Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. murrayana
Introductory
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. murrayana
| Sierra lodgepole pine in Emigrant Wilderness
Area. Photo by Janet L. Fryer, USFS, Fire
Sciences Laboratory. |
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Cope, Amy B. 1993. Pinus contorta var. murrayana. 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/pinconm/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
PINCONM
PINCON
SYNONYMS :
Pinus murrayana Balf.
Pinus contorta subsp. murrayana (Grev. & Balf.) Critchfield
SCS PLANT CODE :
PICOM
COMMON NAMES :
Sierra lodgepole pine
tamarack pine
lodgepole pine
Sierra-Cascade lodgepole pine
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of Sierra lodgepole pine is Pinus
contorta var. murrayana (Grev. & Balf.) Engelm. [37]. Sierra lodgepole
pine is one of four recognized varieties of lodgepole pine (Pinus
contorta). The other three varieties are listed below [37]:
shore pine (Pinus contorta var. contorta),
Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia)
Mendocino White Plains lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. bolanderi)
This review covers Sierra lodgepole pine.
LIFE FORM :
Tree
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. murrayana
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Sierra lodgepole pine occurs in the Cascade Range of southern
Washington, Oregon, and California [34]; it also occurs in the Sierra
Nevada and Klamath Mountains. Disjunct populations occur farther south
in the Transverse and Peninsular ranges and the Sierra de Juarez of Baja
California [7,12,34,41]. Sierra lodgepole pine is also found in the
Virginia and Sweetwater mountains of the Great Basin [36].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
STATES :
CA HI NV OR WA MEXICO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K001 Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
K004 Fir - hemlock forest
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K007 Red fir forest
K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K013 Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
K015 Western spruce - fir forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
205 Mountain hemlock
206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
207 Red fir
208 Whitebark pine
211 White fir
215 Western white pine
218 Lodgepole pine
219 Limber pine
224 Western hemlock
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
247 Jeffrey pine
256 California mixed subalpine
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Sierra lodgepole pine is a dominant or codominant species in upper
montane and subalpine forests [8,33,43,48,57]. A poorly defined
lodgepole pine zone occurs above the red fir (Abies magnifica) zone and
below the subalpine forests of mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana),
whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), and western white pine (P. monticola)
[48]. Sierra lodgepole pine forms extensive, pure stands in the Sierran
lodgepole pine zone [2,12,48].
Sierra lodgepole pine is listed as a dominant or indicator species in
the following published classifications:
Preliminary plant associations of the southern Oregon Cascade Mountain
Province [2]
Preliminary plant associations of the Siskiyou Mountain Province [3]
Vegetation types of the San Gabriel Mountains [23]
Riparian zone associations of Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema
National Forests [33]
Vegetation types of the San Bernadino Mountains [40]
Montane forests of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges [45]
Subalpine forests of the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges [56]
Vascular plant communities of California [57]
Plant associations of the central Oregon Pumice Zone [59]
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. murrayana
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
The wood of Sierra lodgepole pine is straight grained, light, and
uniform in texture, with small knots [41,63]. The wood is suited for
common lumber grades, and used for light framing materials, interior
paneling, exterior trim, posts, railroad ties, pulp and paper, and has
potential for structural particle board [7,39,61,63]. The uniform size
of Sierra lodgepole pine makes harvesting efficient. In some areas,
however, it is costly to harvest because access to steep slopes is
difficult with machinery [39,61].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Thirty-one mammals and almost 50 bird species use Sierra lodgepole pine
forests for food, cover, or habitat [63]. Dead or dying trees provide
nesting sites for cavity-nesting birds. The fallen branches from these
trees provide sites for ground-nesting birds and mammals. Although dead
trees may be hazardous to elk and deer that are traveling quickly [63],
dense stands of Sierra lodgepole pine provide excellent escape and
resting cover [7,61]. Spruce grouse feed on Sierra lodgepole pine
needles during the winter. The seeds are a food source for squirrels,
chipmunks, birds, and mice [39].
Livestock graze in Sierra lodgepole pine stands, but these stands are
not as important to livestock as Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine stands
are. In the Cascades, livestock often find better forage in associated
vegatation types. Livestock use of lodgepole pine in the Sierra Nevada
has been little studied, but stands there are probably of low
significance to livestock [7].
