman where over 50 researchers and resource managers summarized the current state-of-knowledge in these high elevation ecosystems. Next came a series of small workshops held in Columbia Falls, Montana (1989, 1991), Glacier National Park (1989, 1994), Mt Rainier National Park (1995), and again in Bozeman (1992, 1993) that presented and discussed new research findings and new management projects. Another international symposium on the five stone pines was held in St. Moritz, Switzerland in 1992 where the latest in scientific investigations were discussed by many world’s prominent scientists. However, it is this upcoming symposium in September of 1998 where all the past and current research and management are brought to bear in a comprehensive forum to discuss how to restore these declining ecosystems. But the relevance of this entire body of work begs the question on everyone’s lips. Are these ecosystems worth saving? Do we have the time and the money to restore whitebark pine to its historical prominence? What happens if we don’t save the species?

The answer is, of course, yes, we must save these important forests. But why? Obviously, their low timber value, inaccessibility, and short summer seasons would indicate that they would have low priority for rescue in the big scheme of public land management. However, we must take off those forestry-colored glasses and look at this ecosystem in a different light. Why save them? Well, first and foremost, we must restore these ecosystems because it is partly our fault, albeit unwitting, that they are declining. We have introduced an exotic disease (blister rust) and we have altered a vital ecosystem disturbance process (fire) which has resulted in a plethora of dramatic short-term consequences. So, in many portions of whitebark pines range, "we have seen the enemy and it is us". Therefore, don’t we have the responsibility to fix what we have broken?

There are many other reasons why the species is so important, depending on the scale and context you wish to use. First, it is apparent from the above mentioned body of research that whitebark pine seems to act as a quintessential "keystone" species in upper subalpine zone stands. This means that it’s dominant presence is associated with many unique ecosystem processes and characteristics. For example, litter depths are thinner, decomposition is quicker, fires are less severe, and plant diversity is higher in whitebark pine stands when compared with late seral subalpine fir forests. Animal species such as blue grouse, red squirrels, black bear, and the threatened grizzly bear utilize whitebark pine seeds and whitebark pine habitat more than most other upper subalpine tree cover type. For instance, the decline of whitebark pine in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness complex is stated as an important factor in the reintroduction of grizzly bears in this wilderness. Therefore, it would follow that the reduction or loss of this species would precipitate major changes in other ecosystem processes, stand characteristics, and wildlife usage not presented here.

Perhaps the most serious consequences of whitebark pine loss at the stand-level are the losses that are still unknown. There are many aspects of this interesting ecosystem that we have not yet investigated. Some non-vascular plant taxonomy, soil faunal dynamic, or phytochemical phenomenon uniquely associated with whitebark pine forests may eventually prove to be as important as those facets previously listed. So the logic continues that if we know that some attributes are singular to an ecosystem, it would follow that there are more items that may be equally important. And, the loss of this "keystone" species would adversely affect these unknown processes. The same logic is used to justify saving tropical rainforests -- "we’ve found some natural pharmaceuticals, so therefore, there must be more".

Effects of the loss of whitebark pine at the stand-level would cascade upwards in scale to the landscape-level. Since subalpine fir is the major climax species in these ecosystems, we would expect it to replace whitebark pine on many Northern Rocky Mountain and Northern Cascades sites. This conversion would result in a general homogenization of the landscape where patches would be mostly age-classes of only subalpine fir and, therefore, they would be larger, less diverse, and less variable. Large patch size contributes to less edge which could have adverse effects on many fauna. Fir-dominated landscapes would tend to have high contagion, indispersion, and dominance. What this landscape-speak means is that the absence of whitebark pine would decrease the number of possible cover types and structural stages in this shifting upper subalpine mosaic, and thereby limit the number of patch types. The end result is the landscape will have more continuous fuelbeds contributing to larger and more severe fires which will continue to homogenize the landscape even more. Moreover, many other landscape scale processes would become altered. For example, subalpine fir stands have higher leaf areas than whitebark pine stands. Therefore, water use from increased evaporation and sublimation from the leaf surface, transpiration, and respiration would surely increase in fir-dominated stands. This would reduce the amount of water flowing to streams and rivers off the landscape which could have severe consequences on summer irrigation, length of fire season, and stream runoff. These higher leaf areas require additional twigs and branches to support higher number of needles, and the accumulation of this additional twig and branch wood on the forest floor would result in higher fuel loadings, that would contribute to more severe fires, that would again continue to homogenize the landscape. These large and severe fires could shift a major portion of the landscape to shrub or herb lands, and snowmelt from these early seral stands might not be delayed which could contribute to flooding in low elevation areas.

