AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Gucker, Corey L. 2007. Pinus rigida.
In: Fireplace Results Data System, [Online].
U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Analysis Station, Fireplace Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Obtainable: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/vegetation/tree/pinrig/all.html [
18 July 2013: DeGraaf, Richard M.; Rudis, Deborah D. 2001 quotation corrected to DeGraaf, Richard M.; Yamasaki, Mariko. 2001.
NRCS PLANT CODE [
The scientific title of pitch pine is Pinus rigida P. Mill. (Pinaceae) [43,45,76,135,159].
Pitch pine belongs to the laborious pine or Diploxylon subgenus .
Pitch pine hybridizes naturally with shortleaf pine (P. echinata)
, pond pine (P. serotina), and loblolly pine (P. taeda) [89,145] the place
Pinus taeda var. rigida =
Pinus rigida 
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No particular standing
Data on state-level protected standing of vegetation in the USA is obtainable at
SPECIES: Pinus rigida
Pitch pine occupies jap United States habitats from central Maine south to
northern Georgia. There are outlying
pitch pine populations as far west as western Kentucky. Pitch pine is commonest on the Atlantic
Coastal Plain [31,45,53]. There are 2 disjunct
pitch pine populations in Canada. Each Canadian populations happen alongside the St
Lawrence River, 1 in excessive southwestern Quebec and the opposite in excessive southeastern Ontario [44,116].
The US Geological Survey
gives a distributional map of pitch pine.
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Pitch pine is commonly dominant in pine barrens vegetation within the northeastern
United States. On extraordinarily harsh websites it might symbolize a climax vegetation
kind , however most frequently pitch pine forests are early seral and are changed by
oaks (Quercus spp.) and different hardwoods within the absence of fireplace
[25,96,171]. Within the Appalachian area, pitch pine is widespread on ridges with Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana)
and Desk Mountain pine (P. pungens) [22,106]. Pitch pine is a
dominant species within the following vegetation varieties and communities.
Common/jap United States:
pitch pine forests, cowl kind 45 acknowledged by the Society of American
northern pine barrens on the Atlantic Coast Plain north of Delaware Bay 
pitch pine and pitch pine-oak communities in central New Jersey, central Lengthy
Island, close to Albany in upstate New York, and on Cape Cod, Massachusetts 
oak-pine forests dominated by scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), chestnut oak
(Q. prinus), pitch pine, Virginia pine, and Desk Mountain pine within the Blue
Ridge Province from Pennsylvania to northern Georgia 
pitch pine-oak forests all through New England, however finest
represented on Cape Cod and Martha’s Winery, Massachusetts 
blended deciduous forests of pitch pine, pink maple (Acer rubrum), grey
birch (Betula populifolia), and quaking aspen (P. tremuloides)
open-canopy pitch pine forests
pitch pine/heath communities
pitch pine/bear oak (Q. ilicifolia) communities in Waterboro Barrens 
pitch pine vegetation associations on Mt Desert Island off the southern coast;
might include pink pine (Pinus resinosa) and/or jap white pine (P.
strobus) within the cover; understory dominants are widespread juniper (Juniperus communis)
in open stands and black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata) in closed
pitch pine/kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi)
pitch pine/wavy hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa)
pitch pine-black oak/yellow sedge (Q. velutina/Carex pennsylvanica)
pitch pine/bear oak/broom crowberry (Corema conradii)
pitch pine-white oak (Q. alba)-black oak/black huckleberry
pitch pine/bear oak-northern bayberry (Myrica pennsylvanica) on Cape Cod Nationwide Seashore 
pine plains communities or plains vegetation within the Pine Barrens are described by a number of
authors; plains communities are dominated by pitch pine
bushes <10 ft (Three m) tall and by shrubby bear and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica) [55,101,104]
communities dominated by the identical species because the plains however with extra open
canopies and taller vegetation are referred to as transition communities by Lutz , pygmy forests by
barrens communities assist pitch pine bushes >25 ft (7.6 m) tall 
pitch pine-blackjack oak forests [104,105]
pitch pine-post oak (Q. stellata) forests 
pitch pine-black oak forests within the Pine Barrens 
pitch pine-bear oak communities
pitch pine-swamp doghobble (Eubotrys racemosa) within the Pine Barrens 
pitch pine lowlands forest; cover dominated by 15- to 20-foot (4.6-6.1 m)-tall
pitch pine-oak (black oak, blackjack oak, put up oak)
oak-pitch pine (black oak, chestnut oak, white oak and/or scarlet oak) within the
Pine Barrens 
mesic pitch pine-bear oak forest varieties
dry pitch pine lowland forest varieties
moist pitch pine lowland forest varieties
pitch pine-red maple swamps within the Pine Barrens 
pitch pine-bear oak communities in Excessive Level State Park 
pine barrens; practically pure pitch pine with scattered white and
scarlet oak and a dense bear oak shrub layer
pine plains; tall shrub communities dominated by dwarf pitch pine and bear oak on Lengthy Island 
closed-canopy pitch pine forests; few shrubs and a well-developed herbaceous
open-canopy pitch pine forests; stunted bushes and an intensive bear oak or
ericaceous (Ericaceae) shrub understory
dwarf-pitch pine communities; dense 7- to 10-foot (2-Three m)-tall pitch pine in cover, black huckleberry and
Blue Ridge blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum) dominate the understory within the Hudson Valley 
scarlet oak-pitch pine forests on low southern slopes
pitch pine-scarlet oak forests on
higher southern slopes of the Thompson Gorge within the southeastern Blue Ridge
xeric pine forests; dominated by pitch and Desk Mountain pine in Black and Craggy
pine-oak/heath (Ericaceae) vegetation varieties within the Wine Spring Creek watershed of the Nantahala
Nationwide Forest; scarlet oak, chestnut oak, and pitch pine dominate
the cover and mountain-laurel (Kalmia latifolia) the understory 
Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana) bluff communities scattered all through
the Blue Ridge Mountains and within the higher Piedmont
low elevation rocky summit communities, uncommon within the Piedmont and the Blue
ultramafic outcrop barren communities, scattered within the Piedmont and the Blue Ridge
yellow pine (Virginia pine and pitch pine, with jap white pine) forest varieties
scarlet oak-yellow pine (Desk Mountain and pitch pine) forest varieties in
western Nice Smoky Mountains Nationwide Park 
shortleaf pine-pitch pine forests
chestnut oak-pine (pitch and Virginia pine) forests
pine forests dominated by pitch and shortleaf pine with an open heath layer on Pine
yellow pine (Virginia pine and pitch pine, with jap white pine) forest varieties
scarlet oak-yellow pine (Desk Mountain and pitch pine) forest varieties in western Nice Smoky Mountains
Nationwide Park 
SPECIES: Pinus rigida
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
This description gives traits that could be related to fireplace ecology, and isn’t meant for
identification. Keys for identification can be found (e.g., [45,53,112,135,159]).
Pitch pine is a tough pine with extremely variable progress kinds [44,86]. It grows as a prostrate shrub on Fireplace Island, New York
. On the Mt Everett ridgetop within the Taconic Mountains of Massachusetts, pitch pine happens
as a low-growing, 1-foot (0.Three m) mat and as a single-stemmed tree, 10 ft (Three m)
tall. The most important prostrate mats measure over 10 m² . Dwarf-stature pitch pines
starting from 20 inches (50 cm) to 13 ft (Four m) tall happen within the in plains space
of the New Jersey Pine
Barrens. In an space 22 miles (35 km) from the Pine Barrens, pitch pine bushes
attain 100 ft (30 m) tall . Research revealed that
dwarf and tall-tree pitch pine populations within the Pine Barrens have been nearly
genetically an identical .
As a tree, pitch pine is medium sized and barely grows
past 82 ft (25 m) tall and three ft (1 m) DBH.
Branching is commonly irregular [13,23,39,53]; branches may be twisted or gnarled
, and self-pruning is poor . Crown and department kinds may be
affected by rising situations. Suppressed bushes, fire-damaged bushes, or bushes
launched by heavy logging normally have drooping, slender branches alongside
the decrease trunk. Lifeless branches are persistent and include extra resin than stay
branches . Trunks are straight to considerably curved  and lined with thick, giant, tough,
irregular plates of bark [13,44].
Typically there are stubby branches or needle bundles on the trunk [39,70]. In Nice Smoky Mountains Nationwide Park,
bark thickness elevated with rising DBH till bushes
reached 9 inches (25 cm) in DBH, when bark thickness decreased with elevated DBH .
Pitch pine isn’t thought-about lengthy lived. On the Mt
Everett ridgetop, pitch pine averaged 78 years outdated, however age ranged from 12 to 170
years . For extra on pitch pine progress and longevity, see
Pitch pine needles are most frequently in bundles of three. Needles measure as much as 5.9
inches (15 cm) lengthy and are stiff and straight to twisted. Pitch pine retains needles for two to
Three years [23,44,45,112]. Mature pitch pine cones measure 1 to three.5 inches (3-9 cm)
lengthy and broad and sometimes happen in clusters. Cone scales are thick with stout spines
[23,38,112,159]. Male cones are produced at
the bottom of the present 12 months’s progress and are sometimes extra considerable on low
branches. Feminine cones are extra widespread on higher branches and mature within the fall
of the second 12 months following pollination. Pitch pine produces serotinous and
nonserotinous cones. Nonserotinous cones shed seed quickly after they mature however
persist a very long time [44,45,53,86,135]. For extra on elements that have an effect on serotinous cone manufacturing, see
nonserotinous cone manufacturing.
Each cone and seed dimension improve from northeastern to southwestern populations, as does the variety of
viable seeds produced per cone . Pitch pine produces clean,
winged seeds. Seeds are usually Four to five mm lengthy, and wings measure 15 to 20 mm [23,44,45].
Whereas Hosie  means that pitch pine produces brief lateral and taproots,
others point out that the pitch pine root system might
attain 10 ft (Three m) deep , and that lateral root extension might exceed 6 ft
(2 m) in 6 years of progress . It’s doubtless that website
situations have an effect on root progress and construction.
Pitch pine roots can develop by and under the water desk
. Mycorrhizal associations are widespread. Trappe  gives a listing of seven fungi related to pitch pine.
Within the Lebanon State Forest in New Jersey, roots of 1- to 30-year-old pitch
pine bushes have been excavated and studied. Timber grew in partial shade, with
“average competitors”, and on well-drained Lakewood sand soils. First-year
seedlings had taproots that ranged from Three inches (Eight cm) to 1 foot (0.Three m) deep.
Elongation of the taproot was finest for seedlings rising in clear, free sand in full solar.
Elongation decreased with shading and elevated humus. Mycorrhizae
have been discovered on the roots of 2-month-old seedlings. Timber past the sapling stage
had particular and “pretty robust” taproots that usually divided at 2- to 3-foot
(0.6-0.9 m) depths. Taproot prominence decreased as bushes aged.
The researcher described the taproot of an 85-year-old pitch pine as weak, however
famous that some lengthy roots reached Eight ft (2 m) deep.
Three bushes had roots extending and rising into the water desk.
There was additionally some root grafting noticed. In just one case was grafting with one other species, shortleaf pine. The
desk under summarizes some root system traits for younger pitch pine bushes .
|Root system traits of pitch pine bushes
from 1 to 30 years outdated excavated from the Lebanon State Forest, NJ
|Tree age (years)||Tree dimension||Most taproot depth||Most size of major lateral root||Different notes|
|1||Three inches||Eight inches||Three inches|
|4||11 inches||18 inches||15 inches|
|8||22 inches||27 inches||33 inches||10 or extra major laterals|
|12||Four ft||Four ft||Eight ft||Three different laterals measured Four ft; major laterals to three.5
|17||14 ft||5 ft||19 ft|
3.5 inch DBH
|9 ft||31 ft||5-inch-diameter taproot at 6 inches under soil floor,
3-inch diameter at 2 ft; 20 giant laterals, 13 at lower than 6 inches and seven
at as much as 2 ft
Pitch pine × loblolly pine hybrid descriptions are supplied in 2 sources [89,145], and pitch pine
× pond pine hybrids are described by Little and others .
RAUNKIAER  LIFE FORM:
Pitch pine reproduces sexually and asexually. Sexual regeneration happens by
seed from serotinous and nonserotinous cones. Asexual replica happens by basal and
Pitch pine cones are wind pollinated .
Pitch pine bushes are
Outcrossing is commonest, and extreme inbreeding melancholy
can happen with selfing .
Farrar  studies that “good” crops of pitch pine cones are produced each 4
to 9 years. Seed predation may be excessive and have an effect on seed survival and success.
Pitch pine bushes as younger as Three years outdated might produce cones. Researchers noticed
seed cones on bushes lower than Three ft (1 m) tall in Maine’s Acadia Nationwide Park .
|In 1996 and 1997,
pitch pine in Acadia Nationwide Park averaged 60 full-sized seeds/cone, and
the vary was 12 to 84 full-sized seeds/cone. The typical variety of viable
seeds/fertile scale was 0.4. Researchers reported that the theoretical most
variety of viable seeds/fertile scale was 2.0, assuming no illness, predation,
fertilization issues, or abortion .
© Tom Palmer, Pals of the Blue Hills.
Serotinous and nonserotinous cone manufacturing:
Research have proven that the very best ranges of serotinous cone manufacturing are
concentrated in or close to the Coastal Plain area. Researchers point out that
serotinous cone manufacturing is highest in these areas that burn at excessive
Whereas serotinous cone manufacturing is biggest within the Coastal Plain,
low ranges of serotiny occurred on Crozier Island, Canada . A low degree of
serotinous cone manufacturing exterior of essentially the most severely and regularly burned
websites might provide pitch pine a regeneration benefit when websites finally burn.
Serotinous cones have been uncommon besides from populations on or close to the Coastal
Plain when cones have been collected all through the pitch pine vary
(Quebec south to Georgia and west to Kentucky and central Ohio). Cones
got here from 509 bushes in 79 stands. Within the
plains space of the New Jersey Pine Barrens, serotinous cone manufacturing was practically 100%. Away
from the Coastal Plain, simply 9 bushes produced serotinous cones. Six of those
bushes have been in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, and regenerated
after an “extraordinarily” extreme hearth. Researchers concluded that serotinous cone
manufacturing was advantageous on websites that burned severely and
regularly however disadvantageous on websites that didn’t expertise frequent,
extreme fires. They steered that the distribution sample of serotinous cone producing populations was dictated by
the mixed results of fireplace prevalence, hearth severity, and gene circulate by
pollen and seed dispersal .
Givnish  studied pitch pine within the New Jersey Pine Barrens
and steered that fireplace historical past was extra vital
than gene circulate in figuring out serotinous cone manufacturing at a
scale past a couple of kilometers. Throughout the plains, serotiny averaged 98.8% in upland websites and 84% in lowland websites.
Usually, serotinous cone manufacturing
decreased with rising distance from the plains; nevertheless, websites 2 to 12 miles (3-19 km) to
northeast, southeast, and west of plains averaged 90% to 98% serotinous cone
manufacturing. These websites have been downwind and within the
doubtless route of fireplace development from the middle of the plains .
Some research recommend that ranges of serotinous cone manufacturing might lower
on websites burned much less regularly or much less severely than prior to now. Within the
Central Pine Barrens of Lengthy Island, New York, serotiny ranges have been about 90% on
undisturbed dwarf pine plains however decreased to round 50% in cleared areas
the place taller, single-stemmed pitch pines have been establishing. Researchers
steered that the shortage of fireplace to open serotinous cones led to the invasion and profitable institution of
seeds from surrounding pitch pine woodlands (unpublished knowledge reported in ).
Research of pitch pine seed dispersal have been missing as of the writing of this
evaluate (2007). Nevertheless, a number of research point out that seeds from close by stands
may be vital to the regeneration of burned stands when on-site seeds are
consumed  or when there’s a lack of fireplace to open serotinous cones .
Wildlife doubtless support within the dispersal of pitch pine seed [17,57,68]. In a evaluate,
Fowells  studies that though pitch pine seed is winged, wind doesn’t
disperse seed lengthy distances.
Excessive ranges of seed predation [17,57,68] recommend that the pitch pine seed financial institution
isn’t lengthy lived.
