Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
Introductory
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Cope, Amy B. 1993. Pinus contorta var. contorta. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/pinconc/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
PINCONC
PINCON
SYNONYMS :
Pinus boursieri Carr.
Pinus tenuis Lemmon
SCS PLANT CODE :
PICO
COMMON NAMES :
shore pine
beach pine
coast pine
lodgepole pine
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of shore pine is Pinus contorta
Dougl. ex Loud var. contorta [24,33]. Shore pine is one of four
varieties of lodgepole pine. The other three varieties are [9,24]:
Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia),
Sierra lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana),
Mendocino White Plains lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. bolanderi).
This write-up will focus on shore pine.
LIFE FORM :
Tree
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Shore pine occurs along the Pacific Coast from Yakutat Bay, Alaska,
south through the Coast Ranges to Mendocino County, California
[9,10,24,31,33]. In the eastern part of its range, shore pine occurs
intermittently with Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine in the Cascade Range
of northwestern Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska [38]. Shore
pine is also found in the Klamath Mountains of Oregon and California
[49].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
STATES :
AK CA HI OR WA BC
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
3 Southern Pacific Border
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K001 Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
K003 Silver fir - Douglas-fir forest
K004 Fir - hemlock forest
K006 Redwood forest
K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
K009 Pine - cypress forest
K013 Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
205 Mountain hemlock
206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
215 Western white pine
218 Lodgepole pine
223 Sitka spruce
224 Western hemlock
225 Western hemlock - Sitka spruce
226 Coastal true fir - hemlock
227 Western redcedar - western hemlock
228 Western redcedar
232 Redwood
255 California coast live oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Shore pine is a dominant species in the northern part of its range.
Farther south, shore pine is a codominant or subdominant species. In
mixed stands, shore pine may form scrubby thickets or sparse to dense
groves. Other vegetation is usually sparse [1,48].
Shore pine is listed as an indicator in the following published
classifications:
Provisional plant community types of southeastern Alaska [1]
A classification system for California's hardwood rangelands [2]
Preliminary forest plant association management guide [11]
Preliminary forest plant associations of the Stikine Area, Tongass
National Forest [42]
The Alaska vegetation classification system [46]
The closed-cone pine and cypresses [48].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
The wood of shore pine is light, brittle, coarse grained, and has a high
specific gravity [18,33]. Shore pine is occasionally used as fuel and
produces 8,730 British thermal units per pound [18].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Rodents eat the seeds of shore pine [27], and porcupines consume the
cambium [3]. Shore pine is of slight importance to big game but
provides important edge habitat for other animals [6,42,44]. Alaskan
brown bears travel through corridors of shore pine while traveling to
feeding areas. Shore pine provides nesting habitat for yellowlegs in
Alaska [11].
PALATABILITY :
NO-ENTRY
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Shore pine survives strong, salty winds on dry crests and wet
depressions. Shore pine has helped stabilize recent sand dune expansion
in California [20].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Native Americans boiled the inner bark of shore pine for food [16].
Coastal Native Americans used the pitch of shore pine to treat open
sores and chewed the buds to relieve sore throats [3].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Shore pine is a useful species for watershed stabilization [22]. It has
shown potential in shelterbelt plantings because of its branching habit
and winter hardiness [22,28]. Road construction should be avoided on
shore pine sites where possible because of the exceptionally deep, wet
soils [11]. Shore pine sites are important because they absorb
excessive rainfall and regulate waterflows [11]. Shore pine is valued
for the rapid early growth of seedlings [22].
Shore pine is a primary host to lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe
(Arceuthobium americanum); however, infection by this parasite has been
observed only in a few coastal areas of British Columbia [14,21]. Shore
pine is a host to hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense), which
can cause localized infections [5,30].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Shore pine is a short-lived, native conifer [9,22,25,43]. At maturity,
depending on the site, shore pine reaches heights of 20 to 50 feet (6-15
m) and d.b.h.'s of 6 to 20 inches (15-50 cm) [16,26,40,46]. The trunk
is often twisted, and crown shape varies from dense and round to
irregular [17,19,27]. The bark of shore pine is furrowed and up to 1
inch (2.54 cm) thick [3,9,26]. Shore pine has many branches [4,9,26].