What would be the effect of whitebark pine decline on forest recreation and visitation? The increase in homogeneity and decrease in diversity of the landscape may cause a decline in some big game animals, so hunting may be more difficult. Landscape homogenizatgion may also cause a decline other non-game species, so wildlife watching would decline. Studies in Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks have concluded the loss of whitebark pine would concentrate bears in alternate food source communities which often tend to be near humans, and this would result in an increase in bear-human conflicts. Several studies have shown most people prefer the open, park-like appearance of whitebark pine stands over the closed, dense subalpine fir stand structure. Therefore, it would follow that fir-dominated landscapes would be less appealing, and therefore be visited much less. Whitebark pine is long-lived, it may be that trails and roads through whitebark pine stands would be cheaper to build and maintain because there would be less trees to cut or clear from the route. The openness of the stand would provide more vistas which would also increase its value as a hiking trail. Lastly, the amazing number of animals associated with this ecosystem would entice people to walk along its trails.

We would also lose some American heritage with the loss of the pine ecosystem. Many archeological sources have identified whitebark pine nuts as a major food source of Native Americans. Ben Munger, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests, mentions that many high elevation Native American campsites in Montana and Idaho were places to harvest and prepare the nuts for fall and winter consumption. Bud Cheff, a rancher in the Mission Valley Montana, tells us the trek to harvest whitebark pine cones in the upper subalpine each fall was a major social event for many members of the Salish-Kootenai tribe. And, this happened as little as 50 years ago. With European settlement of the west, whitebark pine was a major timber species used for mine shafts and shacks in high elevation settings. Many high elevation summer range grazing areas were in or adjacent to whitebark pine forests.

However, perhaps the most important reason to restore whitebark pine forests is provided by the noted ecologist Aldo Leopold who said, and I paraphrase, "we can not afford to lose one cog in the great engine of life". We should restore these ecosystems because we, as humans, have contributed, in part, to their demise. They have value to us is in their very existence. We obviously can not restore all unhealthy whitebark pine stands across the entire range, but we can target our restoration efforts on critical whitebark pine areas that will ensure its continued presence on the landscape. Do we really want to see these precious ecosystems missing from the landscape? If so, what’s next?

Bob Keane
Rocky Mountain Research Station
Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory
P.O. Box 8089
Missoula MT 59807
email: bkeane/rmrs_missoula@fs.fed.us

Glacier National Park Initiates Project to Restore Whitebark Pine and Limber Pine Communities

by:

Historically, whitebark and limber pine communities were significant components on 15-20% of forested lands in Glacier National Park (GLAC). The trees are also major components of areas of cultural and spiritual importance in the Park and on the neighboring Blackfeet Reservation.

Fire suppression and white pine blister rust have decimated whitebark and limber pine stands in GLAC; almost half of all trees are dead. Of the remaining live trees, 90% are lethally infected with white pine blister rust and will die in the next 5-15 years. A third of their cone-bearing crowns are already dead. Less than 1 tree in 10,000 has natural resistance to blister rust. Since blister rust control measures were abandoned in the 1960s, no action has been taken to conserve these species.

There is wide-spread consensus among scientists and managers that whitebark and limber pine will be functionally lost in GLAC without active management intervention. It is imperative to act soon before cone (seed) collection becomes even more difficult and we lose more genetic material native to GLAC.

Glacier National Park has been awarded a grant by the National Park Service Intermountain Field Area Resource Fund to initiate a project to conserve whitebark and limber pine trees in the park and surrounding areas. Our objectives for the project are to:

I. Develop a conservation strategy and action plan which involves GLAC's neighbors; Waterton Lakes NP, British Columbia and Alberta forestry departments, Flathead and Lewis & Clark National Forests, and the Blackfoot Nation.

II. Support USFS efforts to enhance survival in whitebark and limber pine by selecting trees with natural resistance. Collect seed to ensure that GLAC's genetic stock is represented in adaptive variation studies, testing for rust resistance, and any program to breed rust-resistant trees.