PALATABILITY :
NO-ENTRY
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Sierra lodgepole pine regenerates well on poor soils, rocky slopes, and
exposed sites; it is widely planted in Great Britian and New Zealand for
this reason [61,63].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Sierra lodgepole pine serves as a nurse tree for Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and Engelmann
spruce (Picea engelmannii). Its rapid juvenile growth makes it a useful
short-rotation crop [61]. Sierra lodgepole pine forms an edaphic climax
on some sites, and careful consideration should be taken before
converting these stands to other species [11]. Sierra lodgepole pine
has great potential for long-term population maintenance, even in the
absence of disturbance [44]. Overstocking results in limited diameter
growth of Sierra lodgepole pine and stagnant stands [2,39]. When
planted on steep to moderate slopes and high bluffs, Sierra lodgepole
pine had one of the highest survival and growth rates in both first- and
second-year evaluations [10].
Sierra lodgepole pine is susceptible to windfall [55].
Annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) infects Sierra lodgepole
pine in central Oregon and kills trees under stress on dry sites. Other
diseases that affect Sierra lodgepole pine are discussed in the
literature [11,13,22,36,55].
Lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium americanum) is the most
serious parasite of Sierra lodgepole pine [13,38]. Treatment methods
are discussed in the literature [24,25,39].
The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) is the most severe
insect pest affecting Sierra lodgepole pine. Epidemics can kill 33 to
66 percent of large trees in a stand [63]. Infestations commonly last 5
to 7 years, and occur in 20- to 40-year cycles [63]. Mountain pine
beetle outbreaks create a large amount of fuel build-up. Watersheds can
release up to 30 percent more water because of the dead trees killed by
mountain pine beetle [63].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. murrayana
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Sierra lodgepole pine is a native conifer from 90 to 100 feet (28-30 m)
in height and averaging 16.5 inches (42 cm) in d.b.h. [38,41,55,64].
Trees growing near timberline are shrubby in form [12]. Sierra
lodgepole pine is long-lived; some trees have lived in excess of 600
years [64]. Its bark is thin [39,41]. The branches are short and
finely subdivided into branchlets of small diameter [62]. Needles are
from 1.2 to 2.4 inches (3-6 cm) long and occur in fascicles of two
[29,41]. The nonserotinous cones are 1.6 to 2.4 inches (4-6 cm) in
length, and often occur in clusters [12,27,29,62,65].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Sierra lodgepole pine is prolific, reliable seed producer, with good
seed crops occurring every 1 to 3 years [12,27,34,55]. Cones first
appear between the ages of 4 and 8 [13,34]. The percentage of viable
seed is high. Germination studies have shown that seed viability is
between 75 to 77 percent in southern Oregon and 72 percent in the Sierra
Nevada [13]. Seeds are wind dispersed and fall approximately 200 feet
(60 m) from the source [13]. They have remained viable for up to 17
years in cold storage [34]. Seeds require a minimum of 20 percent full
sunlight to germinate [13,39]. Bare mineral soils or disturbed duff
that is free of competing vegetation have the highest rates of
germination [55]. A study in the central Sierra Nevada showed that
Sierra lodgepole pine establishes in large numbers in localized areas of
disturbance, such as tree-fall sites [43].
In the southern Cascade region, squirrels may cause significant cone
losses [12]. However, seed loss to birds and rodents does not greatly
affect Sierra lodgepole pine reproduction because of the heavy cone
crops and high germination capacity of seeds [55]. Browsing by elk and
deer is usually not a major cause of seedling mortality. Grazing or
trampling by livestock can, however, result in some losses [39]. Gopher
herbivory also kills young seedlings [14].
Sierra lodgepole pine does not sprout from the root crown [55].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Sierra lodgepole pine grows in areas with cold, wet winters and dry,
warm summers [38,53]. In the southern part of its range, Sierra
lodgepole pine grows under xeric conditions [23,56]. Annual
precipitation ranges from 30 to 60 inches (750-1,500 mm), mostly in the
form of snow [48,52].
Sierra lodgepole pine thrives on a broad spectrum of soil types, from
water-logged organic soils to well-drained glacial outwashes [13,62].
It also grows in soils with underlying hardpan. Soil parent materials
include pumice, ash, and granite [22,45,52,55]. Sierra lodgepole pine
most commonly grows in soils with a pH of 5.1 to 5.3 [45]. It cannot
tolerate soils approaching a pH of 8 [11].