Based mostly on subject research, pitch pine seed germination is finest on uncovered mineral
soil websites which are shielded from predation. Within the barrens of central Pennsylvania,
total germination was higher when seeds have been lined with litter and shielded from predation.
Seedlings on unprotected
websites not often survived 2 rising seasons. Poor germination occurred on unmanipulated
seed beds in aspen (Populus spp.), scrub oak (bear and chestnut oak), and
grass (poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata) and bluestem (Andropogon
spp.)) communities . Research carried out in Orono, Maine, revealed that pitch
pine germination decreased in seed beds with low moisture-holding capacities beneath comparatively excessive temperatures [33,57].
In managed experiments, pitch pine germination was finest at 77 °F (25
°C), and remaining germination percentages decreased with reducing soil moisture . Pitch pine cones
collected from coastal areas in Massachusetts, New York, and New
Jersey averaged 45.5 germinants/cone when grown beneath managed situations . Seeds in serotinous cones are
shielded from excessive temperatures. For extra on this, see
Cone survival and seedling institution.
Temperature, pH, gentle ranges:
Managed experiments have been carried out on pitch pine seed collected from
fall-harvested cones from the barrens of Centre County, Pennsylvania. The optimum
germination temperature was 77 °F (25 °C). At 77 °F (25 °C), the germination
share averaged 82.7% and ranged from 52% to 100% for 24 replicates. No seeds
germinated at 40 °F (5 °C) or 50 °F (10 °C) after 60 days, and germination averaged simply 16% at
59 °F (15 °C). As soil moisture of Hagerstown silt loams decreased, germination was delayed and
remaining germination percentages have been considerably diminished (F=1%). Pitch pine seeds germinated
higher in darkish than gentle situations. At pH ranges of 4.5 to eight.3
there have been no vital (F=1%) variations in germination percentages .
A mix of subject and managed research means that pitch pine seedling
institution is most profitable on thick mineral soils with excessive gentle ranges.
Nevertheless, on quickly draining soils decreased gentle ranges might enhance
seedling institution and/or progress [33,57].
Pitch pine seedlings develop slowly. One-year-old seedlings might attain most heights of
solely 0.Four inch (1 cm) on moist websites and 0.2 inch (0.5 cm) on dry websites. Progress charges improve considerably
as soon as seedlings attain a foot (0.Three m) tall. Underneath favorable situations, progress charges might attain 2 ft (0.6 m)/12 months .
Solar and substrate results:
Area research in Acadia Nationwide Park confirmed that pitch pine seedlings and saplings occurred
in depressions the place soil depth averaged 4.1 inches (10.5 cm) and duff
layer thickness averaged 0.6 inch (1.5 cm). Researchers evaluated the situations
the place 100 younger pitch pine bushes (1-13 years outdated) lined nearly 1 acre (0.6
ha). Researchers concluded that thick mineral soil is favorable to pitch pine
Pitch pine seedlings grown from seed collected in
Acadia Nationwide Park have been monitored beneath managed situations. Seedling
dry mass manufacturing was finest in peat substrates uncovered to full solar. Seedlings grown
in sand uncovered to full solar collected
the least mass, and seedlings in sand or peat beneath low gentle (60%
interception) situations grew higher than seedlings in sand and full solar.
Temperatures have been 7 to 9 °F (4-5 °C) cooler beneath shade material, and dry mass
was evaluated after the primary 12 months of progress [33,57].
Seed origin results:
Web site situations affected seedling progress greater than seed origin in a reciprocal transplant examine
of dwarf and normal-stature pitch pine seed collected from populations on Lengthy
Island. No matter seed origin, seedlings on the dwarf inhabitants website grew
extra slowly, skilled extra mortality, and developed a number of stems extra typically than
seedlings on the normal-stature website. Nevertheless, there have been variations with
respect to seed origin and website associated to reproductive age. Seedlings grown
from seed collected within the dwarf inhabitants reproduced sooner than these from
normal-stature websites, however dwarf-population seedlings reproduced earliest
at normal-stature websites. Researchers concluded that plastic phenotypic
environmental responses affected progress and survival greater than genetic
variations . In a provenance examine, pitch pine bushes grown from seed collected from
the southern a part of the Atlantic Coast Plain grew bigger than these from the seed
collected from the northern Atlantic Coast Plain .
Pitch pine progress may be affected by tree age, website situations, and/or local weather. Ledig and
Fryer  reported that the pitch pine progress charge decreases at an
“early” age. In southeastern New York, progress of pitch pine bushes from 40 to 314 years outdated on the ridges
of the Ramapo and Shawangunk mountains was monitored. For all websites, the typical
radial progress charge was 1.09 mm/12 months. Timber lower than 51 years outdated had greater progress charges than bushes
over 99 years outdated. Progress charges ranged from a excessive of two to three mm/12 months in
younger bushes throughout “favorable” years to a low of 0.25 mm/12 months in older bushes throughout drought
situations . The expansion of pitch pine on Mt Everett within the
Taconic Mountains was very sluggish. The radial progress charge for the
space averaged 0.47 mm/12 months, and a few bushes grew as slowly as 0.08 mm/12 months .
Pitch pine bushes in North Carolina’s Thompson Gorge grew most within the spring
and fall. The typical vary of will increase in circumference was 0.133 to 0.535
inch/12 months and averaged 0.24 inch/12 months for 11 websites monitored for Three years .
Pitch pine tree-ring progress was considerably correlated (P<0.05, r=0.53) with annual precipitation and temperature in a dry rock outcrop within the Shawangunk Mountains.
Drought situations produced decreased progress. During the last 120 years within the
space, pitch pine tree-ring progress was sluggish and averaged 0.33 mm/12 months .
On Nantucket Island, the expansion of younger, 3- to 8-year-old pitch pines was
higher inside clumps of northern bayberry. Common annual progress charges of 20
younger (3-Eight years) and 20 older (11-25 years) pitch pine bushes rising
inside and outdoors of clumps of northern bayberry have been in contrast. In each age courses pitch pine grew extra inside
northern bayberry clumps, however progress variations have been solely vital (P=0.01) for younger pitch pines
Pitch pine regenerates vegetatively by basal sprouting and epicormic branching [44,86], and
might happen . On Lengthy Island’s Napeague Seashore, low pitch pine
branches buried by sand grew roots, and vegetation unfold . Nevertheless,
on Mt Everett, prostrate-growing pitch pine didn’t
reproduce by layering, however epicormic branching and basal sprouting occurred .
Sprouting from dormant basal buds in crooks and
Buds that give rise to basal or
sprouts type within the axils of
major needles simply above the seedling cotyledons. Basal buds produce
stem tissue, and sprouts should not adventitious. Buds are intently spaced, showing
clustered or whorled. Buds might happen beneath floor due to soil motion or litter
accumulation and should type small clusters of fascicled needles. Sprouts arising
from basal buds additionally type basal buds. Robust lateral branches can type
from these buds even within the absence of stem damage .
Basal buds are protected by thick bark and/or basal crooks. Crooks type as
seedling stems bend and develop horizontally earlier than turning upright.
Open-grown seedlings might type a criminal on the root crown within the first
12 months of progress. Shade-grown seedlings might not type well-developed crooks till 3
to 9 years outdated. In a stand of “spindly” pitch pine bushes suppressed by bear oak
progress, roughly 50% had poorly developed crooks, which researchers suspected
could be vulnerable to fireplace. After a prescribed hearth burned pitch pine
seedlings (<0.5 inch (1.Three cm) diameter), solely seedlings with well-developed crooks had over 55% postfire sprouting. Researchers noticed basal sprout manufacturing in pitch pine bushes as outdated as 79 years. In New Jersey's West Plains area, sprouts got here from stools that have been 40 to 83 years outdated. The lifespan of dormant buds and stubby basal branches is estimated at 40 to 55 years. Older stools might produce many extra sprouts than seedling crooks. Within the plains area, as many as 249 one-year-old sprouts have been produced by a single stool. Researchers steered that stool age might have an effect on sprout progress, and that dwarf pitch pines outcome from very slow-growing sprouts from outdated stools . In southern New Jersey, the most important bushes producing basal sprouts have been Eight inches (20 cm) in diameter .
The speculation that outdated stools produce slow-growing pitch pine sprouts was
substantiated in a examine within the Pine Plains of New Jersey, the place researchers tried to launch stems
by elimination of competing vegetation with hearth or herbicides. Dominant
stems within the plains have been about 11 ft tall (3.Four m) and 27 years
outdated. Stems have been produced when stools have been 40 to 60 years outdated. Launch makes an attempt did
not encourage the manufacturing of vigorous stems prone to attain tree dimension.
Researchers concluded that the many-decade-old plains stools have been
solely able to producing slow-growing, scrubby sprouts, and that the one manner
to transform the Pine Plains to tree-sized pitch pine forests was by seedling
institution . When pitch pine seedlings have been planted in
dwarf pitch pine-dominated areas of southern New Jersey, planted seedlings reached
the peak of 50-year-old plains sprouts in 17 years, suggesting that sprouts
from stools grew extra slowly than seedlings .
The quantity and peak of sprouts from lower pitch pine bushes close to Mt Distress in Burlington County,
New Jersey, typically elevated with tree age till bushes reached 34 years of
age. A complete of 25 pitch pine bushes, regarded as of seed origin, have been lower and monitored for two years. Sprout quantity and peak
typically elevated with tree age however progressively decreased in bushes over 34 years outdated. A
95-year-old pitch pine produced 59 sprouts inside 2 months of reducing, however the
complete tree died inside 2 years of reducing. Common and most sprout heights have been biggest
in 4- to 11-year-old bushes. Two bushes, 30 and 32 years outdated, produced 303 and 330
sprouts 2 months after reducing, however no sprouts survived due, partially, to extreme
sprout searching .
Epicormic or stem sprouting:
Stem sprouts come from buds on the internodes of multinodal stems. These latent buds could also be hidden beneath
the bark or might grow to be brief branches with remoted or few fascicles
(see picture above).
Extreme damage akin to hearth can set off prolific, profuse dormant bud
progress alongside the stem . For extra on epicormic sprouting after hearth, see
Crown or bole sprouting.
Sprout vs. seedling progress:
Pitch pine’s predominant regeneration technique might depend upon website situations, stem origin,
and/or disturbance regimes. Vegetative regeneration was uncommon within the Pitch Pine Ecological Protect of Haut-Saint-Lauret,
Quebec. Regeneration was considerable and steady for the reason that final hearth in 1957, however
was not by vegetative means. Researchers steered that pitch pine could also be
a physiographic climax kind within the outcrop habitats . For extra on pitch pine sprout and seed manufacturing after hearth, see
Sprouting and seedling institution.
Pitch pine occupies all kinds of harsh websites that embody dry sand plains,
rocky ridges, and swamps [13,44].
A moist local weather prevails all through pitch pine’s vary. Annual precipitation averages between 37 to 56
inches (940-1,420 mm) and is effectively distributed all year long. The
frost-free season usually lasts 112 to 190 days. Low temperatures can attain -40 °F (-40 °C) within the northern a part of
pitch pine’s vary, and highs of 100 °F (40 °C) happen within the southern vary . Pitch pine is
thought-about tolerant of chilly, drought, and salt spray, and whereas persistent in a
number of climates, humid climates with well-distributed rainfall are
most popular . Some report that pitch pine is vulnerable to sea spray injury
and could also be restricted from excessive coastal areas .
Seventy-five years of data present that pitch pine habitats within the southern Piedmont common
47 inches (1,200 mm) of evenly distributed precipitation/12 months and a frost-free interval of 196 days
. New Jersey Pine Barrens common 45 to 50 inches (1,100-1,300 mm) of evenly
distributed precipitation/12 months. Rising seasons are lengthy, winters are delicate, and summers are sizzling within the
Pine Barrens .
On the Pitch Pine Ecological Protect of Haut-Saint-Lauret, close to pitch pine’s
northernmost extent, January temperatures common 14 °F (-10 °C), and July
temperatures common 69.4 °F (20.8 °C). Common annual precipitation is 38
inches (975 mm)/12 months. Precipitation is delivered all year long, with
slight will increase in the summertime. The variety of frost-free days averages 159. Pitch pine occupies a variety
of edaphic situations on the Protect, and after an in-depth examine of the world, researchers
concluded that it isn’t local weather however an absence of appropriate habitat that restricts
pitch pine’s distribution within the space .
Pitch pine needles are tolerant of very chilly temperatures, and chilly tolerance
will increase as climates turn into cooler. One-year-old pitch pine seedlings grown
from seed collected within the northern half of pitch pine’s
vary had a median stem and needle tissue chilly tolerance of 21.7 °F (-5.7 °C) in October and -25.1 °F (-31.7 °C) in
January. Stems have been much less cold-tolerant
than secondary needles in midwinter . Needles collected from bushes in Acadia Nationwide Park
have been tolerant to at the least -85 °F (-65 °C). Freezing assessments on complete 1-season-old pitch pine
seedlings revealed no needle injury after publicity to -48 °F (-55 °C) .
Drought situations are tolerated by pitch pine, however insect outbreaks coupled with very dry
situations might produce mortality. Researchers noticed no pitch pine mortality
in an oak-pine forest throughout drought situations from 1984 to 1991 within the Coweeta Basin
watershed. The drought was extreme each when it comes to length and collected
precipitation deficit, which was 24% to 31% under regular precipitation from 1985 to 1988.
Measurements in 1985 and in 1991 revealed no change in pitch pine density,
and basal space elevated from 1985 to 1991 . Smith 
noticed pitch pine mortality within the Coweeta Basin throughout this time in a
southern pine beetle outbreak space.
Experimental research discovered that younger pitch pine
seedlings are higher in a position to survive root flooding than older seedlings and
saplings and that “flood hardening” can happen. Researchers in contrast the expansion
and survival of 3-month-old seedlings, 15-month-old seedlings, and 5-year-old
saplings in flooded situations. Seedlings uncovered to flooding
of their first rising season have been extra flood tolerant than these not uncovered to
flooding. Mortality was Three occasions extra doubtless in nonexposed
than flood-exposed seedlings. Nonexposed seedlings skilled at the least 50%
mortality after 10 weeks of root flooding, whereas flood-exposed seedlings
skilled 50% mortality after 16 weeks of root flooding. Flooded seedlings
developed expanded lenticels alongside the stems and produced roots close to and above the soil floor .
Pitch pine occupies habitats from sea degree to over 5,600 ft (1,700 m) all through its vary.
Usually, higher-elevation habitats are occupied within the southern than northern
a part of pitch pine’s vary [39,45,97]. Within the Adirondack Uplands, pitch pine happens
between 100 and 1,040 ft (30-317 m) .
Soils in pitch pine habitats are sometimes dry, skinny, infertile, and sandy or gravelly in texture ; nevertheless,
soils from quickly draining to swampy are tolerated . Sopodosol,
Alfisol, Entisol, and Utisol soil orders are widespread in pitch pine habitats . Pitch pine
occupies limestone and sandstone soils within the Adirondack Uplands  and “poor”
soils alongside the Atlantic Coast from Delaware to Maine . Within the Harvard
Forest of north-central Massachusetts, cluster analyses orient pitch pine
on the “nutrient-impoverished” finish of the fertility gradient . In
the Black and Craggy mountains of North Carolina, pitch pine happens in xeric
pine forests on southern slopes with low-nutrient soils having pH ranges of three.4
to 4.5 . In xeric rock outcrops within the Shawangunk
Mountains, pitch pine bushes happen on soils that vary from Three to 14 inches (8-35 cm) deep .
Soils in New Jersey’s pine barrens and plains might include excessive ranges of
aluminum (>500 ppm potential). These ranges don’t, nevertheless, have an effect on
pitch pine seedling progress or the relative distributions of dwarf and tree-size pitch pine .
Soils within the pine barrens are acidic with leached A2 horizons,
and pitch pine occupies websites with excessively
drained, imperfectly drained, very poorly drained, and mucky swamp soils .
Within the Pitch Pine Ecological Protect of Haut-Saint-Lauret, pitch pine
happens on skinny (≤Eight inches (20 cm) of natural or mineral
deposits), dry, acidic (pH <4) soils overlaying bedrock  however can also be essentially the most considerable species in bogs .