III. Develop protocols for propagating limber pine in a nursery setting (this has been done for whitebark pine). This will be needed for production of stock for outplanting in areas where whitebark and limber pine have been extirpated.

IV. Develop natural areas for establishing whitebark and limber pine through small burns or other mechanical means. Natural selection stands where whitebark and limber pine's competitors are removed will serve as seed sources in the future.

While funding for the project begins in Fiscal Year 1998, preliminary work was conducted in 1997 to determine feasibility of collection methods.

In July 1997, the park's trail crew observed a population of cone-bearing whitebark pine in the vicinity of Bighorn Basin in Glacier National Park. In late July, four trees were scaled and cages of 0.25 inch wire mesh were placed over cones or groups of cones. We caged 62 cones using 29 cages. One of these trees appears to be among the healthiest whitebark observed in the park. Although most trees in the vicinity showed obvious evidence of blister rust, this tree did not. Upon closer inspection we did find a couple of cankers that had been healed over with live stem growing around them. The tree bore more than 50 cones, of which we caged 27. At this time, a very few (2-3) cones observed had been partially consumed.

In mid-September, we returned to collect the cones and cages. One of the 29 cages had fallen off its branch. We collected 65 cones, 5 of which turned out to be still too green to extract seed from. Cones covered by cages were protected from any predation. Virtually all cones outside of the cages had every seed consumed by this time.

From the 60 extractable cones, 1,891 seeds were collected. The healthy tree described above, not only produced the most cones, but the largest, most abundant seeds, averaging more than 50 seeds per cone (range 26-82).

Protocols developed by the USFS Coeur d'Alene Nursery for seed germination will be used to germinate and raise stock from these seeds. Glacier National Park has retained about 25% of the seed from each lot to raise in the park's nursery. The remainder have been shipped to Coeur d'Alene to be raised in the USFS nursery. This material will be included in Donna Dekker-Robertson's study on whitebark pine genetics.

Parks Canada, USFS, and the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta are familiar with the decline of these ecologically valuable species and have expressed interest in an integrated approach to management. A conservation plan involving the Blackfoot Nation would mesh with other cooperative park programs in place. Work to plan and formalize cooperative agreements will begin in 1998. We are excited to be taking initial steps to help preserve whitebark and limber pine in Glacier National Park.

 The Van East Prescribed Fire on the

Swan Lake Ranger District, Flathead National Forest

by:  John Engebretson, Swan Lake Ranger District, Flathead National Forest, P.O. Box 370, Big Fork, MT 59911, Ph: 406-837-7503, email: jingebre/r1_flathead@fs.fed.us

Upper slopes and ridgetops provide potentially good whitebark pine habitat. There are some stands and many potential stands of whitebark pine in the project area in the higher elevations. These sites provide important feeding habitat for grizzly bears. The lack of fire disturbance has been one of several factors which have caused a decline in the long term productivity of whitebark pine. By removing encroaching conifers and stimulating health in the whitebark pine we hope to reduce the threat of blister rust in the stand. This prescribed wildlife burn was designed to replicate the role of natural fire, in a controlled manner, by:

Ignition began at the top of the project area, carefully avoiding streams and riparian areas, with the helitorch laying aluma-gel in lazy lines across the hill. The fire began to etch a mosaic across the landscape. Dead and down material burned with moderate intensity while the beargrass burned lightly when fanned with fire-enhanced wind. Occasionally an individual alpine fir, or a decadent patch of shrubs, would begin torching, sending flames high into the air. Duff and soil moistures allowed root kill only where fire burned vigorously. Log moisture contents ranged from 16-28 percent while fine woody fuel (<1 inch) moisture contents ranged from 6 to 15 percent. Fire was applied to the area several more times with the helitorch in the following weeks to ensure treatment on isolated islands of fuels, with the last fire entry on July 24th. On the last two days of July two thirds of an inch of rain fell on the project area.

The project was monitored to ensure that it would stay within the maximum allowable perimeter. The fire was declared out on October 10, 1996. Burn coverage was estimated at 60% with over 40% alpine fir/shrub mortality overall, easily achieving objectives for the project.