Sierra lodgepole pine occurs from 5,000 to 11,600 feet (1,515-3,508 m)
in elevation in California and from 3,000 and 7,000 feet (910-2,130 m)
in Oregon [38,41,56].
Other canopy associates not mentioned in Distribution and Occurrence
include quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and western juniper
(Juniperus occidentalis ssp. australis) [40,48,57]. Sierra lodgepole
pine understory is sparse [48]. Associate understory shrubs include
birchleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), pinemat manzanita
(Arctostaphylos nevadensis), gooseberry currant (Ribes montigenum),
purple mountain heather (Phyllodoce breweri), bitterbrush (Purshia
tridentata), whitethorn ceanothus (Ceanothus cordulatus), bearberry
(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), and western huckleberry (Vaccinium
occidentale) [3,33,48]. Herbaceous associates include sedges (Carex
spp.), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), western needlegrass
(Stipa occidentalis), pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), rockcress
(Arabis spp.), sulfur buckwheat (Erogonum umbellatum), and pussypaws
(Spraguea umbellata) [39,48,59].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Sierra lodgepole pine establishes soon after disturbance and is
moderately shade tolerant [13,18,20,26]. It forms stable climax
communities in the zone just above red fir and white fir-mountain
hemlock forests [1,43,48]. It is dominant on more xeric or infertile
sites within the white fir-mountain hemlock forest [1,7,52], but is
generally a seral tree within that forest type [1].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Pollen is shed in June. Fertilization occurs 13 months after
pollination, usually in June or July [12,13,55]. Cones open and
disperse seed from late August to mid-October, and do not persist on the
tree [12,13].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. murrayana
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Sierra lodgepole pine is fire sensitive [2,48]. After stand-replacing
fire, it typically establishes from wind-dispersed seed. Agee [1]
reported that establishment of Sierra lodgepole pine in Crater Lake
National Monument, Oregon, was favored by fires of moderate to high
severity. Fire-return intervals in Sierra lodgepole pine forests vary.
On the western slope of the Cascade Range in Oregon, stand-replacing
fires may occur several hundred years apart. On the eastern slopewhere
drier conditions prevail, such fires may occur at intervals of less than
20 years [2]. Keeley [64] reported a fire-return interval of several
hundred years was also common on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada.
Stand-replacing fires are related to insect attacks, particulary by pine
mountain beetle, and declining vigor and high fuel loading in older
stands [2,16,63]. When fires occur in Sierra lodgepole stands, they are
usually intense and extensive [2].
FIRE REGIMES :
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
taxon may occur by entering "Sierra lodgepole pine" in the FEIS home page
under "Find Fire Regimes".
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tree without adventitious-bud root crown
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. murrayana
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Sierra lodgepole pine is usually killed by fire because of its shallow
root system and thin bark [60]. After a lightning-ignited fire in the
Sierra Nevada at Ellis Meadow in Kings Canyon National Park, most of the
trees surrounding the meadow were killed [15].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Fire prepares an ideal seedbed, and Sierra lodgepole pine is an early
postfire colonizer [13,30]. Following stand-replacing fire, it
initially establishes in even-aged stands. Smaller-scale disturbances
such as windfall and avalanches are thought to convert Sierra lodgepole
pine forests to the uneven-aged structure typical of this variety [43].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
The Fire Study Shrub control by burning before timber harvest discusses
controlling shrubs in ponderosa pine-Sierra lodgepole pine mixed-conifer
communties on the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, Oregon.
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Sierra lodgepole pine has increased in importance in some white fir
forests. It typically invades such forests in the first few decades
following fire. Historically, Sierra lodgepole pine in understories of
white fir forests were killed by the next fire. Past policies of fire
suppression in Crater Lakes National Monument, however, have resulted in
a significant increase in density of Sierra lodgepole pine within the
white fir zone [1].
Lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe adds to vertical distribution of fuel.
Periodic fire, however, aids in keeping dwarf mistletoe, fungal, and
insect infestations under control [25].