For info on the impact of fireplace on soils throughout the oak-pitch pine forests within the New Jersey Pine
Barrens, see Burns . Modifications in soil vitamins have been measured
periodically for as much as 5 years after felling and burning in blended oak-pine
(pitch pine dominant) within the Nantahala Nationwide Forest in western North
Carolina. For outcomes, see Knoepp and others .
Generally pitch pine is an early seral species that’s changed by hardwoods
within the absence of fires that expose mineral soil and permit gentle to the
attain the forest flooring. Nevertheless, in some very harsh habitats, pitch pine might
symbolize a climax forest species. Clements  characterised pitch pine-dominated forests as hearth subclimaxes. In New
England and upstate New York, for instance, pitch pine is thought-about a
subclimax species that’s maintained by hearth [96,171]. On Mt Desert Island, the pitch pine
vegetation affiliation is a pioneer kind that within the absence of
disturbance is finally changed by pink and/or white spruce (Picea rubens,
P. glauca) . Ledig and Fryer  point out that successional
substitute of pitch pine communities is fast when hearth is excluded.
In xeric rock outcrops within the Shawangunk Mountains,
pitch pine forests have been characterised as a “physiographic climax”
following a examine of stand age, tree progress charges, and local weather knowledge. Pitch pine
bushes as outdated as 320 years occurred within the space. Whereas small quantities of black tupelo
(Nyssa sylvatica) and chestnut oak have been current, website situations have been
thought too extreme for these bushes to dominate.
Researchers famous an absence of pitch pine recruitment for the reason that 1970s, however famous that
pitch pine turnover doubtless occurred by tree-by-tree substitute . Within the Pitch Pine
Ecological Protect of Haut-Saint-Lauret, pitch pine could also be a physiographic
climax kind within the outcrop habitats .
Pitch pine is usually thought-about shade illiberal . Outcomes of a 1950s questionnaire confirmed that 35% of foresters
surveyed rated pitch pine as intermediate in shade tolerance, 45% rated it as illiberal, and 20% rated it very
shade illiberal .
Outdated subject succession:
Invasion by pitch pine happens early after the abandonment of agricultural or pasture lands.
Hotchkiss and Stewart  thought-about pitch pine a “pioneer” tree after learning secondary succession
in deserted fields in what’s now the Patuxent Analysis Refuge in Maryland.
Within the southwestern Piedmont of Virginia, dendrochronological
research point out that the oldest pitch pine within the space established in 1904.
Fields have been deserted within the early 1900s. At time of examine (2002), pitch pine
was successionally “over mature” and now not dominant on account of will increase in
scarlet and chestnut oak .
On Martha’s Winery, jap redcedar (Juniperus
virginiana) is commonly the primary tree to determine after subject abandonment. Pitch pine seedlings
usually seem 15 to 40 years after subject abandonment. As soon as pitch pine bushes attain
50 to 100 years outdated, oak prominence will increase. Sassafras (Sassafras albidum), beech
(Fagus spp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and pignut
hickory (Carya glabra) seem when oaks are 125 to
300 years outdated .
The rapidity of outdated subject invasions on the Burlington-Colchester-Essex sand plains of
Vermont was related to seed tree distance. In fields
deserted for about 10 years, pitch pine density was 1 tree/25 m²
when the closest seed tree was 890 ft (270 m) away. When the closest seed tree distance
was 560 ft (170 m), pitch pine density was Three bushes/25 m².
When the closest seed tree distance was 250 ft (75 m), pitch pine density was 7 bushes/25 m².
Pitch pine density decreased to about 1 tree/25 m² after fields had been
deserted for about 60 years. The researcher famous that pitch pine appeared to pave
the best way for the institution of jap white pine, which generally happens beneath the shade
of pitch pine .
Pitch pine dominance decreased as outdated subject succession progressed in
southern New Jersey. Researchers monitored succession for 18 years in a shortleaf pine-pitch pine stand
that established on an outdated subject, deserted in 1932, in what’s
now the Inexperienced Financial institution State Forest. In 1953, when the examine was initiated, there have been
few hardwoods over 0.55 inch (1.Four cm) DBH. Periodic winter burning (March 1954, 1957, and 1962)
was carried out on some websites. By
1971, hardwood densities elevated significantly whereas the quantity
of pines decreased significantly, no matter winter burning. Researchers steered that this successional sample is
pure for areas that assist an oak-hickory climax .
Generally, pitch pine is an early seral species that’s changed
by hardwoods, spruces, or different pines within the absence of extreme disturbance. In
the Southeast, pitch pine is a short lived kind that’s changed by
hardwoods or shortleaf pine on mesic and xeric websites, respectively. The deep
shortleaf pine taproot is ready to penetrate rock crevices beneath shallow mountain
soils, so shortleaf pine has higher stability than pitch pine, which produces shallower
On Mt Everett, pitch pine is a dominant
species however its substitute or continued dominance of the tough
websites is unclear. Pitch pine recruitment has been steady for the reason that 1860s,
though surveys of the world steered no “vital”
fires burned within the 20th century. Researchers recommend that winter storms, harsh climatic
situations, poor soils, excessive winds, droughts, and sluggish progress charges might preserve
pitch pine’s dominance. Nevertheless, the significance of pink maple and oaks
elevated over the 20th century, and these species develop quicker than pitch pine,
suggesting a potential hardwood conversion .
Southern pine beetles can act as a successional agent in pitch pine forests. “Overmature”
and/or confused pitch pine bushes are most popular by southern pine beetles, which
typically contribute to the turnover of forests to pine and hardwood
seedlings and saplings . In pitch pine-dominated pine-oak forests within the Coweeta Basin,
a drought-induced southern pine beetle assault accelerated the lack of
pitch pine and succession to blended oak-hardwood stands. Pitch pine regeneration
was missing within the examine plots, however there was some regeneration in
disturbed websites (roadsides, areas of fallen bushes) exterior of the examine space.
Pitch pine was misplaced at a charge of as much as 10 ha/12 months when
southern pine beetle populations reached epidemic proportions. The researcher famous
that with out hearth, southern pine beetle outbreaks might speed up the conversion
of pitch pine-dominated forests to blended oak-hardwood woodlands .
Fireplace: Pitch pine is effectively tailored to
postfire regeneration by asexual and sexual means. A lot of the info
concerning pitch pine regeneration and succession following hearth is supplied in
Pitch pine cones open for pollination in April and Might all through its vary [38,39,135,177]. Seeds are shed
in August, September, and October [135,148].
SPECIES: Pinus rigida
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Pitch pine has quite a few hearth variations that enable it to
set up and/or regenerate on burned websites. Postfire pitch pine
regeneration could also be by bole and crown sprouting from epicormic buds protected by
thick bark, sprouting from basal buds protected by crooks and/or soil, and/or by seedling institution from
seed in nonserotinous cones or opened serotinous cones
. In a 1930s survey accomplished by 41 main foresters of the time, requested to charge a listing of tree
species so as of accelerating hearth resistance, pitch pine was thought-about most resistant.
Foresters have been requested to think about bushes
between 40 and 80 years outdated .
Pitch pine forests have been aptly described as “fire-dependent ecosystems”
by Vogl . Pitch pine forests assist vegetation with numerous
fire-adapted regeneration methods and persist in and foster environments
conducive to ignition, combustion, and hearth unfold. Vogl additional substantiates
his declare by noting that
exclusion of fireplace or decreased hearth frequency in pitch pine forests produces extra
“dramatic” results than elevated hearth frequency .
Early anthropogenic fires:
Whereas a lot of the knowledge concerning the burning performed by Native People is speculative, there may be ample proof
of widespread, frequent burning
after jap United States settlement by Europeans. Typically the shortage of lightning
within the Northeast is taken into account proof of Native American hearth begins; nevertheless,
whereas lightning is uncommon in comparison with the western United States, it does happen (see
Fireplace season, climate, and fuels).
Early written accounts, an absence of lightning, and the existence of many fire-tolerant or fire-adapted species
and landscapes means that Native People burned at the least parts of Virginia.
Fireplace was doubtless used to take care of journey routes and
to search out and collect meals . Fossil pollen and charcoal data from the Horse Cove lavatory in Macon
County, North Carolina, point out that fires have been vital for
the final 3,900 years. Due to the shortage of lightning within the space, researchers suspect selective
burning by Native People contributed a lot to the charcoal file . There may be appreciable proof that
early European settlers burned within the New Jersey Pine Barrens and a few
hypothesis that Native People did too. Lightning is uncommon within the Pine Barrens,
particularly in comparison with the prevalence of lightning in western
US forests. Early European settlers burned clearings round cranberry (Viburnum
spp.) bogs and set fires to cowl up unlawful timber harvests. Locomotives have been one other ignition
supply. Usually, fires within the Pine Barrens weren’t managed for the reason that pines have been
not valued for timber, and sometimes flames of fires in close by timber-valued forests
have been directed to the Pine Barren plains throughout hearth combating .
For extra on using hearth by Native People within the Northeast, see Day .
Fireplace season, climate, and fuels:
Local weather, fuels, and terrain in pitch pine
habitats are favorable to fireplace. Typically pitch pine bushes have drooping, slender
branches alongside the decrease bole, and protracted lifeless branches include extra resin
than stay branches . In the New Jersey Pine Barrens, a protracted rising season, excessive
most temperatures, robust winds, and degree to rolling terrain
encourage hearth ignition and unfold . In dwarf pitch pine-dominated plains, vegetation regeneration gives
sufficient gas to hold one other hearth Four to five years after a crown hearth .
Fireplace data and climate knowledge from Maine point out that extreme hearth
years happen about each 15 years and are related to brief durations
(1-2 months) of “intense” drought [130,131]. In Pennsylvania, lightning ignitions burned giant
areas in drought years. From 1912 to 1917, lightning struck pitch pine bushes 417 occasions: 139 occasions in July
and 169 occasions in August. From 1960 to 1997, lightning-caused fires
burned 2,279 acres (922 ha), and there have been lightning fires in practically yearly .
A minimum of a couple of lightning ignitions happen
every year within the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Most lightning comes from June to
September. As many as 26 ignitions have been recorded in a 12 months, and ignitions
improve with drought and “dry lightning” occasions . Nationwide Forest data from northern
Georgia and southern Virginia indicated that there have been 6 lightning
fires/12 months/400,000 ha between 1960 and 1971. Ninety % of lightning fires
occurred from April to August, and 40% in Might. Human-caused fires have been most
widespread from March to Might and October to December, when litter was driest. Human-caused fires
have been typically extra extreme than lightning-caused fires .
Previous/current fire-return intervals and hearth habits:
Dwarf pitch pine communities burned at 5- to 15-year intervals, and
tree-sized pitch pine forests and woodlands burned at 15- to 150-year intervals.
Fireplace-return intervals of about 30 years or extra improve the probability of
related deciduous tree replica, and as fire-return intervals improve, so
does the prospect of pitch pine substitute by hardwoods.
Fireplace scars on Four jap white pine and
2 pitch pine bushes from the east ridge of Catocin Mountain Park in Thurmont,
Maryland, revealed that the time between 2 successive
fires ranged from 5 to 49 years. The imply fire-return interval from 1813 to
1900 was 29 years. From 1813 to 1985, the imply
fire-return interval was 21.5 years. Fireplace prevalence elevated within the early
1900s, however there have been no fires within the space after Park institution in
Fireplace scar knowledge present that western Nice Smoky Mountains Nationwide Park mixed-pine forests of higher southern
slopes burned on common each 12.Eight years between 1856 and 1940. From 1920 to 1949, 96%
of the mixed-pine forests burned. After creation of the Park within the 1930s and
the lively exclusion of fireplace, the typical sizes of lighting-caused and
human-caused fires have been 8.Four acres (3.Four ha) and 13.Three acres (5.Four ha),
respectively. With fires of this dimension, in would take 2,000 years to burn the
22,000-acre (9,100 ha) examine space throughout the western a part of the Park . Fireplace
exclusion transformed xeric websites occupied by open-canopy forests with wealthy
herbaceous understories, which have been widespread within the early 20th century, to mature,
closed-canopy stands with low herbaceous cowl and richness by the
late 20th century. Researchers predict that these cover construction adjustments will have an effect on hearth habits.
Within the early 20th century, open-canopy stands had restricted woody fuels however a extremely
flammable understory; hearth ignition will doubtless be tougher, unfold
extra restricted, and hearth dimension smaller in closed-canopy than traditionally open-canopy stands .
Age construction and hearth scars from Desk Mountain pine-pitch pine stands in
the southern Appalachians revealed an all-aged distribution and frequent
periodic or steady regeneration from about 1800 to 1950 in Three northern Georgia and a pair of southern South Carolina
stands. Age construction steered that stand-replacing fires have been unlikely, and periodic, low-to
moderate-severity floor fires have been widespread in these stands. In one other South
Carolina stand and three stands in Tennessee, age distribution was unimodal, suggesting stand-replacing occasions
had occurred; nevertheless, proof of stand-replacing hearth was missing. Researchers steered that these stands have been
maintained by recurring low- to moderate-severity floor fires and sure a
number of different disturbances akin to droughts, hurricanes, insect
outbreaks, thunderstorms, and logging. All stands skilled Three to eight fires
for the reason that 1850s, however pine regeneration has been uncommon for the reason that 1950s .
Frost  means that Desk Mountain pine-pitch
pine forests within the southern Appalachians burned at 5- to 7-year intervals in
“understory shrub fires” and fewer regularly, each 75
years, in “catastrophic” stand-replacing fires earlier than European
New Jersey Pine Barrens:
Researchers have extensively studied hearth ecology in pitch pine communities of the New Jersey Pine Barrens and
discovered that fireplace frequency decreases from the dwarf pitch pine plains to the
tree-sized pitch pine barrens. From hearth scars and tree courting, Lutz  proposed that fires in plains communities burned on
common of each 6 years. Transition communities burned at 12-year intervals, and barrens communities burned at 16-year intervals. Fireplace severity was
biggest on the plains, due to the low stature of the vegetation, higher
air motion, and better evaporation charges, which produced drier fuels. For temporary neighborhood descriptions, see
Habitat Varieties and Plant Communities.
Others reported that fireplace intervals vary from 6 to eight years within the plains and 16 to 26 years in
tall pitch pine forests within the Lebanon State Forest (McCormick and Gill, cited in ).
From hearth tolerance rankings created from an in-depth evaluation and evaluate of
the distribution and hearth tolerance of New Jersey’s Pine Barrens species, Windisch  estimated the fire-return
interval and hearth habits for upland communities and peripheral habitats within the
barrens. Reported hearth frequencies and behaviors have been people who would perpetuate the
vegetation kind .
|Fireplace habits descriptions and fire-return
intervals for upland and peripheral New Jersey Pine Barrens communities
|Plant neighborhood||Dominant species||Physiognomy||Imply fire-return interval (years)||Typical hearth kind||Fireplace ecology|
|pine plains||dwarf, serotinous pitch pine; shrub oaks¹||open shrubland <1 m tall||5-15||blended crown and floor||MFRI* permits shrub oaks and pitch pine to regenerate however too
frequent for tree-form oaks and pines
|pine plains||dwarf, serotinous pitch pine; shrub oaks||closed shrubland 1-Three m tall||sporadic 15-60||blended crown and floor||sporadic MFRI of 15-60 years reduces floor cowl variety,
hearth “depth” will increase as cover and heath cowl improve
|pitch pine-shrub oak barrens||tree-form, serotinous and nonserotinous pitch pine; shrub
|open-canopy pitch pine; lacks tree oaks²||15-25||extra crown than floor||tree-form pitch pine prevails over dwarf type, MFRI too
frequent for tree oaks and shortleaf pine to breed efficiently
|pitch pine-post oak-shrub oak woodland||tree-form, serotinous and nonserotinous pitch pine; 5-10%
put up oak; shrub oaks
|open-canopy pitch pine; sparse put up oak understory||25-30||extra crown than floor||20-30 12 months MFRI permits put up oak however not different tree oaks to
|pitch pine-tree oak-shrub oak woodland||tree-form, serotinous and nonserotinous pitch pine; tree
oaks; shrub oaks
|open-canopy pitch pine-oak; 5-25% tree oak cowl||30-40||extra crown than floor||MFRI permits tree oaks to breed however frequent sufficient to
maintain cover open and shrub oak dominance
|blended pine-tree oak-shrub oak woodland||tree-form, nonserotinous pitch pine; shortleaf pine; tree
oaks; shrub oaks
|open-canopy blended pine-oak ; 5-25% tree oak cowl||30-40||extra floor than crown||much less “intense” burning permits shortleaf pine to codominate|
|pine-oak forest||tree-form, nonserotinous pitch pine; shortleaf pine; tree
oaks; <5% shrub oaks
|closed-canopy pine-oak; 25-50% tree oak cowl||40-60||blended crown and floor||MFRI permits robust tree oak replica and codomination; hearth
frequent sufficient for pitch pine profitable replica
|oak-pine forest||tree oaks; tree-form, nonserotinous pitch pine; shortleaf
|closed-canopy oak-pine; >50% tree oak cowl||60-100||floor hearth predominant; crown hearth uncommon||MFRI permits robust tree oak replica and is frequent sufficient
for pine persistence
|oak-pine-holly (Ilex spp.) forest||tree oaks; tree-form, nonserotinous pitch pine; shortleaf
pine; <5% hickory
|closed-canopy oak-pine; >50% tree oak cowl||100-150||floor hearth predominant; crown hearth uncommon||MFRI permits for tree oak and holly dominance, hickory
current however restricted by hearth; pines persist however not dominant
oaks: blackjack and bear oak; ²tree oaks: put up, scarlet, white, and/or
*MFRI: imply fire-return interval.