"Burning Down The House": A Commentary From A Wildlife Biologist

by:  JT Stangl, Hebgen Lake Ranger District, Gallatin NF, P.O. Box 520, West Yellowstone, MT 59758, Ph: 406-646-7369, email: jstangl/r1_gallatin@fs.fed.us

In the March 1, 1994 edition of the Nutcracker Notes, Stephen Arno , US Forest Service (USFS), discussed how fire suppression could be fatal to whitebark pine habitats. In an effort to restore these and other habitats, managers are proposing the use of fire as a tool and are developing plans to restore fire to the landscape. We are hearing and reading more and more about "letting fires go", about using prescribed fire to return fire intervals to historic levels, and about the "restoration" of fire dependent ecosystems. These fascinating concepts pose difficult questions. For example, what does the landscape look like now (thank GIS for making that process a little easier) and how much has it changed over time? What "range of habitat variability" should we assess and is that concept even acceptable anymore? And, most importantly, what should the landscape look like after considering biological, social and ecological demands? These questions need to be answered in our search for the "fire grail".

Obviously, fire management effects all aspects of an ecosystem. However, in keeping with the theme of the Nutcracker Notes, how does fire management modify whitebark pine ecosystems? Many of us have read the literature and can probably address this question. However, I view fire and whitebark pine management like reading a good murder mystery novel, I keep reading and I can't wait to see how it ends. We have so much to learn about restoring fire to whitebark pine ecosystems. Land managers have been working in this arena and are exploring opportunities to burn in whitebark pine habitats, monitoring the results, and providing an opportunity for us to learn. And as our parents/guardian always told us, you won't know until you try!

For the past 8 years, I have been working in the Cabin Creek area north of Hebgen Lake. Along with Alan Vandiver and Dan Trochta, I observed what others have recorded; the encroachment of sub-alpine fir into whitebark pine understories. In the Cabin Creek area, whitebark pine are often scattered along drier south facing slopes and there are characteristic clusters or rings of sub-alpine fir. Where there is a mature whitebark pine, sub-alpine fir encompass or "house" the mature pine. In many instances, these encompassed mature whitebark are standing snags. Furthermore, there is little sign of whitebark regeneration in this area. Whitebark pine is an important seasonal component of grizzly bear habitat. Beyond its significance as a food source for bears, nutcrackers and other wildlife, whitebark is an important species in maintaining vegetative diversity. Therefore, in an effort to maintain this species and the habitat associated with it, the Hebgen Lake Ranger District of the Gallatin National Forest is proposing to burn approximately 1800 acres in the Cabin Creek drainage. By "burning down the house", we hope to open up the understory and encourage the regeneration of whitebark pine.

We are currently in the planning and analysis stages of the Cabin Creek prescribed burn. The burn is proposed for completion during the fall of 1998 assuming that NEPA is completed and the weather and conditions permit. Although data are limited, a combination of field surveys and remote sensing were completed during 1995-1997 to assess the status of whitebark pine in the Cabin Creek area. Surveys were developed to assess presence of blister rust, determine stand structure and species composition, estimate fuel loading and to assess the ability of remote sensing to extrapolate field data. Pre and post monitoring efforts will be an integral part of this project to maintain an adaptive management strategy. We hope to obtain the support and resources required to complete monitoring.

As a wildlife biologist, it has been interesting to work with fire and landscape managers in developing plans to complete large-scale prescribed fires while simultaneously suppressing fires in other areas. It has been even more interesting, especially while living in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, to work with the public on the concept of burning live-standing timber. The fires of 1988 have not been forgotten. We continue to remind the public that there will always be a need for fire managers and fighters to suppress some fires and for the rest of us to continue to manage "political and social fires".

 RESEARCH NEWS AND NOTES

Whitebark Pine and Limber Pine Status in the Sweet Grass Hills, Montana

by:  Katherine C. Kendall, USGS-Glacier Field Station, Glacier National Park, West Glacier, MT 59936-0128. Tel: (406) 888-7994. Email: katherine_kendall@usgs.gov

The Sweet Grass Hills in north central Montana support disjunct populations of both whitebark and the more abundant limber pine. The Hills represent the eastern most extension of whitebark pine's range in Montana and are approximately 100 miles from the closest whitebark pine stands to the west. In June and July 1997, my crew and I sampled 11 stands on the East and West Buttes to determine white pine status and degree of blister rust infection. Because much of the Sweet Grass Hills are reached only through private property, it would have been very difficult to conduct this work without assistance from several individuals. I want to thank Beverly Nash, Chuck and Sally Clark, and especially Arlo Skari, for allowing access through their property and providing tips on the best ways to reach areas.