The short, narrow leaves occur in fascicles of two [3,17,19,26,44]. The
cones are persistent [19,22,33,44,49]. They are about 1.5 to 2 inches
(3.8-5.1 cm) long [19,49]. Cones of shore pine are typically
nonserotinous [9,10,26]. Serotiny tends to increase farther inland but
is erratic and unpredictable [26].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Shore pine does not reproduce by sprouting [40].
Shore pine begins producing cones between 5 and 10 years of age [10,22].
Good seed crops usually occur every other year [10]. Owen and Molden
[50] discuss development of lateral shoot terminal buds. Shore pine
produces large amounts of flowers and pollen [3,9,49].
Percentage of sound seed ranges from 75 to 79 percent [9]. Fresh seed
requires no stratification, but stored seed requires 20 to 30 days
stratification. Seeds are viable for up to 17 years in cold storage
[22]. Seed falls approximately 200 feet (60 m) from the source under
normal conditions [9]. Shore pine requires absorbent soils, light, and
warm temperatures for germination [8,22].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Shore pine grows in a maritime climate throughout most of its range.
Annual precipitation, which falls year-round and mostly in the form of
rain, is 60 to 200 inches (1,500-5,000 mm) [15,26]. Shore pine occurs
from sea level to the subalpine zone (5,030 feet [1,525 m]) in Alaska
[3,45]. Shore pine occurs in peat bogs and muskegs on gentle slopes and
lowlands [11,19,40,42,49]. It is most common on poorly drained, deep
Histosols [11,42,45].
Conditions are xeric in the southern-most part of shore pine's
distribution, where it occurs in closed-cone pine and cypress
communities of California [48]. Shore pine habitat here includes
coastal dunes, seaside bluffs, and exposed rocky headlands; winds may be
strong and salty [48]. Soils are Inceptisols, Alfisols, and Ultisols;
best growth is on well-drained loams with a pH of 5 [16,26]. Here shore
pine occurs at elevations between sea level and 1,690 feet (0-507 m)
[33].
Overstory and understory tree species not mentioned in Distribution and
Occurrence include yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), Mendocino
White Plains lodgepole pine, bishop pine (Pinus muricata), and common
juniper (Juniperus communis) [20,34,47]. Associated shrubs are
huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), bog Labrador-tea (Ledum groenlandicum),
bog kalmia (Kalmia polifolia), northern twinflower (Linnaea borealis),
bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), and crowberry (Empetrum nigrum)
[1,8,41,46,47]. Commonly associated herbs are sedges (Carex spp.),
naked sedge (Calamagrostis nutkatensis), rusty menziesia (Menziesia
ferruginea), and narrowleaf cottonsedge (Eriophorum angustifolium)
[8,46,47]. Sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) is a common associate in
Alaska [46,47].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Shore pine occurs in extreme habitats that are unfavorable to other,
potentially competitive species [9,49]. Windthrow and landslides are
common [15].
Shore pine is a climatic climax in bog woodlands, reproducing under its
own canopy [36]. Shore pine is considered a climax species in many
areas [6,41,46].
Shore pine is shade intolerant [25,26,40].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Male and female strobili are initiated late in the growing season.
Development continues in the spring [26]. Pollen shedding begins in mid-
to late May [9,10,26]. Cones mature between September and October, with
seed dispersal following shortly afterward [22,26,40].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Fire is not an important factor in forest succession where shore pine
occurs in southeastern Alaska [15]. Fire is infrequent in maritime
forest types and usually is of little ecological significance [25]. The
fire interval is 150 to 350 years but may not be cyclic [35]. The
coastal cedar-pine-hemlock biogeoclimatic zone of British Columbia has
little or no fire history. The presence of shade-tolerant firs and
hemlocks and fire0sensitive species, such as shore pine, indicate that
fire is rare in this area [34].