Elevated pitch pine related to European settlement disturbances:
In components of Maine, New York, Massachusetts, and West Virginia, disturbances and fires related to land clearing and
cultivation by early European settlers elevated the abundance and prevalence of pitch pine. Pollen
and charcoal data from the Newfield Marsh of southern Maine recommend that disturbances and hearth regime adjustments occurred with
European settlement of the world. Over the previous 200 years, vegetation dominance has shifted to extra “fire-prone,
xeric-species”. Early seral pitch pine-dominated communities dominating
the Waterboro Barrens have been doubtless current in presettlement time however with
distribution restricted to severely or repeatedly burned websites, xeric southern or western slopes,
and areas of uncovered bedrock. Will increase in pitch pine-dominated communities are regarded as a outcome
of postsettlement disturbances together with logging, charcoal manufacture, and
blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) cultivation .
Utilizing pollen data, historic maps, and
early logging and land clearing data, researchers concluded that the vary of pine barrens and dwarf pine plains
in central Suffolk County, New York, expanded during the last Three centuries on account of elevated human disturbances.
After European settlement of the world, hearth
frequency elevated as land was burned for cultivation and grazing. Sparks
thrown from wood- and coal-burning locomotives additionally elevated the hearth frequency. Combined oak-pitch
pine and pitch pine-mixed oak forests have been considerable earlier than
substantial European settlement (1640-1680), however pitch pine-oak/heath woodlands, pitch pine-scrub oak (bear
and/or dwarf chestnut oaks) barrens, and dwarf pine plains in all probability lined lower than
17,000 acres (7,000 ha) earlier than substantial European settlement. By the late 19th century, pine barrens
lined about 250,000 acres (100,000 ha) in Suffolk and jap
Nassau counties. Fireplace exclusion within the 20th century led to some conversion of
pitch pine barrens and woodland vegetation again to pitch pine-mixed oak or blended oak-pitch
Pollen and charcoal sediment from ponds on Cape Cod revealed that vegetation adjustments over a 2,000-year interval have been most
dramatic throughout European settlement. Ponds have been in pitch
pine-mixed oak forests. Though archaeological proof signifies
that Native People have been current from the Holocene, their impacts on the vegetation weren’t thought-about substantial.
The primary European settlements on Cape Cod occurred within the 1630s,
however most areas have been unoccupied till 1700. Previous to European
settlement, beech and hickory (Fagus and Carya spp.) pollen was extra widespread than at current. With
European settlement, herbs and grasses elevated, suggesting
forest clearing and the creation of an open panorama. Charcoal inflow was
considerably (P<0.05) higher in postsettlement than presettlement time. Fires have been extra widespread prior to now 300 years than within the earlier 1,500 years [128,129]. "Following the decline of oak and different hardwood taxa, pitch pine has turn into a extra widespread function of the trendy forests" . Pitch pine particularly elevated throughout the 20th century as fields and pastures have been deserted and reforestation started [128,129].
Charcoal and pollen from sediment cores taken from Inexperienced Pond
in Augusta County, West Virginia, recommend that pitch pine dominance within the
uplands surrounding the pond is probably going a results of elevated fires after
European settlement, which started about 1750 .
Decreased pitch pine related to hearth exclusion:
Whereas pitch pine has elevated in some areas on account of elevated
hearth frequencies related to European settlement, in the identical and different
areas, hearth exclusion for the reason that early 1900s has allowed hardwoods
to switch pitch pine. Aerial images of the central Pine Barrens of Lengthy Island confirmed that in 1938,
90% of the examine space was open-canopy vegetation akin to
dwarf pine plains, pitch pine-scrub oak woodlands, heathlands, pitch pine-heath
woodland, and scrub oak shrublands. From 1938 to 1994, wildfire dimension decreased,
annual space burned decreased, and there have been no fires in over 70% of the examine
space. Open-canopy barrens decreased to about 45% of the examine space, largely on account of
conversion of pitch pine-scrub oak to pitch pine-oak forests, though some
of decreases have been the results of residential and industrial improvement. Most
wildfires occurred within the spring when winds have been excessive, humidity was low, and floor
fuels and litter have been dry, however deep duff was moist. Researchers indicated that
preserving open-canopy barrens would require lively hearth administration .
From historic paperwork and forestry studies, Arabas  calculated
a imply fire-return interval of 10 years for the 1888 to 1978 time interval for a 500-acre (200 ha) examine space within the
Nottingham Serpentine Barrens of Pennsylvania. From 1937 to 1993, dominance of
the examine space modified from open- to closed-canopy vegetation. Fires weren’t actively
suppressed within the space earlier than 1930, however with elevated hearth exclusion the typical
annual space burned decreased from 200 acres (100 ha)
earlier than 1957 to 67 acres (27 ha) after 1957. Since about 1950, the
space dominated by pitch pine savannahs and woodlands has decreased, and the world
dominated by hardwood forests (75-100% deciduous tree cowl) has
Fireplace data and printed major and secondary literature present that an
common of 55,280 acres (22,369 ha) of the 1,400,000-acre (550,000 ha) New
Jersey Pine Barrens burned yearly in wildfires from 1906 to 1939. This
decreased to a median of 20,050 acres (8,115 ha)/12 months from 1940 to 1977. In
the early 1900s, hearth dimension averaged 110 acres (45 ha), and between 1940 and
1977, common hearth dimension decreased to 15 acres (6 ha). In depth fires occurred when
there have been drought situations and excessive winds, which on this space can happen in
any month of the 12 months. Space burned in wildfires decreased after 1940. This may occasionally have
been the results of decreased railroad utilization, efficient hearth suppression, and/or
elevated winter and spring prescribed fires .
The next desk  gives fire-return intervals for
plant communities the place pitch pine happens. This checklist might not embody all of the plant
communities during which pitch pine happens. Discover hearth regime info for the plant communities during which this
species might happen by coming into the species title within the FEIS residence web page beneath “Discover Fireplace Regimes”.
Fireplace regime info on vegetation communities during which pitch pine might happen.
For every neighborhood, hearth regime traits are taken from the
LANDFIRE Speedy Evaluation Vegetation Fashions .
This vegetation mannequin was developed by native specialists utilizing obtainable
literature and professional opinion as documented within the .pdf recordsdata
linked from the Potential Pure Vegetation Teams listed under.
Cells are clean the place info isn’t obtainable within the Speedy Evaluation
|Vegetation Neighborhood (Potential Pure Vegetation Group)||Fireplace severity*||Fireplace regime
|P.c of fires||Imply interval
|Rocky outcrop pine (Northeast)||Substitute||16%||128|
|Floor or low||52%||40|
|Floor or low||65%||12|
|Oak-pine (jap dry-xeric)||Substitute||4%||185|
|Floor or low||90%||8|
|Southern Appalachians Forested|
|Floor or low||89%||6||3||10|
|Oak (jap dry-xeric)||Substitute||6%||128||50|
|Floor or low||78%||10||1||10|
|Southern Appalachians Woodland|
|Desk Mountain-pitch pine||Substitute||5%||100|
|Floor or low||92%||5|
*Fireplace Severities: Substitute=Any hearth that causes higher than 75% prime elimination of a vegetation gas kind,
ensuing usually substitute of present vegetation; might or might not trigger a deadly impact on the vegetation.
Floor or low=Any hearth that causes lower than 25% higher layer substitute and/or
elimination in a vegetation-fuel class however burns 5% or extra of the world. Combined=Any hearth
burning greater than 5% of an space that doesn’t qualify as a substitute,
floor, or low-severity hearth; consists of mosaic and different fires which are
intermediate in results [63,82].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tree with out adventitious buds and with no sprouting root crown
Tall shrub, adventitious buds and/or a sprouting root crown
Crown residual colonizer (on website, preliminary neighborhood)
SPECIES: Pinus rigida
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Pitch pine typically survives hearth, however bushes could also be top-killed or killed
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
Pitch pine survival could also be affected by tree dimension, bark thickness, time since
final hearth, floor soil situations, hearth severity, and/or hearth
season. Fires first produce injury to pitch pine foliage and well-developed
buds; further warmth is required to wreck or kill the cambium. If dormant buds
alongside the trunk and throughout the crown survive, pitch pine survives by crown
regrowth and/or epicormic sprouting. Fires that kill dormant buds within the crown or alongside the
trunk should not produce adequate temperatures to wreck basal buds and kill the tree. Giant bushes are
typically much less vulnerable to fireplace injury than small bushes due to thicker bark and
greater crowns. Nevertheless, outdated bushes with low “vigor” are extra
prone to be hearth killed than youthful, extra vigorous bushes.
Fireplace severity additionally impacts survival and postfire regeneration. “Giant head fires” killed 68%
of 5- to 8-inch (13-20 cm) DBH pitch pines. “Sluggish-burning aspect fires” not often killed
bushes of that dimension class. Fireplace season can also have an effect on pitch pine survival and
regeneration methodology. Fireplace injury is often much less when
air temperatures are low than when temperatures are excessive
and fuels are dry .
In pitch pine-dominated stands of Burlington County, New Jersey, a “gentle”
prescribed hearth killed
pitch pine bushes lower than 6 inches (15 cm) in DBH, however a extreme hearth killed
bushes within the 11- to 15-inch (28-38 cm) DBH dimension class in open-canopy, upland websites .
Fourteen months after an April
1933 floor wildfire in mixed-oak stands in Ulster County, New York, 6 stay
“butt-scorched” bushes present in August have been nonetheless alive.
The floor hearth killed the continual mountain-laurel understory .
A cross part from a pitch pine that was 12 inches (30 cm) at stump peak in
Monroe County, Pennsylvania, revealed that the tree survived and recorded 9 fires over its practically 120-year lifespan.
Researchers famous that the expansion charge slowed
with successive fires , however it appears that evidently tree
age might have additionally diminished progress charge.
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
© Tom Palmer, Pals of the Blue Hills. Pictures taken 10 weeks after a late April hearth
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
Pitch pine postfire regeneration strategies could also be influenced by tree dimension, bark
thickness, time since final hearth, floor soil situations, hearth
severity, and/or hearth season.
The thickness of pitch pine bark impacts the survival of basal and dormant buds alongside the
trunk and throughout the crown. Devet  signifies that
pitch pine’s scale bark is “very warmth resistant”. The construct up of scale bark
creates a heat-resistant periderm that covers and protects the interior bark. At
the decrease portion of the trunk, bark could also be 1 to 2 inches (2.5-5 cm) thick .
Within the Northeast, the typical most interior and outer bark
thicknesses of pitch pine have been 0.14 inch (0.36 cm) and 0.9 inch (2.Three cm), respectively.
The sizes of sampled bushes weren’t reported (Stickel 1936, cited in ).
In Nice Smoky Mountains Nationwide Park, researchers
discovered that pitch pine bark thickness elevated with rising DBH.
Nevertheless, when bushes reached about 9.Eight inches (25 cm) in DBH, bark thickness
typically decreased with rising DBH .
When dormant basal, trunk, or crown buds survive hearth, pitch pine might regenerate by
Crown or bole sprouting:
Pitch pine is able to producing sprouts from
buds on the internodes of multinodal stems. Dormant buds could also be
hid by bark or might grow to be brief branches of remoted or
fascicled needles. After hearth, dormant buds alongside the bole might develop “prolifically and profusely” .
Spring prescribed fires in barrens vegetation in Pennsylvania’s Centre County
consumed all pitch pine foliage. Timber have been black and appeared lifeless, however inside
a number of days needle fascicles appeared alongside the bole and bigger branches. Inside a number of weeks
of the hearth, foliage appeared on smaller crown branches as effectively. One
12 months after the hearth, the one proof of fireplace was the blackened pitch pine trunks .
Basal buds are protected by thick bark and/or basal crooks.
Postfire sprout manufacturing from dormant basal buds may be affected by hearth
severity, hearth season , and time since final hearth
. Research within the Central Pine Barrens on Lengthy
Island after the Dawn Fireplace of August 1995 led researchers to recommend that
basal buds, positioned in or simply beneath the duff layer, are most certainly broken or
killed throughout extreme, growing-season fires .
Dwarf pitch pines within the New Jersey Plains typically survive frequent hearth and extreme,
growing-season fires by sprouting. Steadily burned websites produce minimal
humus, and basal bud survival is excessive. In stands unburned
for about 25 years, humus layers are thicker, and basal bud survival decreases due to smoldering
situations. In outdated stands unburned for 50 years or extra, hearth severity and pitch
pine mortality improve. When basal buds are killed, postfire regeneration
relies on seedling institution. Nevertheless, cone manufacturing is
usually diminished in outdated stands (unburned for over 50 years), which can scale back the regeneration potential of pitch pine in lengthy
unburned, then severely burned stands. As time since final hearth
elevated within the New Jersey plains from 12 to 20 to 47 years, pitch pine mortality
elevated and the variety of seedlings produced elevated
from 1,667 to 2,625 to five,561 seedlings/ha, respectively. In stands unburned for 25 or extra years, the share of
bushes with out cones was considerably greater (P=0.001) than
in stands unburned for 13 years or much less . For an outline of basal crooks
and a dialogue of sprout manufacturing because it pertains to stool age, see
Sprouting from dormant basal buds in crooks and stools.
Cone survival and seedling institution:
Pitch pine seed manufacturing and institution are profitable on regularly burned websites. Seeds
are produced at a younger age, and seedling institution is finest on
uncovered mineral soil. Open-grown seedlings produce mature cones as early as 10
years of age, and 3- to 4-year-old sprouts produce cones .
Serotinous cones are generally produced in areas that have
frequent hearth. Seeds inside serotinous cones are insulated from excessive
temperatures. In managed research, researchers discovered that
seeds from serotinous cones retained viability after Three minutes of publicity to temperatures of 210
°F (100 °C). Linear regression
fashions predicted that serotinous cones collected from dwarf plains in
New Jersey could possibly be uncovered to oven temperatures of 790 °F (421 °C)
earlier than inside seed areas reached 210 °F (100 °C). When a Bunsen burner was used
to warmth cones, exterior temperatures of 946 °F (508 °C) have been required to supply inside
temperatures of 210 °F (100 °C). The researcher famous that pattern sizes have been small, and
the managed situations might not completely equate to subject situations .
Following a “excessive depth” prescribed hearth in pitch pine-dominated stands
that had not burned for over 70 years within the Nantahala Nationwide Forest, pitch
pine seedling density elevated by 400% to five,500 seedlings/ha. The hearth burned
in April, and comparisons have been made to prefire situations. Time since hearth was
not reported . Serotinous cone manufacturing is uncommon within the southern Appalachians, suggesting that
seeds got here from open, persistent cones within the cover or cones that remained on the
floor. In areas burned severely by the August 1995 Dawn Wildfire within the
central pine barrens of Lengthy Island, pitch pine seeds and cones have been consumed in
the dwarf pine plains (unpublished knowledge reported in ).