On average, 12% of the whitebark and limber pine trees were dead (Table 1.). Of the remaining live trees, 58% were infected with white pine blister rust and had 17% crown kill. Percent dead, infected with rust, and crown kill were similar between whitebark and limber pine trees. These rates are similar to those found in whitebark and limber pine stands in Glacier National Park and surrounding areas. Unfortunately, this dashes hopes that the geographic distance from other infected populations and a climate drier than the Park would afford some protection against intensification of blister rust.

Table 1. Five-needled white pine status in the Sweet Grass Hills, MT.

WB = whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis),
PF = limber pine (Pinus flexilis),
WP = either whitebark or limber pine

Succession May Keep Old Subalpine Forests Productive

by: 

Old forests are generally thought to have very low rates of productivity. This generalization is based on the idea that, as forests age, living woody biomass increases to the point where leaf mass can no longer supply growth, but merely maintain the wood that already exists. The problem with this generalization, however, is that the theoretical connection between the cost of living wood and photosynthesis of leaves is based on what happens in individual species or even-aged stands, and does not take into account diverse structural complexity in natural forests and disproportional increases in shade-tolerant species over time. Ignoring succession and structural complexity may lead to large underestimates of the productivity of old forests.

We compared biomass allocation and productivity between whitebark pine, a shade-intolerant, early-successional tree species and subalpine fir, a shade-tolerant, late-successional species by harvesting 14 whitebark pine and 9 subalpine fir that varied widely in d.b.h., and calculating regression models for d.b.h. versus annual productivity, growth efficiency, and biomass allocation to leaves, sapwood, and heartwood.

Late-successional subalpine fir allocated almost twice as much biomass to leaves as early-successional whitebark pine. Subalpine firs also had much lower allocation to sapwood and higher growth rates and efficiencies across all diameters. We modeled biomass allocation and productivity for 12 natural stands in western Montana dominated by subalpine fir and whitebark pine, that varied from 67 to 458 years in age, by applying the regressions to all trees in each stand. Whole-stand sapwood:leaf ratios and stand productivity increased asymptotically with age. Sapwood:leaf ratios and productivity of whitebark pine in these stands increased for approximately 200-300 years and then slowly decreased over the next 200 years. In contrast, sapwood:leaf ratios of all sizes of subalpine fir were lower than those of pine, and productivity was higher. As stands shifted in dominance from pine to fir with age, subalpine fir appeared to maintain gradually increasing rates of whole-forest productivity until stand were approximately 400 years old. These results suggest that forests such as these may continue to grow and sequester carbon for centuries.

Adaptive Variation in Whitebark Pine on a Latitudinal and Elevational Gradient

by:  Janet L. Howard, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

Declining populations often lose genetic diversity as a result of bottleneck effect (Allendorf 1989). Northern Rocky Mountain populations of whitebark pine may be experiencing a severe bottleneck as a combined result of fire suppression, blister rust, and mountain pine beetle infestation (Hoff and others 1994). Genetic diversity is probably being lost; however, studies of genetic variation in whitebark pine are few (Brussard 1990, Hoff and others 1994, Tomback and Schuster 1994) and do not describe adaptive variation between and among populations. Understanding differences in traits of adaptive significance is crucial for whitebark pine restoration. I am measuring variation in water use efficiency, biomass allocation, and mortality in four populations of whitebark pine outplanted on a latitudinal and moisture gradient.

One of the most limiting factors for plant growth at mid- to high elevation in the northern Rocky Mountains is water (Jones 1993, Marshall and Zhand 1994.) Water use efficiency (WUE) measures the proportion of plant water loss to carbon gain. In a greenhouse study, Monsen and Grant (1989) showed definite, heritable differences in WUE between two populations of ponderosa pine. Seedlings established from seed collected on a xeric site showed high WUE, while WUE was less in seedlings grown from seed from a mesic site. Whitebark pine may show similar differences in WUE efficiency between populations. Or, because whitebark pine seed is entirely bird dispersed, whitebark pine may be more broadly adapted to a variety of soil water conditions.