The coastal dunes where shore pine occurs in California are considered
fire-free [48].
The foliage of shore pine is moderately flammable. Shore pine has a
moderate to low degree of fire resistance [25].
FIRE REGIMES :
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tree without adventitious-bud root crown
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Shore pine is sensitive to fire and probably killed by most fires.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
NO-ENTRY
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. contorta
REFERENCES :
1. Alaback, Paul B. 1980. Provisional plant community types of southeastern
Alaska. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Intermountain Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 15 p. [18773]
2. Allen, Barbara H.; Holzman, Barbara A.; Evett, Rand R. 1991. A
classification system for California's hardwood rangelands. Hilgardia.
59(2): 1-45. [17371]
3. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle,
WA: The Mountaineers. 222 p. [4208]
4. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1984. Timberline: Mountain and
arctic forest frontiers. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers. 304 p. [339]
5. Baranyay, J. A.; Smith, R. B. 1972. Dwarf mistletoes in British Columbia
and recommendations for their control. BC-X-72. Victoria, BC: Canadian
Forestry Service, Pacific Forest Research Centre. 18 p. [16391]
6. Bartolome, James W. 1983. Overstory-understory relationships: lodgepole
pine forest. In: Bartlett, E. T.; Betters, David R., eds.
Overstory-understory relationships in western forests. Western Regional
Research Publication No. 1. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University
Experiment Station: 1-4. [3308]
7. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
8. Coates, K. David. 1987. Effects of shrubs and herbs on conifer
regeneration and microclimate in the Rhododendron-Vaccinium-Menziesia
community of south-central BC. Vancouver, BC: University of British
Columbia. Thesis. Abstract. [17445]
9. Critchfield, W. B. 1978. The distribution, genetics, and silvics of
lodgepole pine. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO joint meeting of working
parties, Volume one: background papers and Douglas fir provenances; [Date
of conference unknown]; Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Volume one. Victoria,
B.C., Canada: British Columbia Ministry of Forests: 65-94. [8317]
10. Critchfield, William B. 1980. Genetics of lodgepole pine. Res. Pap.
WO-37. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
57 p. [8283]
11. DeMeo, Thomas. 1989. Preliminary forest plant association management
guide: Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. [Portland, OR]: [U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service]. 164 p. [19017]
12. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
13. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
14. Hawksworth, Frank G.; Johnson, David W. 1989. Biology and management of
dwarf mistletoe in lodgepole pine in the Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech.
Rep. RM-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 38 p.
[8651]
15. Arno, Stephen F.; Hoff, Raymond J. 1989. Silvics of whitebark pine
(Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-253. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11 p.
[1304]
16. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian
Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375]
17. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
18. Howard, James O.; Setzer, Theodore S. 1989. Logging residue in southeast
Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p.
[13189]
19. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p. [13403]
20. Jenny, H.; Arkley, R. J.; Schultz, A. M. 1969. The pygmy forest-podsol
ecosystem and its dune associates of the Mendocino Coast. Madrono. 20:
60-74. [10726]
21. Kimmey, J. W. 1957. Dwarfmistletoes of California and their control.
Tech. Pap. No. 19. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, California Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [16464]
22. Krugman, Stanley L.; Jenkinson, James L. 1974. Pinaceae--pine family.
In: Schopmeyer, C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in
the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 598-637. [1380]
23. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
24. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native
and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]
25. Lotan, James E.; Alexander, Martin E.; Arno, Stephen F.; [and others].
1981. Effects of fire on flora: A state-of-knowledge review. National
fire effects workshop; 1978 April 10-14; Denver, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep.
WO-16. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
71 p. [1475]
26. Lotan, James E.; Critchfield, William B. 1990. Pinus contorta Dougl. ex.
Loud. lodgepole pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H.,
technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers.
Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service: 302-315. [13393]
27. Lotan, James E.; Perry, David A. 1983. Ecology and regeneration of
lodgepole pine. Agric. Handb. 606. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 51 p. [8288]
28. Low, Alan J. 1986. Tree planting in the Falkland Islands. Forestry.
59(1): 59-84. [9755]
30. Mathiasen, Robert L.; Hawksworth, Frank G. 1988. Dwarf mistletoes on
western white pine and whitebark pine in northern California and
southern California. Forest Science. 34(2): 429-440. [5034]
31. McMillan, Calvin. 1956. The edaphic restriction of Cupressus and Pinus
in the Coast Ranges of central California. Ecological Monographs. 26:
177-212. [11884]
32. Millar, Constance I.; Libby, William J. 1989. Disneyland or native
ecosystem: genetics and the restorationist. Restoration and Management
Notes. 7(1): 18-24. [8071]
33. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
34. Parminter, John. 1983. Fire history and fire ecology in the Prince
Rupert Forest region. In: Trowbridge, R. L.; Macadam, A., eds.
Prescribed fire--forest soils: Symposium proceedings; 1982 March 2-3;
Smithers, BC. Land Management Report Number 16. Victoria, BC: Province
of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests: 1-35. [8849]
35. Parminter, John. 1991. Fire history and effects on vegetation in three
biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.;
Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and
cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990
March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station: 263-272. [16651]
36. Pojar, Jim. 1985. Ecological classification of lodgepole pine in Canada.
In: Baumgartner, David M.; Krebill, Richard G.; Arnott, James T.;
Weetman, Gordon F., compilers and editors. Lodgepole pine: The species
and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1984 May 8-10; Spokane, WA;
1984 May 14-16; Vancouver, BC. Pullman, WA: Washington State University,
Cooperative Extension: 77-88. [9442]
37. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
38. Shrimpton, D. M. 1972. Variation in the extractives from lodgepole pine
sapwood and heartwood. Information Report NOR-X-18. Edmonton,
Alberta: Environment Canada, Forestry Service, Northern Forest Research
Centre. 22 p. [8323]
39. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
40. Tackle, David. 1961. Silvics of lodgepole pine. Misc. Publ. 19. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. [8287]
41. Taylor, R. F. 1932. The successional trend and its relation to
second-growth forests in southeastern Alaska. Ecology. 13(4): 381-391.
[10007]
42. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. [n.d.].
Preliminary forest plant associations of the Stikine Area, Tongass
National Forest. R10-TP-72. Portland, OR. 126 p. [19016]
43. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
44. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,
their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
45. Ver Hoef, Jay M.; Neiland, Bonita J.; Glenn-Lewin, David C. 1988.
Vegetation gradient analysis of two sites in southeast Alaska. Northwest
Science. 62(4): 171-180. [19175]
46. Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T.; Batten, A. R.; Wenzlick, K. J. 1992. The
Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 278 p. [2431]
47. Vitt, Dale H.; Horton, Diana G.; Slack, Nancy G.; Malmer, Nils. 1990.
Sphagnum-dominated peatlands of the hyperoceanic British Columbia coast:
patterns in surface water chemistry and vegetation. Canadian Journal of
Forestry Research. 20: 696-711. [11739]
48. Vogl, Richard J.; Armstrong, Wayne P.; White, Keith L.; Cole, Kenneth L.
1977. The closed-cone pines and cypress. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major,
Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley
and Sons: 295-358. [7219]
49. Wheeler, Nicholas C.; Critchfield, William B. 1985. The distribution and
botanical characteristics of lodgepole pine: biogeographical and
management implications. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Krebill, Richard G.;
Arnott, James T.; Weetman, Gordon F., compilers and editors. Lodgepole
pine: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1984 May
8-10; Spokane, WA; 1984 May 14-16; Vancouver, BC. Pullman, WA:
Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 1-13. [9435]
50. Owens, John N.; Molder, Marje. 1975. Development of long-shoot terminal
buds of Pinus contorta spp. contorta. In: Baumgartner, David M., ed.
Management of lodgepole pine ecosystems: Symposium proceedings; 1973
October 9-11; Pullman, WA. Vol. 1. Pullman, WA: Washington State
University, Cooperative Extension Service: 86-104. [7822]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/pinconc/all.html