Sprouting and seedling institution:
Pitch pine’s postfire regeneration technique might depend upon hearth severity, hearth season,
time since final hearth, origin of burned stems, stem dimension, postfire seed
predation, and/or whether or not or not serotinous cones are produced on the location.
Improvement and subsequent regeneration of burned stands is affected by the
pitch pine regeneration technique. Sprouts might develop extra slowly than seedlings.
Sprouts of repeatedly burned bushes, like these within the dwarf New Jersey pine plains, develop
very slowly .
Researchers learning dwarf pitch pine stands of varied ages in New Jersey’s
East and West Plains discovered that basal sprouting was the dominant postfire
regeneration methodology. Lower than 1% of pitch pine stems have been seedlings .
Sprouting was predominant 1
12 months after a Might wildfire in an space of the New Jersey Pine Barren Plains that
had final burned 20 years earlier. Sprout density
ranged from 173,000 stems/ha to 868,000 stems/ha and averaged 418,500 stems/ha.
A median of 65 sprouts was produced per
There have been no pitch pine seedlings, which was sudden since serotinous cone manufacturing on this space
was practically 100%. The researcher did, nevertheless, observe many jap towhees feeding
on dropped and opened pitch pine cones. Inside 1 week of the hearth,
nearly all seeds have been faraway from the soil floor . Stem manufacturing happens
with a “burst” proper after hearth. Manufacturing continues at a slower charge for at the least 15
years after hearth. The excessive density of small, low-growing stems on this space
promotes elevated hearth severity and frequency. Excessive floor space per unit
biomass creates situations that will assist excessive hearth depth, and excessive
densities of compact stems promote hearth unfold .
Pitch pine produced sprouts and seedlings after a crown hearth in
Pennsylvania’s Sproul State Forest. The hearth burned in late April 1990 when
winds have been robust in blended oak-red maple stands that have been over 80 years outdated. The
hearth dimension elevated by 400 ha/hour. Three to Four years after the hearth, pitch pine
averaged 17±17 (SE) sprouts/ha on burned websites. Pitch pine seedling density
averaged 116±62 seedlings/ha on burned websites. There have been no pitch pine seedlings
or sprouts on unburned websites. Pitch pine sprout and seedling densities weren’t
considerably completely different (P<0.05) on burned and unburned websites , doubtless due to variable seedling densities.
After a mid-July wildfire in 70-year-old Desk Mountain pine-pitch pine
forests in Shenandoah Nationwide Park, Virginia, and adjoining non-public lands, pitch
pine produced each seedlings and sprouts. The hearth burned with excessive and low
severities, with severity evaluated from cumulative tree mortality, crown
consumption, and common stem char heights. Low-severity websites skilled
floor fires that diminished whole basal space lower than 33%. Common stem char
heights have been 7 ft (2 m) or much less. Excessive-severity websites skilled floor and
crown fires that diminished whole basal space by 67% or extra. Common stem char
heights have been 20 ft (6 m) or higher. Pitch pine sprouting frequency quickly after
the high-severity hearth was over 50%, however 2 years after the hearth solely 4% of bushes
had dwelling sprouts. Researchers indicated that the high-severity hearth might have
killed or broken pitch pine roots by the elimination of the forest flooring and
heating of the mineral soil. Soil depths within the space have been lower than 6 inches (15
cm). Related hardwood sprouts survived higher than pitch pine sprouts. Pitch
pine seedling densities within the second postfire 12 months averaged 2,186 seedlings/ha
on the high-severity burned website, 3,723 seedlings/ha on the low-severity burned
website, and 386 seedlings/ha on an unburned website . Carbon and nitrogen ranges
have been considerably decrease (P<0.05) on high-severity burned than low-severity burned and unburned websites. For extra info on the soil vitamins following this fireplace, see Groelschl and others .
Postfire seedling institution was extra widespread than sprouting after hearth in
tall-stature, intermediate-stature, and dwarf pitch pine stands in jap Suffolk
County, New York. For an entire abstract of this examine, see
Fireplace Case Research.
Common hearth results:
Pitch pine density elevated after “sizzling” fires however decreased after “cool” fires within the western
a part of Nice Smoky Mountains Nationwide Park. Some plots have been burned in 1976 or 1977
in “sizzling” fires that eliminated over 25%
of the basal space; others burned in “cool” fires that eliminated lower than
25% of the basal space; and different plots have been unburned since earlier than 1942. Pitch pine density
elevated from 22 stems/ha in 1970 to 53 stems/ha in 1995 on “sizzling”-burned plots.
Density decreased from 133 stems/ha in 1970 to 108 stems/ha in 1995
on “cool”-burned plots and from 73 stems/ha in 1970 to 61 stems/ha in 1995 on
unburned plots . For pooled “cool” and
“sizzling” hearth knowledge, there was a common development of elevated pitch pine seedling and
sapling density however decreased cover density after hearth. Postfire litter depth was lowest after summer time fires
and highest after winter fires. Within the fourth postfire season, pine (Pinus
spp.) seedling densities have been considerably (P=0.07) negatively
correlated with postfire litter depths .
Within the southern Appalachians, decreases in cover and midstory pitch pine bushes have been biggest after a
spring hearth, when early postfire (Three months-1 12 months after hearth) restoration was
evaluated on fall- and spring-burned pitch pine and Desk
Mountain-pitch pine websites. Burned stands occurred on the Heat Springs Ranger District of the George
Washington and Jefferson Nationwide Forest in Virginia and on the Grandfather
Ranger District of the Pisgah Nationwide Forest in North Carolina. There have been
Three prescribed fires: 1 within the fall on the Heat Springs Ranger District, 1 in
the spring on the Heat Springs Ranger District, and 1 within the spring on the
Grandfather Ranger District. None of
the stands have been harvested or burned for the reason that late 1930s or early 1940s. Pitch
pine decreases within the cover and midstory layers occurred in any case fires.
Nevertheless, the best reductions occurred after spring hearth on the Grandfather
Ranger District, the place pitch pine basal space and density have been diminished by nearly
50% from prefire ranges within the cover and midstory. The spring Grandfather hearth
produced the best flame and scorch heights of all Three fires. There have been 15,000
pitch pine seedlings/ha after the autumn hearth and eight,000/ha after the spring hearth
on the Grandfather Ranger District, however researchers predicted future pitch pine
seedling mortality could be excessive . For a extra full abstract of this examine, see
Early postfire response of southern Appalachian Desk Mountain-pitch pine stands to prescribed fires in North Carolina and Virginia.
The frequency, density, and basal space of pitch pine have been decrease than prefire
ranges Three months after a fireplace in pitch pine- and chestnut oak-dominated ridges in
the Nantahala Nationwide Forest. Stands have been unburned for at the least 70 years prior
to the spring prescribed hearth. The hearth was stand changing, and the understory
was consumed. Pitch pine mortality averaged 18.5%. The variety of pitch pine seedlings elevated by 358% within the third postfire
month, however seedling density was 35% of the prefire density a 12 months following the hearth. It was
hoped that this prescribed hearth would encourage pitch pine regeneration, however the
early mortality of postfire pitch pine seedlings steered that profitable
regeneration might require one other hearth or canopy-opening disturbance . For a extra full abstract of this examine, see
Early postfire results of a prescribed hearth within the southern Appalachians of North Carolina.
Wildfires and prescribed fires in New Jersey inspired pitch pine seedling
recruitment. Wildfire-burned and 53-year-old unburned websites have been in southeastern
Atlantic County. Prescribed fires burned within the Lebanon State Forest between
Burlington and Ocean counties. Each wildfires and prescribed fires burned within the
spring, however wildfires have been thought-about extra extreme than prescription fires.
Postfire pitch pine restoration was evaluated 1 to three years after the fires. Pitch
pine biomass was considerably decrease (P worth not reported) on wildfire
than prescribed hearth websites. Seedling densities on
each wildfire and prescribed hearth
websites elevated with elevated time since hearth, whereas imply aboveground biomass
decreased. As a result of the fires burned after seed fall and no serotinous cones have been
noticed within the wildfire burned space, the researcher thought-about a big, viable
seed financial institution unlikely. Seed on wildfire burned websites was doubtless dispersed from
close by unburned stands and from surviving pines as soon as in a position to reproduce once more.
The researcher indicated that prescription fires didn’t burn into the humus layer,
and pitch pine seeds inside this layer weren’t killed. Seedling survival, nevertheless, was
thought-about extra doubtless within the wildfire burned
stands with a much less dense cover than the prescribed hearth stands. Pitch pine stem
mortality was 17.3% and 23.1% on 2- and 3-year-old stands burned by wildfires, respectively.
The researchers noticed no standing lifeless pitch pine stems on unburned or prescribed hearth websites . For
info on the nutrient ranges in aboveground postfire biomass, see Boerner .
For soil nutrient ranges on burned and unburned websites, see Boerner .
|Pitch pine biomass and seedling density
on unburned, wildfire burned, and prescribed burned websites 
|Time since final hearth (years)||53||2||3||1||3|
|Fireplace season||unburned||Might||April||March||Early spring|
|Imply aboveground biomass (kg/ha)±SE||42,089±28,986||22,121±9,494||9,692±4,975||35,923±7,911||31,488±12,570|
|Seedling density (seedlings/ha)||0||289||15,825||3,350||6,675|
Fireplace habits within the New Jersey Pine Plains:
Stand traits and stem survival have been studied within the Pine
Plains after a 1,400-acre (570 ha) hearth on websites that had not burned for 20, 34, and 47 years. The plains area
burns primarily in crown fires, however “low-intensity”
floor fires are vital in sustaining patches of low-growing, closed-canopy
plains and taller, open, semiopen, transition vegetation. A late-July crown hearth
within the East Plains burned over 90% of the world, a convective column floor hearth burned 1.4%
of the world, a wind-shift floor hearth burned 5% of the world, and a man-made
backing hearth burned the remaining 3.6% of the world. Fireline intensities of those fires,
calculated from scorch heights, averaged over 5529 kW/m for crown fires, 48.3
kW/m for convective column floor fires, and 13.5 kW/m for wind-shift floor and
man-made backing fires. Pitch pine cover stem survival typically decreased from man-made backing fires to
wind-shift floor fires to convective column floor hearth to crown fires.
P.c cover stem survival elevated from low-growing,
closed-canopy plains vegetation (dominated by 2- to 7-foot (0.5-2 m)-tall pitch pine, bear
oak, and black jack oak) to plains vegetation (5- to 7-foot (1.5-2 m)-tall cover however with
≥1,000 stems/ha) to transition
plains vegetation (open to semiopen cover of 10- to 20-foot (3-6 m)-tall pitch pine and open oak
shrub cover) .
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Prescribed hearth is commonly essential to droop succession to hardwood-dominated
stands and to take care of pitch pine populations. Deep-burning fires are needed
to transform sprout-origin pitch pine stands to seed-origin stands in New Jersey.
Tips on using prescribed hearth in pitch pine and pitch pine-hardwood
stands to realize numerous administration targets are supplied by Little .
Within the Heat Springs District of the George
Washington and Jefferson Nationwide Forests of Virginia, researchers promoted pitch pine
regeneration by spring and subsequent fall prescribed fires. Fires burned
in stands that have been succeeding to scarlet and chestnut oak due to about 60 years
of fireplace exclusion. The spring hearth decreased hardwood cover dominance, and the autumn
hearth opened the cover, uncovered mineral soil, and stimulated pitch pine
regeneration . Within the Nantahala Nationwide Forest, pitch
pine regeneration was “good” in stands that have been selectively logged and burned
. In blended oak-pitch pine forests within the Nantahala Nationwide Forest, mid-September prescribed
fires following clearcutting produced temperatures of solely 113 to 138
°F (45-59 °C) at 1 to 2 inches (2.5-5 cm) under the soil floor.
Giant woody gas consumption was minimal and sure a purpose for the low soil temperatures
produced. Researchers described the fires as “excessive depth, low length”.
On the time of the hearth, mineral soils and duff have been moist,
leading to minimal duff consumption. Soil temperatures and penetration depths have been measured
by thermologgers and tiles with temperature-sensitive paint .
A dialogue on using prescribed hearth to regenerate pines in southern
habitats is supplied by Van Lear and Waldrop . Concerns of
wildlife wants and administration targets are included.
Soil/mycorrhizae: Soil vitamins have been measured
periodically for as much as 5 years after felling and burning in blended oak-pine
stands within the Nantahala Nationwide Forest. For examine outcomes, see Knoepp and others .
Modifications in ectomycorrhizal variety and soil nutrient availability following
prescribed fires in pitch pine-mixed oak communities in southern New Jersey are
offered by Tuininga and Dighton . For info on hearth’s impact
on soils inside blended oak-pitch pine forests of the New Jersey Pine Barrens, see
Pitch pine recruitment following crown hearth in pine barrens of Lengthy Island, New York
FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION:
Gucker, Corey L., compiler. 2007.
Pitch pine recruitment following crown hearth in pine barrens of Lengthy Island, New York.
In: Pinus rigida. In: Fireplace Results Data System, [Online].
U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Analysis Station, Fireplace Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
SPECIES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY:
This Fireplace Case Research accommodates info on the next species:
FIRE CASE STUDY REFERENCE:
Landis, R. Matthew; Gurevitch, Jessica; Fox, Gordon A.; Fang, Wei; Taub, Daniel
R. 2005. Variation in recruitment and early demography in Pinus rigida following
crown hearth within the pine barrens of Lengthy Island, New York. Journal of Ecology.
93(3): 607-617. .
Fireplace results have been studied in Three stand varieties in jap Suffolk County, New York.
Dwarf pitch pine stands occurred north of Westhampton, New York (40°51.117′ N,
72°39.293′ W). Intermediate-stature pitch pine stands have been positioned north of Speonk, New York
(40°51.506′ N, 72°42.092′ W), and the tallest pitch pine stands have been at Rocky Level Protect
(40°54.648′ N 72°55.295′ W).
Pitch pine stands occurred on deep, sandy, acidic, glacial outwash plain soils.
Dwarf and tall-stature stands occurred on Carver and Plymouth coarse sands, and
intermediate-stature stands occurred on Plymouth loamy sands and Riverhead sandy loams.
PREFIRE PLANT COMMUNITY:
All websites have been dominated by pitch pine, and the understory dominant was usually
bear oak. Different understory shrubs included kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos
uva-ursi), pinebarren goldenheather (Hudsonia ericoides), black
huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), hillside blueberry (Vaccinium
pallidum), and low candy blueberry (V. angustifolium). Websites differed
primarily within the stature of the pitch pine cover. Dwarf pine plains have been
dominated by a mature cover of 1- to 3-m-tall pitch pine. Intermediate stands
supported a pitch pine cover of 6 to 10 m. Pitch pine bushes reached 10- to
15-m tall in tall-stature stands. White oak (Q. alba), scarlet oak (Q.
coccinea), and black oak (Q. velutina) have been additionally current within the
cover of tall stands.
Historic hearth regime traits for jap pine barrens and oak-pine (Quercus–Pinus
spp.) communities are summarized under:
Fireplace regime info on the vegetation
neighborhood studied on this Analysis Mission Abstract. Fireplace regime
traits are taken from the
LANDFIRE Speedy Evaluation Vegetation Mannequin .
This vegetation mannequin was developed by native specialists utilizing obtainable
literature and professional opinion as documented within the .pdf file
linked from the title of the Potential Pure Vegetation Teams listed under.
|Vegetation Neighborhood (Potential Pure Vegetation Group)||Fireplace severity*||Fireplace regime traits|
P.c of fires
|Floor or low||65%||12|
|Oak-pine (jap dry-xeric)||Substitute||4%||185|
|Floor or low||90%||8|
Fireplace Severities: Substitute=Any hearth that causes higher than
75% prime elimination of a vegetation-fuel kind, ensuing usually substitute
of present vegetation; might or might not trigger a deadly impact on the vegetation.
Floor or low=Any hearth that causes lower than 25% higher layer substitute and/or
elimination in a vegetation-fuel class however burns 5% or extra of the world.