Conifers native to xeric habitats allocate more biomass top sapwood and roots and less to leaves than conifers from mesic habitats (Snell and Brown 1978, Waring and Schlesinger 1985). Increased sapwood:leaf area ratio may improve water relations of trees in xeric climates. It is unknown whether whitebark pine shows phenotypic variation in biomass allocation, and if it does, whether the variation has a genetic component.

The purpose of this ongoing study is to determine whether there are strong heritable differences in water use efficiency and biomass allocation between and among four whitebark pine populations. The populations are from: 1) Snowbank Mountain, Boise National Forest; 2) Saddle Mountain, Bitterroot National Forest; 3) Gisbourne, Coeur d’Alene National Forest; and 4) Lunch Peak, Kaniksu National Forest. Whitebark pine seedlings from each population were outplanted on three burn sites on the Boise, Bitterroot, and Kaniksu National Forests. The burns lie on a latitudinal and moisture gradient from 45 deg 21 min north to 48 deg 22 min north and xeric to moist-mesic. Seed collected from open-pollinated trees on each of the four Forests was germinated, and the seedlings were grown in the greenhouse for 1 year. Year-old seedlings from each population were outplanted on the three burn sites. After 2 years of field growth, a subsample of seedlings was harvested to determine sapwood:leaf biomass allocation and WUE. WUE will be determined using carbon-13 isotope discrimination analysis.

Allendorf, F. W. 1989. Genetic drift and the loss of alleles versus heterozygosity. Zoo Biology. 5:181-190.

Brussard, P. F. 1990. The role of genetic diversity in whitebark pine conservation. In: Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, K. J., comps. Proceedings-symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource; 1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 315-318.

Hoff, R. J.; Hagle, S. K.; Krebill, R. G. 1994. Genetic consequences and research challenges of blister rust in whitebark pine. In: Schmidt, W. D.; Holtmeier, F., comps. Proceedings-international workshop on subalpine stone pines and their environment: the status of our knowledge. 1992 Sept. 5-11; St. Moritz, Switzerland. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GRT-309. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 118-126.

Jones, H. G. 1993. Drought tolerance and water use efficiency. In: Smith, J. A. C.; Griffiths, H. Water deficits: plant responses from cell to community. Bio Scientific Publishers: 193-203.

Marshall, J. D.; Zhang, J. 1994. Carbon isotope discrimination and water use efficiency in native plants of the north-central Rockies. Ecology. 75: 1887-1895.

Monsen, R. K.; Grant, M. C. 1989. Experimental studies of ponderosa pine. III. Differences in photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and water use efficiency between two genetic lines. American Journal of Botany. 76: 258-265.

Snell, J. K. A.; Brown, J. K. 1978. Comparison of tree biomass estimators-d.b.h. and sapwood area. Forest Science. 24: 455-457.

Tomback, D. F.; Schuster, W. S. 1994. Genetic population structure and growth form distribution in bird-dispersed pines. In: Schmidt, W. D.; Holtmeier, F., comps. Proceedings-international workshop on subalpine stone pines and their environment: the status of our knowledge. 1992 Sept. 5-11; St. Moritz, Switzerland. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GRT-309. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 118-126.

Waring, R. H.; Schlesinger, W. H. 1985. Forest Ecosystems. New York: Academic Press.

Planned projects: Lewis and Clark National Forest, Rocky Mountain RD (Brad McBratney) is planning a 50,000+ acre burn mostly in lodgepole pine but some whitebark pine sites will also be burned.... Gallatin National Forest, West Yellowstone RD (JT Stangl) is planning several burns to eliminate subalpine fir in whitebark pine areas (see this issue).... Kootenai National Forest, Murphy Lake RD, (Mike Liu) is planning (summer 1998) 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) is planning (summer 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 and Lee Clark) 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 1998) prescribed fire in whitebark pine stands to encourage whitebark regeneration and eliminate the subalpine fir competition.

Accomplishments: Flathead National Forest, Swan Lake RD (John Engebretson) successfully burned 700 acres of whitebark pine in the Lion Creek drainage (see this issue.

(Editors Note: You are encouraged to send the editor a short summary of any research project you have planned or implemented recently. Send to bkeane/rmrs,missoula on IBM 615 or bkeane/rmrs_missoula@fs.fed.us via Email to IBM 615)

Dave Spildie, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, reports a good cone crop in whitebark pine was evident in the Wind River Indian Reservation Roadless Area northwest of Fort Washakie near Mt. Heebeecheeche during the summer of 1997.