Heart and root rot fungi may invade fire-scarred Sierra lodgepole pine
[18].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Pinus contorta var. murrayana
REFERENCES :
1. Agee, James K. 1981. Initial effects of prescribed fire in a climax
Pinus contorta forest Crater Lake National Park. CPSU/UW 81-4. Seattle,
WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resouces, Cooperative
Park Studies Unit, National Park Service. 10 p. [6559]
2. Atzet, Thomas; McCrimmon, Lisa A. 1990. Preliminary plant associations
of the southern Oregon Cascade Mountain Province. Grants Pass, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest. 330
p. [12977]
3. Atzet, Thomas; Wheeler, David L. 1984. Preliminary plant associations of
the Siskiyou Mountain Province. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 278 p. [9351]
4. Allen-Diaz, Barbara H. 1991. Water table and plant species relationships
in Sierra Nevada meadows. American Midland Naturalist. 126: 30-43.
[16149]
5. Amman, Gene D.; Cole, Walter E. 1983. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in
lodgepole pine forests. Part II. Population dynamics. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-145. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 59 p. [8315]
6. Bancroft, Larry. 1979. Fire management plan: Sequoia and Kings Canyon
National Parks. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Western Region. 190 p. [11887]
7. 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]
8. Benedict, Nathan B. 1984. Classification and dynamics of subalpine
meadow ecosystems in the southern Sierra Nevada. In: Warner, Richard E.;
Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology,
conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference;
1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press: 92-96. [5829]
9. 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]
10. Chan, Franklin J.; Wong, Raymond M. 1989. Reestablishment of native
riparian species at an altered high elevation site. In: Abell, Dana L.,
technical coordinator. Proceedings of the California riparian systems
conference: Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's; 1988
September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station: 428-435. [13771]
11. Cochran, P. H. 1985. Soils and productivity of lodgepole pine. 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: 89-93. [9443]
12. 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]
13. Critchfield, William B. 1980. Genetics of lodgepole pine. Res. Pap.
WO-37. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
57 p. [8283]
14. Crouch, Glenn L. 1971. Susceptibility of ponderosa, Jeffrey, and
lodgepole pines to pocket gophers. Northwest Science. 45(4): 252-256.
[17965]
15. DeBenedetti, Steven H.; Parsons, David J. 1984. Postfire succession in a
Sierran subalpine meadow. American Midland Naturalist. 111(1): 118-125.
[6635]
16. Dickman, Alan; Cook, Stanton. 1989. Fire and fungus in a mountain
hemlock forest. Canadian Journal of Botany. 67(7): 2005-2016. [13015]
17. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
18. Gara, R. I.; Littke, W. R.; Agee, J. K.; [and others]. 1985. Influence
of fires, fungi and mountain pine beetles on development of a lodgepole
pine forest in south-central Oregon. 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: 153-162. [9448]
19. 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]
20. Geiszler, Daniel Reuben. 1981. Interactions of fire, fungi and mountain
pine beetles in a lodgepole pine stand in south-central Oregon. Pullman,
WA: University of Washington. 101 p. Dissertation. [6719]
21. Geiszler, D. R.; Gara, R. I.; Littke, W. R. 1984. Bark beetle
infestations of lodgepole pine following a fire in south central Oregon.
Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie. 98(4): 389-394. [15046]
22. Goheen, Ellen Michaels; Goheen, Donald J. 1989. Losses caused by annosus
root disease in Pacific Northwest forests. In: Otrosina, William J.;
Scharpf, Robert F., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium
on research and management of annosus root disease (Heterobasidion
annosum) in western North America; 1989 April 18-21; Monterey, CA. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PSW-116. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 66-69.
[11324]
23. Hanes, Ted L. 1976. Vegetation types of the San Gabriel Mountians. In:
Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of southern
California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2.
Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 65-76. [4227]
24. Hawksworth, Frank G. 1975. Dwarf mistletoe and its role in lodgepole
pine ecosystems. 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: 342-358. [7836]
25. 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]
26. Heath, James P. 1967. Primary conifer succession, Lassen Volcanic
National Park. Ecology. 48(2): 270-275. [17354]
27. Costello, L. R.; Schmidt, R. H.; Giusti, Gregory A. 1991. Evaluating
tree protection devices: effects on growth and survival-- first-year
results. In: Standiford, Richard B., technical coordinator. Proceedings
of the symposium on oak woodlands and hardwood rangeland management;
1990 October 31 - November 2; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-126.
Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Research Station: 31-35. [17355]
28. Helms, John A.; Ratliff, Raymond D. 1987. Germination and establishment
of Pinus contorta var. murrayana of Yosemite National Park, California.