Combined=Any hearth burning greater than 5% of an space that doesn’t qualify as a substitute, floor, or low-severity hearth;
consists of mosaic and different fires which are intermediate in results [63,82].
Fires occurred in August previous to pitch pine cone seed launch and senescence of most vegetation.
FIRE SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION:
All websites burned in August 1995. The dwarf pine plains
and tall-stature forests have been unburned for at the least 60 years previous to the
August hearth. Intermediate-stature stands burned 25 to 33 years earlier than the August
hearth. Extreme stand-replacing fires occurred in all stands, however throughout the dwarf pine plains 5
websites have been sampled, with hearth severities that ranged from low-severity floor to
extreme crown hearth. Fireplace severity was assessed utilizing a modified composite burn index of harm to
vegetation layers and soil materials. Cover, tall shrub, low shrub, and leaf
litter/floor layers have been rated from 0 (unburned) to five (full consumption)
for a severity ranking of Zero to 20. Essentially the most and least extreme fires occurred within the dwarf pine plains.
|Fireplace severity by stand kind|
|Web site||Severity ranking|
|Dwarf pine plains 1||17.2|
|Dwarf pine plains 2||14.2|
|Dwarf pine plains 3||14.4|
|Dwarf pine plains 4||11.8|
|Dwarf pine plains 5||10.0|
|Tall stand 1||13.8|
|Tall stand 2||13.3|
FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:
The vast majority of the hearth results info from this examine pertains to pitch pine.
Prime-kill of pitch pine was practically 100% on all websites apart from the
least severely burned dwarf stand. Postfire sprouting of pitch pine was uncommon, and of the 255 bushes
with basal sprouts within the dwarf pine plains within the first postfire spring, simply
15 had stay basal or epicormic sprouts 6 years after the hearth. Observations
within the intermediate and tall stands steered that almost all postfire pitch pine sprouts died
in these stands as effectively. Grownup pitch pine tree survival was very low, and regeneration trusted seedling
Over 85% of pitch pine bushes within the dwarf pine plains produced serotinous cones, whereas serotinous
cone manufacturing was about 20% in intermediate stands and fewer than 10% in tall
stands. In among the most severely burned dwarf pine websites, serotinous cones
have been consumed by the hearth. There was a big (P<0.05) negative relationship between fire severity and number of cones remaining on live or dead trees within the dwarf pine plains. An average of 4.4 pitch pine seedlings were recruited/prefire adult tree in the most severely burned dwarf pine site. In intermediate and tall pine stands, recruitment was also low due to a lack of mature cones at the time of the fire. Very few pitch pine seedlings occurred in nearby unburned stands. Most seedling recruitment (>90%) occurred within the first postfire
rising season. Nevertheless, pitch pine seedling institution was noticed in all stands till
the fourth postfire 12 months and within the dwarf pine plains till the sixth postfire
12 months. There have been no new pitch pine seedlings present in any stand within the eighth postfire
12 months. Pitch pine recruitment outcomes are summarized under.
|Pitch pine recruitment by stand kind (values
symbolize 10 months after hearth except in any other case indicated)
|Web site||Complete pitch pine density (alive and lifeless)||Imply proportion of bushes with stay crowns||Imply proportion of sprouting bushes/plot||Seedling density||Seedling density (eighth postfire 12 months)||Seedlings/prefire grownup||Seedlings/prefire grownup (eighth postfire 12 months)|
|Dwarf pine plains 1||0.27||0||0.03||1.0||0.33||4.4||1.5|
|Dwarf pine plains 2||0.43||0.01||0||6.8||1.5||24||5.0|
|Dwarf pine plains 3||0.37||0||0.01||4.6||1.5||20||6.0|
|Dwarf pine plains 4||0.30||0.02||0.02||11.1||3.6||43||14|
|Dwarf pine plains 5||0.55||0.10||0.06||27.5||5.0||75||14|
|Tall stand 1||0.09||0||0||1.4||0.7||25||13|
|Tall stand 2||0.02||0||0.01||1.5||0.7||30||11|
By means of the primary postfire summer time,
pitch pine seedling survival was
over 85% in all stands. Within the second postfire summer time, pitch pine seedling survival within the
dwarf pine plains dropped to 44%; most seedlings died throughout a 2-week dry interval.
Survival was 82% within the tall stands and 90% within the intermediate stands within the
second postfire 12 months. Within the eighth postfire 12 months, pitch pine seedling survival within the
dwarf pine plains was 20% to 40%, between 60% and 80% within the intermediate stands, and
between 40% and 60% within the tall stands.
Seedling progress and replica:
Pitch pine seedling peak, measured within the
eighth postfire 12 months, revealed that seedlings grew most within the tall stands and least within the dwarf pine plains.
The primary immature pistillate cones occurred on
2.5-year-old pitch pine seedlings. Pitch pine seedlings within the dwarf pine plains have been reproductive at
a considerably (P<0.05) shorter peak than these in intermediate and tall stands. Pitch pine cone-bearing seedlings have been considerably (P<0.05) youthful within the tall than within the intermediate and dwarf pine plains. A abstract of reproductive pitch pine seedlings on burned websites is offered under.
|Quantity, age, and dimension of reproductive seedlings
by burned stand kind
|Stand||Quantity reproductive Eight years after hearth||Proportion reproductive||Age at first cone manufacturing
(minimal age, in years)
|Peak at first cone manufacturing
(minimal peak, in cm)
|Dwarf pine plains||52||0.038||5.9a||58a|
|Totally different subscripts inside a
column are considerably (P<0.05) completely different.
Bear oak sprouts have been noticed weeks following the hearth. There have been only a few
bear oak seedlings. Cowl of bear oak elevated with time since hearth. By the
fifth postfire 12 months, bear oak cowl was 40% to 50% within the dwarf pine plains, 75%
within the intermediate stands, and 40% to 60% within the tall stands.
|Cowl of bear oak in burned stands (postfire
|Web site||Bear oak cowl (%)|
|Dwarf pine plains 1||28|
|Dwarf pine plains 2||16|
|Dwarf pine plains 3||29|
|Dwarf pine plains 4||20|
|Dwarf pine plains 5||21|
|Tall stand 1||9|
|Tall stand 2||18|
Results of bear oak on pitch pine:
Pitch pine seedling survival was considerably decrease (P=0.0001)
on plots the place bear oak was clipped than on unclipped plots. Nevertheless, pitch pine
seedling progress was diminished beneath the bear oak cover. Within the eighth postfire
12 months, pitch pine seedlings beneath bear oak canopies has smaller stem diameters
and smaller projected crown areas in clipped than unclipped plots.
Traits of the soils on every website within the fifth postfire 12 months are supplied in Landis and others .
FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
Fireplace severity and its relationship to cone and/or seed survival have been essentially the most
vital elements in postfire pitch pine restoration. Fires have been extreme sufficient to
kill pitch pine bushes, restrict postfire sprouting, and eat some cones. Pitch pine seedling
institution and survival dominated postfire regeneration. Pitch pine seedlings
grew to become reproductive at an early age, and restoration of pitch pine is underway.
Bear oak restoration by sprouting was fast and profitable on all burned
websites. Bear oak cowl, whereas initially rising pitch pine seedling survival,
might scale back later seedling and sapling progress.
SPECIES: Pinus rigida
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Pitch pine gives habitat and meals for a lot of wildlife species. Timber are
used as cowl, nesting, and foraging habitat. Deer browse seedlings and new sprouts, and
small mammals and birds eat seeds.
Deer browse pitch pine seedlings and younger pitch pine spouts. On Fireplace
Island, the place white-tailed deer populations doubled over a 5-year-period, pitch
pine needles have been “pretty widespread” in summer time diets .
On upland websites within the New Jersey Pine Barrens, younger pitch pine is vital winter
deer browse . In a 1937 examine by Little (cited in ),
pitch pine was browsed most in an space of New Jersey the place pitch pine, Virginia pine, and shortleaf pine grew collectively.
Sixty-five % of pitch pine seedlings or new sprouts have been browsed.
Squirrels generally feed on pitch pine seeds. Within the Barrens Grouse Habitat Administration Research Space in central
Pennsylvania, 512 pink squirrel feeding websites have been
positioned. Feeding websites contained small piles of pitch pine cone fragments, however
no intact cached cones have been discovered. Main feeding websites tended to be close to pitch pine
bushes with cones . Extra info on
squirrel predation of pitch pine seed is offered in
Quite a few fowl species make the most of
pitch pine habitats for roosting, nesting, mating, and foraging.
feed on pitch pine seeds. Within the plains of the New Jersey Pine Barrens, the researcher noticed
jap towhee feeding on pitch pine seeds launched from serotinous cones and
taking seed from opened cones. Inside 1 week of a wildfire, there have been nearly no pitch pine seeds
on the soil floor .
Pine warblers “favor” pitch pine forests with tall
bushes. Pine warbler populations in Massachusetts have declined for the reason that 1940s and
1950s on account of forest succession to oak within the absence of fireplace . Wild turkeys within the Nathaniel Mountain Refuge
of West Virginia utilized Virginia pine and pitch pine thickets on southern elements as
winter roosting habitat . The red-cockaded woodpecker
additionally makes use of pitch pine and pitch pine habitats. Crimson-cockaded woodpecker cavities
have been present in pitch pine. Good foraging habitats for the woodpecker are southern pine or pine-hardwood stands with pine
bushes ≥9 inches (20 cm) DBH. Pure hardwood stands “are of little worth”
. Pitch pine supplied 13% of the red-cockaded woodpecker cavity bushes present in
the London, Somerset, and Stearns ranger districts of the Daniel Boone Nationwide
Forest. Common DBH of the 6 pitch pine cavity bushes was 15.7 inches (39.9 cm) .
Within the Barrens Grouse Habitat Administration Research Space,
downy woodpeckers and black-capped chickadees occurred extra in pitch pine within the
winter than anticipated primarily based on availability of pitch pine habitats. Winter avifauna foraged within the tough
pitch pine bark. Within the spring, great-crested flycatchers, blue jays,
black-capped chickadees, black-and-white warblers, Nashville warblers, and chestnut-sided warblers have been noticed
in pitch pine greater than anticipated . Within the Lebanon State Forest,
jap towhees and Carolina chickadees foraged much less in oaks than in pines because the breeding season progressed from Might to
July. Pine warblers foraged primarily in pitch pine, and used oak
bushes lower than anticipated primarily based on foliage density from Might to July in each
oak- or pitch pine-dominated forests . In
southeastern Massachusetts pine barrens with an open
pitch pine cover and a dense bear oak understory, jap towhees,
widespread yellowthroats, and prairie warblers made up 40% to 70% of the entire
breeding fowl density throughout the examine space. Prairie warblers foraged extra typically
in pitch pine than widespread yellowthroats. When foraging above floor, jap towhees most popular pitch pine and deciduous bushes.
Broadly spaced pitch pine have been vital male prairie warbler track posts .
In pitch pine-scrub oak habitats southeastern Plymouth County, Massachusetts,
researchers discovered that almost all of uncommon and declining fowl species inside a
72,731-acre (29,433 ha) examine space have been positively related to early seral,
open-canopy habitats. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the examine space was dominated by
late-seral, closed-canopy habitats. Uncommon fowl species hotspots made up simply 2%
of the entire examine space, suggesting lively habitat administration could also be needed
for the world’s declining fowl species .
Pinesnakes utilized pitch pine habitats close to the Toms River
in Ocean County, New Jersey. Feminine pinesnakes have been typically positioned close to pitch pine.
For positioned males, 73% of the time
the closest vegetation was blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) or pitch pine.
Males have been discovered beneath logs or bark extra typically than females .
Various tiger beetles, plant hoppers, moths, and butterflies happen in pitch pine habitats.
In bear oak, blackjack oak, and pitch pine pygmy forests of New
Jersey’s Burlington and Ocean counties, pitfall trapping of two tiger beetles (Cicindelidae
unipuncata and Megacephala virginica) was extra profitable than anticipated,
suggesting these species are extra widespread than beforehand realized .
5 species of plant hoppers have been collected from pitch
pine-bear oak barrens from New Jersey. The planthoppers have been
thought-about attribute of northeastern pitch
pine-bear oak communities .
Many moths and butterflies that make the most of pitch pine habitats are of
conservation concern. The endangered
Karner blue butterfly
is widespread within the pitch pine barrens of the Albany Pine Bush. In southern New
England and southeastern New York, 56 Lepidoptera species of conservation concern are related to
pitch pine-bear oak barrens, ridgetop pitch pine-scrub oak barrens, scrub oak
shrublands, heathlands, and maritime shrublands. Pitch pine-scrub oak communities
and heathlands are an important habitats
for roughly 41% of state-listed uncommon and/or endangered Lepidoptera in
Massachusetts and 23% of these listed in Connecticut. An extra 11 uncommon
Lepidoptera species feed on pitch pine and are restricted to or attain their
biggest abundance in pitch pine-scrub oak barrens in southern New England and
southeastern New York. The sandy substrates in pitch pine-scrub oak communities
are vital nesting and/or foraging habitat for a lot of arthropods. The best threats to
these habitats are destruction and fragmentation, particularly in New York, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, the place pitch pine-scrub oak vegetation has decreased “considerably”
from historic extents. The dearth of fireplace that maintains early seral
communities is one other risk .
In pitch pine-scrub oak habitats southeastern Plymouth County, Massachusetts,
researchers discovered that almost all of uncommon and declining fowl species inside a
72,731-acre (29,433 ha) examine space have been positively related to early seral,
open-canopy habitats. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the examine space was dominated by
late-seral, closed-canopy habitats. Uncommon moth species hotspots made up simply 3%
of the entire examine space, suggesting lively habitat administration could also be needed
for the world’s declining moth species .
The nutrient concentrations in 1-year-old pitch pine leaves collected for 18
months within the Brookhaven Forest, New York, are supplied by Woodwell . Pitch pine leaves had a lot decrease nutrient
concentrations than related vegetation in oak-pine forests. A database
compiled by Pardo and others  additionally gives nutrient values for pitch pine. Values are from knowledge offered in
northeastern US publications and may be sorted by stand age, pattern interval, and/or area.
Data on use of pitch pine as cowl has been built-in into
Significance to Livestock and Wildlife.
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Pitch pine has survived planting on and/or naturally colonized coal mines,
anthracite mines, and landfill websites.
On coal mine spoils in Pennsylvania, pitch pine survival was 36% ten years after planting. The researcher famous
pitch pine’s usefulness within the revegetation of dry websites with acidic soils
. Plantings have been extra profitable than seedings on areas strip mined
for coal in Ohio. Pitch pine survival ranged from 82% to 95% on 1- to
8-year-old plantings. When pitch pine was seeded, germination charges
ranged from 4% to 22%, and first-year survival was 22% to 60% .
On black waste from anthracite mining in Pennsylvania, pure colonization by pitch pine was variable.
Pitch pine was confined to steep north slopes with sparse abundance, though there was a
close by seed supply .
On the closed Contemporary Kills Landfill on Staten Island, New York, surviving planted pitch pines
averaged 4.86 ft (1.48 m) tall after 1 to 1.5 years .
A evaluate of the ethnobotanical makes use of of pitch pine signifies that the Iroquois,
Shinnecock, and Cherokee all utilized pitch pine. The Iroquois used the pitch
to deal with rheumatism, burns, cuts, and boils. Pitch additionally labored as a laxative. A
pitch pine poultice was utilized by each the Iroquois and the Shinnecock to open
boils and to deal with abscesses. The Cherokee used pitch pine
wooden in canoe building and for ornamental carvings .
Pitch pine wooden is coarse grained and resinous ; it has been famous as a superb supply of
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Whereas there are a number of insect pests that will infect pitch pine, not often does pitch pine endure extreme
defoliation or mortality from insect infestations. Elevated variety of infections, lack of extra
most popular hosts, or extreme drought situations might improve the hostile results
of pests. Data on gypsy moth-caused defoliation and mortality of pitch
pine is supplied under; nevertheless, there are different bugs that infect or injury pitch
pine. For info on different pitch pine pests and illnesses, see these sources: [87,99,174].