Dickman, D.I. and J.L. Rollinger. 1998. Fire for restoration of communities and ecosystems. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 79(2):157-160.

A summary of a symposium held in Albuquerque, NM in 1997 on Fire and Ecosystem Restoration. Papers on restoring whitebark pine, ponderosa pine, and many other important ecosystems.

Hartwell, M. 1998. Comparing historic and present conifer species compositions and structures on forested landscapes of the Bitterroot Front. Contract Completion report on file at the Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory. 406-329-4800

This report summarizes the decline of whitebark pine in the Bitterroot Mountains of Montana, and details how these ecosystems have adjusted

Jorgensen, S.M. and J.L. Hamrick. 1997. Biogeography and population genetics of whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27(10):1574-1585.

This is an excellent paper on the genetic variability of whitebark pine populations. Data were collected throughout the range of whitebark pine including Canada, northern Rockies, Cascades, and Sierra Nevadas.

Murray, M.P., S.C. Bunting, and P. Morgan. 1997. Subalpine ecosystems: The roles of whitebark pine and fire. In: Greenlee, J.M. (Editor), Proceedings : First conference on fire effects on rare and endangered species and habitats. Coeur d’Alene, ID Nov 13-16, 1995. International Association of Wildland Fire. Pages 295-301.

This paper summarizes the ecology of fire and whitebark pine in subalpine forests of the west, and presents some management considerations.

Ogle, K. And V. DuMond. 1997. Historical vegetation on National Forest lands in the Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region General Report.

This published document describes historical stand composition and structures of Region 4 of the Forest Service. There are some statistics describing historical whitebark pine levels.

WHITEBARK PINE SYMPOSIUM

The symposium: "Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystems -- A Field Workshop" is going to happen Sept 9-12, 1998. The registration brochure has been mailed and many of you should have seen a copy of it. If you haven’t, please call Clare Kelly (406-243-4623, ckelly@selway.umt.edu) for a copy. This is a field-oriented symposium so attendance will be limited to 150 people on a first-come-first-serve basis. So, GET THOSE REGISTRATION FORMS IN AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE. If you are looking for a quick way to get the registration form, or maybe you’re just interested in the symposium, please check out the symposium’s web page at:

http://www.umt.edu/ccesp/c&I/whitebark

This is shaping up to be an extremely interesting symposium with some real good talks and field trips. The field trips will visit whitebark pine stands in the Snow Bowl ski area and Bitterroot Mountains. Hope to see you all there.

Kate Kendall has organized a great web site for all whitebark pine information. Its address is:

http://nrmsc/research/whitebar.htm

The web master for this site is Marilyn Blair and she has done an excellent job. There is a link to a special treat -- the Nutcracker Notes page -- also created by Marilyn. The address to get to current and past issues of Nutcracker Notes is:

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/nutnotes.htm

This site currently contains the last three issues of Nutcracker Notes (Numbers 6, 7, and 8), and will contain this issue soon. We are also working on installing the first five issues.

Submission of Articles: Everyone is invited to submit articles to NUTCRACKER NOTES. These articles should be mailed to Nutcracker Notes, c/o Bob Keane, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807. If possible, they should be submitted electronically (Send to bkeane/rmrs,missoula on USFS IBM 615 or bkeane/rmrs_missoula@fs.fed.us via Email to USFS IBM 615) or written to a floppy disc (WordPerfect text processing) and then mailed. You are encouraged to submit articles to improve this valuable information network.

Newsletter Format: Articles submitted to NUTCRACKER NOTES will be presented in the newsletter under three main categories: Management News and Notes, Research News and Notes, and Publication and Events Alert. Management News describes current activities, problems, observations, conditions planned or implemented by land management agencies in whitebark pine forests. Research News describes current or planned research projects in these ecosystems. Publication and Events Alert is simply a list of current events and published information that may be of interest to readers of the newsletter. The reader will find a complete all authors addresses and email addresses accompanying each article. There will usually be an editorial at the beginning of the newsletter to highlight important topics and provide a forum for opinions. There are also the short features that allow you to send the editor snippets of information about projects in your area.

Errata and omissions: None as yet.

Bob Keane, Editor