Madrono. 34(2): 77-90. [6739]
29. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
30. Kilgore, Bruce M. 1976. Fire management in the National Parks: an
overview. Proceedings, Montana Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and
Intermountain Fire Research Council fire & land management symposium;
1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers
Research Station: 45-57. [19020]
31. Kilgore, Bruce M.; Briggs, George S. 1972. Restoring fire to high
elevation forests in California. Journal of Forestry. 70(5): 266-271.
[18570]
32. 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]
33. Kovalchik, Bernard L. 1987. Riparian zone associations: Deschutes,
Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests. R6 ECOL TP-279-87.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region. 171 p. [9632]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. Lanner, Ronald M. 1983. Trees of the Great Basin: A natural history.
Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 215 p. [1401]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. 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]
40. Minnich, Richard A. 1976. Vegetation of the San Bernardino Mountains.
In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of
southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No.
2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 99-124. [4232]
41. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
42. Parker, Albert J. 1982. Comparative structural/functional features in
conifer forests of Yosemite and Glacier National Parks, USA. American
Midland Naturalist. 107(1): 55-68. [6314]
43. Parker, Albert J. 1986. Persistence of lodgepole pine forests in the
central Sierra Nevada. Ecology. 67(6): 1560-1567. [8352]
44. Parker, Albert J. 1988. Stand structure in subalpine forests of Yosemite
National Park, California. Forest Science. 34(4): 1047-1058. [6599]
45. Parker, Albert J. 1989. Forest/environment relationships in Yosemite
National Park, California USA. Vegetatio. 82: 41-54. [11055]
46. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
47. Roberts, Norman C. 1984. Important riparian/wetland systems of
peninsular Baja California: an overview. In: Warner, Richard E.;
Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology,
conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference;
1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press: 390-403. [5841]
48. Rundel, Philip W.; Parsons, David J.; Gordon, Donald T. 1977. Montane
and subalpine vegetation of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges. In:
Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of
California. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 559-599. [4235]
49. Sheppard, Paul R.; Lassoie, James P. 1985. Fire regime of the Lodgepole
pine communities of the San Jacinto Mountains, California. In: Lotan,
James E.; Kilgore, Bruce M.; Fisher, William C.; Mutch, Robert W.,
technical coordinators. Proceedings--Symposium and workshop on
wilderness fire; 1983 November 15-18; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-182. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 376. [7365]
50. Sorensen, F.C. 1987. Estimated frequency of natural selfing in lodgepole
pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana) from central Oregon. Silvae
Genetica. 36: 215-216. [5486]
51. 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]
52. Stuart, John D.; Agee, James K.; Gara, Robert I. 1989. Lodgepole pine
regeneration in an old, self-perpetuating forest in south central
Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 19: 1096-1104. [9347]
53. Stuart, J. D.; Geiszler, D. R.; Gara, R. I.; Agee, J. K. 1983. Mountain
pine beetle scarring of lodgepole pine in south-central Oregon. Forest
Ecology and Management. 5: 207-214. [9706]
54. Sweeney, James R. 1968. Ecology of some "fire type" vegetation in
northern California. In: Proceedings, California Tall Timbers Fire
Ecology Conference; 1967 November 9-10; Hoberg, CA. Number 7.
Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 111-125. [6573]
55. 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]
56. Thorne, Robert F. 1977. Montane and subalpine forests of the Transverse
and Peninsular ranges. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds.
Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons:
537-557. [7214]
57. Thorne, Robert F. 1976. The vascular plant communities of California.
In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of
southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No.
2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 1-31. [3289]
58. 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]
59. Volland, Leonard A. 1985. Plant associations of the central Oregon
Pumice Zone. Rt-ECOL-104-1985. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 138 p. [7341]
60. Wade, Dale D.; Johansen, R. W. 1986. Effects of fire on southern pine:
observations and recommendations. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-41. Asheville, NC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station. 14 p. [10984]
61. Wellner, Charles A. 1975. The importance of lodgepole pine in the United
States. 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: 1-9. [7817]
62. 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]
63. Heinrichs, Jay. 1983. The lodgepole killer. Journal of Forestry. May:
289-292. [16459]
64. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney,
H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical
coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the
conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277.
[4395]
65. Koch, Peter. 1987. Gross characteristics of lodgepole pine trees in
North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 311 p.
[3386]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/pinconm/all.html