In blended oak-pitch pine stands in Cape Cod and southern New
Jersey, gypsy moth outbreaks severely defoliated (85-100%) oak bushes however
produced solely gentle defoliations in pitch pine (<40%) . Cumulative pitch pine mortality on account of gypsy moth defoliation was 15.6% to 16.1% in oak-pine stands in New Jersey and Massachusetts. Injury was usually worse for related oaks (white and scarlet oak, primarily) than for pitch pine, which is much less most popular by gypsy moths .
Stanek and State  present regression equations for estimating pitch pine biomass utilizing DBH
Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) happens in some pitch pine habitats; this invasive species might have an effect on ecosystem
dynamics. Within the Albany Pine Bush Protect, nitrogen biking differed in dense, closed-canopy black
locust and in pitch pine-scrub oak (bear oak and dwarf chinkapin
oak (Quercus prinoides)) stands. In black locust stands there have been elevated nitrogen in litter fall,
elevated soil nitrification and mineralization charges, and elevated nitrogen
swimming pools as in comparison with pitch pine-scrub oak stands. Researchers steered that
variations in nitrogen biking between the two communities might have an effect on neighborhood
construction and succession .
Research confirmed that productiveness elevated when pitch pine seedlings have been irrigated with acidic
options (pH 3); nevertheless, seed germination was considerably decrease (P<0.05) at pH Three than at pH Four or 5.6. The researcher additionally famous that elevated productiveness with elevated acidity could also be brief lived [142,143].
Pitch pine invasions:
In central Cape Cod, pitch pine invaded coastal plain ponds in periods of low water.
Pitch pine sapling presence was correlated with decreased frequency and canopy of
herbaceous vegetation, a few of that are regionally uncommon and threatened. Coastal
plain ponds with pitch pine had extra litter and shade and decrease pH
and soil moisture than these with out pitch pine. By means of shade and litter manipulation experiments, researchers
discovered that litter and shade alone, with out hydrologic change, affected the
herbaceous neighborhood .
Pitch pine habitat loss/fragmentation:
Pitch pine conservation and preservation choices are troublesome to make since
pre- and post-European settlement references are sometimes troublesome to reconstruct.
A number of research have documented pitch pine will increase since presettlement time.
Others have reported pitch pine habitat loss on account of habitat fragmentation
and succession to hardwoods with decreased disturbance since settlement . From literature critiques and surveys
of conservation companies and professionals, Noss and others  indicated that
New York serpentine barrens, maritime heathlands, and pitch pine-heath barrens
have been critically endangered (>98% decline on account of habitat
degradation, fragmentation, and/or conversion). Pine-oak/heath sandplains of Vermont and pitch pine-blueberry
communities of New York have been thought-about endangered (85-98% decline) .
After the examine of 19 fragmented and 16 steady blended oak-pine stands in
the New Jersey Pine Barrens, researchers steered that the shortage of prescribed
hearth in fragments proximate to developed areas might have an effect on the way forward for pitch
pine. Though the significance and density of pitch pine bushes and saplings have been
not completely different in fragments and steady forests, since 1979 considerably fewer
(P<0.025) steady forests (50%) have been prescribed burned than fragments (10.5%) .
Pinus rigida: REFERENCES
1. Abrams, M. D.; Orwig, D. A. 1995. Construction, radial progress dynamics and up to date climatic variations of a 320-year-old Pinus rigida rock outcrop neighborhood. Oecologia. 101: 353-360. 
2. Andresen, John W. 1959. A examine of pseudo-nanism in Pinus rigida Mill. Ecological Monographs. 29(4): 309-332. 
3. Arabas, Karen B. 2000. Spatial and temporal relationships amongst hearth frequency, vegetation, and soil depth in an jap North American serpentine barren. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 127(1): 51-65. 
4. Baker, Frederick S. 1949. A revised tolerance desk. Journal of Forestry. 47: 179-181. 
5. Barden, Lawrence S.; Woods, Frank W. 1974. Traits of lightning fires in southern Appalachian forests. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers hearth ecology convention; 1973 March 22-23; Tallahassee, FL. No. 13. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Analysis Station: 345-361. 
6. Berrang, P.C.; Steiner, Ok. C. 1986. Seasonal adjustments within the chilly tolerance of pitch pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Analysis. 16(2): 408-410. 
7. Boerner, Ralph E. J. 1981. Forest construction dynamics following wildfire and prescribed burning within the New Jersey Pine Barrens. The American Midland Naturalist. 105(2): 321-333. 
8. Boerner, Ralph E. J. 1983. Nutrient dynamics of vegetation and detritus following two intensities of fireplace within the New Jersey pine barrens. Oecologia. 59: 129-134. 
9. Boerner, Ralph E. J.; Forman, R. T. T. 1982. Hydrologic and mineral budgets of New Jersey Pine Barrens upland forests following two intensities of fireplace. Canadian Journal of Forest Analysis. 12: 503-510. 
10. Boyd, Howard P. 1985. Pitfall trapping Cicindelidae (Coleoptera) and abundance of Megacephala virginica and Cicindela unipunctata within the pine barrens of New Jersey. Entomological Information. 96(3): 105-108. 
11. Bramble, William C.; Goddard, Maurice Ok. 1942. Impact of animal coaction and seedbed situation on regeneration of pitch pine within the Barrens of central Pennsylvania. Ecology. 23(3): 330-335. 
12. Braun, E. Lucy. 1935. The vegetation of Pine Mountain, Kentucky: an evaluation of the affect of soils and slope publicity as decided by geological construction. The American Midland Naturalist. 16(4): 517-565. 
13. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody vegetation of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State College Press. 362 p. 
14. Brose, Patrick H.; Waldrop, Thomas A. 2006. Fireplace and the origin of Desk Mountain pine – pitch pine communities within the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Analysis. 36: 710-718. 
15. Brown, Hutch. 2000. Wildland burning by American Indians in Virginia. Fireplace Administration Right this moment. 60(3): 29-39. 
16. Brush, Timothy; Stiles, Edmund W. 1990. Habitat use by breeding birds within the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Bulletin of the New Jersey Academy of Science. 35(2): 13-16. 
17. Buchholz, Kenneth. 1983. Preliminary responses of pine and oak to wildfire within the New Jersey Pine Barren plains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Membership. 110(1): 91-96. 
18. Buchholz, Kenneth; Good, Ralph E. 1982. Density, age construction, biomass and internet annual aboveground productiveness of dwarfed Pinus rigida Moll. from the New Jersey Pine Barren Plains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Membership. 109(1): 24-34. 
19. Burger, Joanna; Zappalorti, Robert T. 1989. Habitat use by pine snakes (Pituophis melanoleucus) within the New Jersey Pine Barrens: particular person and sexual variation. Journal of Herpetology. 23(1): 68-73. 
20. Burnham, C. F.; Ferree, M. J.; Cunningham, F. E. 1947. The scrub oak forests of the Anthracite Area. Station Paper No. 4. [Philadelphia, PA]: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 9 p. 
21. Burns, Paul Yoder. 1952. Impact of fireplace on forest soils within the Pine Barren area of New Jersey. Bull. No. 57. New Haven, CT: Yale College, College of Forestry. 63 p. 
22. Callaway, Ragan M.; Clebsch, Edward E. C.; White, Peter S. 1987. A multivariate evaluation of forest communities within the western Nice Smoky Mountains Nationwide Park. The American Midland Naturalist. 118(1): 107-120. 
23. Chapman, William Ok.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Timber and shrubs of the Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Nation Books, Inc. 131 p. 
24. Christensen, Norman L. 1988. Vegetation of the southeastern Coastal Plain. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press: 317-363. 
25. Clements, Frederic E. 1936. Nature and construction of the climax. Journal of Ecology. 24: 252-284. 
26. Clinton, B. D.; Vose, J. M.; Swank, W. T. 1993. Web site preparation burning to enhance southern Appalachian pine-hardwood stands: vegetation composition and variety of 13-year-old stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Analysis. 23(10): 2271-2277. 
27. Copenheaver, Carolyn A.; Grinter, Lawton E.; Lorber, Jean H.; Neatrour, Matthew A.; Spinney, Michael P. 2002. A dendroecological and dendroclimatic evaluation of Pinus virginiana and Pinus rigida at two slope positions within the Virginia Piedmont. Castanea. 67(3): 302-315. 
28. Copenheaver, Carolyn A.; White, Alan S.; Patterson, William A., III. 2000. Vegetation improvement in a southern Maine pitch pine – scrub oak barren. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 127(1): 19-32. 
29. Craine, Stephen I.; Orians, Colin M. 2004. Pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.) invasion of Cape Cod pond shores alters abiotic surroundings and inhibits indigenous herbaceous species. Organic Conservation. 116(2): 181-189. 
30. Craine, Stephen I.; Orians, Colin M. 2006. Results of flooding on pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.) progress and survivorship. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 133(2): 289-296. 
31. Critchfield, William B.; Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1966. Geographic distribution of the pines of the world. Misc. Publ. 991. Washington, DC: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service. 97 p. 
32. Day, Gordon M. 1953. The Indian as an ecological issue within the northeastern forest. Ecology. 34(2): 329-346. 
33. Day, Michael E.; Schedlbauer, Jessica L.; Livingston, William H.; Greenwood, Michael S.; White, Alan S.; Brissette, John C. 2005. Affect of seedbed, gentle surroundings, and elevated night time temperature on progress and carbon allocation in pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and jack pine (Pinus banksiana) seedlings. Forest Ecology and Administration. 205(1-5): 59-71. 
34. DeGraaf, Richard M.; Yamasaki, Mariko. New England wildlife: habitat, pure historical past, and distribution. Hanover, NH: College Press of New England. 467 p. 
35. Delcourt, Hazel R.; Delcourt, Paul A. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native American use of fireplace on southern Appalachian landscapes. Conservation Biology. 11(4): 1010-1014. 
36. Devet, David D. 1940. Warmth conductivity of bark in sure chosen species. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse College. 83 p. Thesis. 
37. Dobey, Daniel C.; Garazo, Henry F.; Trider, Paul; Langdon, Keith. 1987. Fireplace historical past evaluation of Catoctin Mountain Park. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science. 61: 177-180. 
38. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1987. The Smithsonian information to seaside vegetation of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts from Louisiana to Massachusetts, unique of decrease peninsular Florida. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Establishment Press. 409 p. 
39. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Timber of the southeastern United States. Athens, GA: The College of Georgia Press. 322 p. 
40. Eberhardt, Robert W.; Foster, David E.; Motzkin, Glenn; Corridor, Brian. 2003. Conservation of adjusting landscapes: vegetation and land-use historical past of Cape Cod Nationwide Seashore. Ecological Functions. 13(1): 68-84. 
41. Elliott, Ok. J.; Swank, W. T. 1994. Impacts of drought on tree mortality and progress in a blended hardwood forest. Journal of Vegetation Science. 5: 229-236. 
42. Fang, Wei; Taub, Daniel R.; Fox, Gordon A.; Landis, R. Matthew; Natali, Susan; Gurevitch, Jessica. 2006. Sources of variation in progress, type, and survival in dwarf and normal-stature pitch pines (Pinus rigida, Pinaceae) in long-term transplant experiments. American Journal of Botany. 93(8): 1125-1133. 
43. Farjon, Alijos. 1998. World guidelines and bibliography of conifers. 2nd ed. Kew, England: The Royal Botanic Gardens. 309 p. 
44. Farrar, John Laird. 1995. Timber of the northern United States and Canada. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing. 502 p. 
45. Flora of North America Affiliation. 2007. Flora of North America: The flora, [Online]. Flora of North America Affiliation (Producer). Obtainable: http://www.fna.org/FNA. 
46. Forman, Richard T. T.; Boerner, Ralph E. 1981. Fireplace frequency and the pine barrens of New Jersey. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Membership. 108(1): 34-50. 
47. Fowells, H. A., compiler. 1965. Silvics of forest bushes of the USA. Agric. Handb. 271. Washington, DC: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service. 762 p. 
48. Fraver, Shawn. 1992. The insulating worth of serotinous cones in defending pitch pine (Pinus rigida) seeds from excessive temperatures. Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science. 65(3): 112-116. 
49. Frost, Cecil C. 1998. Presettlement hearth frequency regimes of the USA: a primary approximation. In: Pruden, Teresa L.; Brennan, Leonard A., eds. Fireplace in ecosystem administration: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription: Proceedings, Tall Timbers hearth ecology convention; 1996 Might 7-10; Boise, ID. No. 20. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Analysis Station: 70-81. 
50. Gibson, David J.; Collins, Scott L.; Good, Ralph E. 1988. Ecosystem fragmentation of oak-pine forest within the New Jersey pinelands. Forest Ecology and Administration. 25: 105-122. 
51. Gill, Douglas E. 1975. Spatial patterning of pines and oaks within the New Jersey pine barrens. Journal of Ecology. 63(1): 291-298. 
52. Givnish, Thomas J. 1981. Serotiny, geography, and hearth within the pine barrens of New Jersey. Evolution. 35(1): 101-123. 
53. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Guide of vascular vegetation of northeastern United States and adjoining Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Backyard. 910 p. 
54. Glover, Fred A. 1948. Winter actions of untamed turkey in West Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Administration. 12(4): 416-427. 
55. Good, Ralph E.; Good, Norma F.; Andresen, John W. 1998. The Pine Barren Plains. In: Forman, Richard T. T., ed. Pine Barrens: ecosystem and panorama. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers College Press: 283-295. 
56. Grand, Joanna; Buonaccorsi, John; Cushman, Samuel A.; Griffin, Curtice R.; Neel, Maile C. 2004. A multiscale panorama strategy to predicting fowl and moth rarity hotspots in a threatened pitch pine–scrub oak neighborhood. Conservation Biology. 18(4): 1063-1077. 
57. Greenwood, Michael S.; Livingston, William H.; Day, Michael E.; Kenaley, Shawn C.; White, Alan S.; Brissette, John C. 2002. Contrasting modes of survival by jack and pitch pine at a standard vary restrict. Canadian Journal of Forestry Analysis. 32: 1662-1674. 
58. Greller, Andrew M. 1988. Deciduous forest. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge College Press: 288-316. 
59. Griffiths, Megan E.; Orians, Colin M. 2003. Salt spray differentially impacts water standing, necrosis, and progress in coastal sandplain heathland species. American Journal of Botany. 90(8): 1188-1196. 
60. Groeschl, David A.; Johnson, James E.; Smith, David Wm. 1992. Early vegetative response to wildfire in a Desk Mountain pine – pitch pine forest. Worldwide Journal of Wildland Fireplace. 2(4): 177-184. 
61. Groeschl, David A.; Johnson, James E.; Smith, David Wm. 1993. Wildfire results on forest flooring and floor soil in a Desk Mountain pine – pitch pine forest. Worldwide Journal of Wildland Fireplace. 3(3): 149-154. 
62. Guries, Raymond P.; Ledig, F. Thomas. 1982. Genetic variety and inhabitants construction in pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.). Evolution. 36(2): 387-402. 
63. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2005. Interagency hearth regime situation class guidebook. Model 1.2, [Online]. In: Interagency hearth regime situation class web site. U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Division of the Inside; The Nature Conservancy; Programs for Environmental Administration (Producer). Variously paginated [+ appendices]. Obtainable: http://www.frcc.gov/docs/126.96.36.199/Complete_Guidebook_V1.2.pdf [2007, May 23]. 
64. Harmon, Mark E. 1984. Survival of bushes after low-intensity floor fires in Nice Smoky Mountains Nationwide Park. Ecology. 65(3): 796-802. 
65. Harmon, Mark. 1982. Fireplace historical past of the westernmost portion of Nice Smoky Mountains Nationwide Park. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Membership. 109(1): 74-79. 
66. Harrod, J. C.; Harmon, M. E.; White, P. S. 2000. Publish-fire succession and 20th century discount in hearth frequency on xeric southern Appalachian websites. Journal of Vegetation Science. 11(4): 465-472. 
67. Harrod, Jonathan; White, Peter S.; Harmon, Mark E. 1998. Modifications in xeric forests in western Nice Smoky Mountains Nationwide Park, 1936-1995. Castanea. 63(3): 346-360. 
68. Helm, Curtis W.; Kuser, John E. 1991. Container rising pitch pine: germination, soil pH, and outplanting dimension. Northern Journal of Utilized Forestry. 8(2): 63-68. 
69. Hooper, Robert G.; Robinson, Andrew F., Jr.; Jackson, Jerome A. 1980. The red-cockaded woodpecker: notes on life historical past and administration. Common Report SA-GR-9. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Space, State and Non-public Forestry. Eight p. 
70. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native bushes of Canada. seventh ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Division of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. 
71. Hotchkiss, Neil; Stewart, Robert E. 1947. Vegetation of the Patuxent Analysis Refuge, Maryland. The American Midland Naturalist. 38(1): 1-75. 
72. Howe, Clifton Durant. 1910. The reforestation of sand plains in Vermont: a examine in succession. Botanical Gazette. 49: 126-148. 
73. Jackson, Jerome A. 1971. The evolution, taxonomy, distribution, previous populations and present standing of the red-cockaded woodpecker. In: Thompson, Richard L., ed. The ecology and administration of the red-cockaded woodpecker: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 Might 26-27; Folkston, GA. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Analysis Station: 4-29. 
74. Jordan, Marilyn J.; Patterson, William A., III; Windisch, Andrew G. 2003. Conceptual ecological fashions for the Lengthy Island pitch pine barrens: implications for managing uncommon plant communities. Forest Ecology and Administration. 182(1-2): 151-168. 
75. Kalisz, Paul J.; Boettcher, Susan E. 1991. Lively and deserted red-cockaded woodpecker habitat in Kentucky. Journal of Wildlife Administration. 55(1): 146-154. 
76. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized guidelines and atlas with organic attributes for the vascular flora of the USA, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Home windows Model 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Backyard (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Division of Agriculture, Pure Assets Conservation Service; U.S. Division of the Inside, Fish and Wildlife Service. 
77. Knoepp, Jennifer D.; Vose, James M.; Swank, Wayne T. 2004. Lengthy-term soil responses to website preparation burning within the southern Appalachians. Forest Science. 50(4): 540-550. 
78. Kudish, Michael. 1992. Adirondack upland flora: an ecological perspective. Saranac, NY: The Chauncy Press. 320 p. 
79. Kurczewski, Frank E.; Boyle, Hugh F. 2000. Historic adjustments within the pine barrens of central Suffolk County, New York. Northeastern Naturalist. 7(2): 95-112. 
80. Kuser, John E.; Ledig, F. Thomas. 1987. Provenance and progeny variation in pitch pine from the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Forest Science. 33(2): 558-564. 
81. Land, Aerin D.; Rieske, Lynne Ok. 2006. Interactions amongst prescribed hearth, herbivore strain and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) regeneration following southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) mortality. Forest Ecology and Administration. 235(1-3): 260-269. 
82. LANDFIRE Speedy Evaluation. 2005. Reference situation modeling guide (Model 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Settlement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Division of the Inside (Producers). 72 p. Obtainable: http://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. 
83. LANDFIRE Speedy Evaluation. 2007. Speedy evaluation reference situation fashions. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Analysis Station, Fireplace Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Obtainable: http://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php 
84. Landis, R. Matthew; Gurevitch, Jessica; Fox, Gordon A.; Fang, Wei; Taub, Daniel R. 2005. Variation in recruitment and early demography in Pinus rigida following crown hearth within the pine barrens of Lengthy Island, New York. Journal of Ecology. 93(3): 607-617. 
85. Ledig, F. Thomas; Fryer, John H. 1972. A pocket of variability in Pinus rigida. Evolution. 26(2): 259-266. 
86. Ledig, F. Thomas; Fryer, John H. 1974. Genetics of pitch pine. Analysis Report WO-27. Washington, DC: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service. 14 p. 
87. Ledig, F. Thomas; Little, Silas. 1998. Pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.): ecology, physiology, and genetics. In: Forman, Richard T. T., ed. Pine Barrens: ecosystem and panorama. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers College Press: 347-371. 
88. Limstrom, G. A.; Merz, R. W. 1949. Rehabilitation of lands stripped for coal in Ohio. Tech. Pap. No. 113. Columbus, OH: The Ohio Reclamation Affiliation. 41 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station. 
89. Little, Elbert L., Jr.; Little, Silas; Doolittle, Warren T. 1967. Pure hybrids amongst pond, loblolly, and pitch pines. Analysis Paper NE-67. Higher Darby, PA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 22 p. 
90. Little, S.; Moore, E. B. 1953. Extreme burning remedy examined on lowland pine websites. Station Paper No. 64. Higher Darby, PA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 11 p. 
91. Little, S.; Somes, H. A. 1956. Buds allow pitch and shortleaf pines to get better from damage. Station Paper No. 81. Higher Darby, PA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 14 p. 
92. Little, S.; Somes, H. A. 1964. Releasing pitch pine sprouts from outdated stools ineffective. Journal of Forestry. 62: 23-26. 
93. Little, Silas, Jr. 1953. Prescribed burning as a software of forest administration within the northeastern states. Journal of Forestry. 51: 496-500. 
94. Little, Silas. 1952. Results of forest fires on upland websites within the pine area of southern New Jersey. Leaflet 100. New Brunswick, NJ: The State College of New Jersey, School of Agriculture, Experiment Station. Eight p. 
95. Little, Silas. 1973. Eighteen-year adjustments within the composition of a stand of Pinus echinata and P. rigida in southern New Jersey. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Membership. 100(2): 94-102. 
96. Little, Silas. 1974. Results of fireplace on temperate forests: northeastern United States. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fireplace and ecosystems. New York: Educational Press: 225-250. 
97. Little, Silas. 1980. Pitch pine. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cowl varieties of the USA and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 49-50. 
98. Little, Silas. 1981. Implications from the expansion of Pinus rigida and planted P. strobus within the pine plains of southern New Jersey. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Membership. 108(1): 85-94. 
99. Little, Silas; Garrett, Peter W. 1990. Pinus rigida Mill. pitch pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Quantity 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service: 456-462. 
100. Little, Silas; Moorhead, George R.; Somes, Horace A. 1958. Forestry and deer within the pine area of New Jersey. Stn. Pap. No. 109. Higher Darby, PA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 33 p. 
101. Lutz, Harold J. 1934. Ecological relations within the pitch pine plains of southern New Jersey. Bulletin No. 38. New Haven, CT: Yale College, College of Forestry. 80 p. 
102. Main, Amy E.; Hendrick, Ronald L.; Vose, James M.; Swank, Wayne T. 1998. The results of stand changing fires on Pinus rigida communities within the southern Appalachians. In: Pruden, Teresa L.; Brennan, Leonard A., eds. Fireplace in ecosystem administration: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription: Proceedings, Tall Timbers hearth ecology convention; 1996 Might 7-10; Boise, ID. No. 20. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Analysis Station: 116. 
103. Maull, Theodore Ward. 1962. Seed germination and institution of Pinus rigida Miller (an autecological examine). [University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University]. 91 p. 
104. McCormick, Jack. 1970. The Pine Barrens: a preliminary ecological stock. Analysis Report No. 2. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Museum. 103 p. 
105. McCormick, Jack. 1998. The vegetation of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. In: Forman, Richard T. T., ed. Pine Barrens: ecosystem and panorama. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers College Press: 229-243. 
106. McLeod, Donald Evans. 1988. Vegetation patterns, floristics, and environmental relationships within the Black and Craggy Mountains of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: College of North Carolina. 222 p. Dissertation. 
107. McNab, W. Henry; Browing, Sara A. 1993. Preliminary ecological classification of arborescent communities on the Wine Spring Creek watershed, Nantahala Nationwide Forest. In: Brissette, John C., ed. Proceedings, seventh biennial southern silvicultural analysis convention; 1992 November 17-19; Cellular, AL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-93. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 213-221. 
108. McQuilkin, William Everett. 1935. Root improvement of pitch pine, with some comparative observations on shortleaf pine. Journal of Agricultural Analysis. 51(11): 983-1016. 
109. Meilleur, Alain; Bouchard, Andre; Bergeron, Yves. 1994. The relation between geomorphology and forest neighborhood varieties of the Haut-Saint-Laurent, Quebec. Vegetatio. 111: 173-192. 
110. Meilleur, Alain; Brisson, Jacques; Bouchard, Andre. 1997. Ecological analyses of the northernmost inhabitants of pitch pine (Pinus rigida). Canadian Journal of Forest Analysis. 27: 1342-1350. 
111. Moerman, Dan. 2003. Native American ethnobotany: A database of meals, medication, dyes, and fibers of Native American peoples, derived from vegetation, [Online]. Dearborn, MI: College of Michigan (Producer). Obtainable: http://www.umd.umich.edu/ [2006, April 14]. 
112. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. [Revised edition]. Information to the vascular flora of Illinois. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois College Press. 507 p. 
113. Montgomery, Michael E.; McManus, Michael L.; Berisford, C. Wayne. 1989. The gypsy moth in pitch pine-oak mixtures: predictions for the South primarily based on experiences within the North. In: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. Proceedings of pine-hardwood mixtures: a symposium on administration and ecology of the kind; 1989 April 18-19; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-58. Asheville, SC: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 43-49. 
114. Moore, Barrington. 1917. Some elements influencing the replica of pink spruce, balsam fir, and white pine. Journal of Forestry. 15(7): 827-853. 
115. Morimoto, David C.; Wasserman, Fred E. 1991. Intersexual and interspecific variations within the foraging habits of rufous-sided towhees, widespread yellowthroats and prairie warblers within the pine barrens of southeastern Massachusetts. Journal of Area Ornithology. 62(4): 436-449. 
116. Mosseler, A.; Rajora, O. P.; Main, J. E.; Kim, Ok.-H. 2004. Reproductive and genetic traits of uncommon, disjunct pitch pine populations on the northern limits of its vary in Canada. Conservation Genetics. 5(5): 571-583. 
117. Motzkin, Glenn; Orwig, David A.; Foster, David R. 2002. Vegetation and disturbance historical past of a uncommon dwarf pitch pine neighborhood in western New England. Journal of Biogeography. 29(10-11): 1455-1467. 
118. Mowbray, Thomas B.; Oosting, Henry J. 1968. Vegetation gradients in relation to surroundings and phenology in a southern Blue Ridge gorge. Ecological Monographs. 38(4): 309-344. 
119. Muzika, R. M.; Liebhold, A. M. 2001. Results of gypsy moth defoliation in oak-pine forests within the northeastern United States. In: Built-in administration and dynamics of forest defoliating bugs: Proceedings; 1999 August 15-19; Victoria, BC. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-277. Newton Sq., PA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Analysis Station: 117-123. 
120. Niering, William A. 1953. The previous and current vegetation of Excessive Level State Park, New Jersey. Ecological Monographs. 23(2): 127-148. 
121. Noss, Reed F.; LaRoe, Edward T., III; Scott, J. Michael. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the USA: a preliminary evaluation of loss and degradation. Organic Report 28. Washington, DC: U.S. Division of the Inside, Nationwide Organic Companies. 58 p. 
122. O’Connell, Allan F., Jr.; Sayre, Mark W.; Bosler, Edward M.; Artwork, Henry. 1989. White-tailed deer ecology on Fireplace Island. Park Science. 9(4): 4-5. 
123. Ogden, J. Gordon, III. 1962. Forest historical past of Martha’s Winery, Massachusetts. I. Trendy and pre-colonial forests. The American Midland Naturalist. 66(2): 417-430. 
124. Olsson, Hans. 1998. Vegetation of the New Jersey Pine Barrens: a phytosociological classification. In: Forman, Richard T. T., ed. Pine Barrens: ecosystem and panorama. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers College Press: 245-263. 
125. Olsvig, Linda S.; Cryan, John F.; Whittaker, Robert H. 1998. Vegetational gradients of the pine plains and barrens of Lengthy Island, New York. In: Forman, Richard T. T., ed. Pine Barrens: ecosystem and panorama. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers College Press: 265-281. 
126. Ottmar, Roger D.; Vihnanek, Robert E. 1991. Characterization of gas consumption and warmth pulse into the mineral soil on the Jacob Department and Satan Den models in North Carolina. Seattle, WA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Analysis Station, International Environmental Safety Program, Fireplace and Environmental Analysis Functions. Remaining Report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Safety Company, Analysis Triangle Park, NC. 69 p. 
127. Pardo, Linda H.; Robin-Abbott, Molly; Duarte, Natasha; Miller, Eric Ok. 2005. Tree chemistry database (model 1.0). Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-324. Newton Sq., PA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Analysis Station. 45 p. 
128. Parshall, T.; Foster, D. R. 2002. Fireplace on the New England panorama: regional and temporal variation, cultural and environmental controls. Journal of Biogeography. 29(10-11): 1305-1317. 
129. Parshall, T.; Foster, D. R.; Fiason, E.; MacDonald, D.; Hansen, B. C. S. 2003. Lengthy-term historical past of vegetation and hearth in pitch pine-oak forests on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Ecology. 84(3): 736-748. 
130. Patterson, William A., III; Saunders, Karen E.; Horton, L. J. 1983. Fireplace regimes of the coastal Maine forests of Acadia Nationwide Park. OSS 83-3. Boston, MA: U.S. Division of the Inside, Nationwide Park Service, North Atlantic Area, Workplace of Scientific Research. 259 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Non-public Forestry, Broomall, PA. 
131. Patterson, William A., III; Saunders, Karen E.; Horton, L. J.; Foley, Mary Ok. 1985. Fireplace administration choices for coastal New England forest: Acadia Nationwide Park and Cape Cod Nationwide Seashore. In: Lotan, James E.; Kilgore, Bruce M.; Fischer, William C.; Mutch, Robert W., technical coordinators. Proceedings–symposium and workshop on wilderness hearth; 1983 November 15-18; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182. Ogden, UT: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Vary Experiment Station: 360-365. 
132. Peterson, William A., III. 2006. The paleoecology of fireplace and oaks in jap forests. In: Dickinson, Matthew B., ed. Fireplace in jap oak forests: delivering science to land managers: proceedings of a convention; 2005 November 15-17; Columbus, OH. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Sq., PA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Analysis Station: 2-19. 
133. Pielou, E. C. 1988. The world of northern evergreens. Ithaca, NY: Cornell College Press. 174 p. 
134. Pinchot, Gifford. 1899. A examine of forest fires and wooden manufacturing in southern New Jersey: Appendix to annual report of the state geologist for 1898. Geological Survey of New Jersey. Trenton, NJ: MacCrellish & Quigley. 102 p. 
135. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Guide of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The College of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. 
136. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life types of vegetation and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. 
137. Rice, Steven Ok.; Westerman, Bryant; Federici, Robert. 2004. Impacts of the unique, nitrogen-fixing black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) on nitrogen-cycling in a pine – oak ecosystem. Plant Ecology. 174(1): 97-107. 
138. Robinson, George R.; Handel, Steven N. 1993. Forest restoration on a closed landfill: fast addition of recent species by fowl dispersal. Conservation Biology. 7(2): 271-278. 
139. Ruffner, C. M.; Abrams, M. D. 1998. Lightning strikes and resultant fires from archival (1912-1917) and present (1960-1997) info in Pennsylvania. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 125(3): 249-252. 
140. Ruffner, Charles M. 1997. Early plant succession following wildfire in Pennsylvania’s mixed-oak woodlands. In: Greenlee, Jason M., ed. Proceedings, 1st convention on hearth results on uncommon and endangered species and habitats; 1995 November 13-16; Coeur d’Alene, ID. Fairfield, WA: Worldwide Affiliation of Wildland Fireplace: 239-244. 
141. Schafale, Michael P.; Weakley, Alan S. 1990. Classification of the pure communities of North Carolina: third approximation. Raleigh, NC: Division of Setting, Well being, and Pure Assets, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Pure Heritage Program. 325 p. Obtainable on-line: http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/nhp/publications/class.pdf [2005, February 14]. 
142. Schier, George A. 1986. Seedling progress and nutrient relationships in a New Jersey Pine Barrens soil handled with “acid rain”. Canadian Journal of Forest Analysis. 16: 136-142. 
143. Schier, George A. 1987. Germination and early progress of 4 pine species on soil handled with simulated acid rain. Canadian Journal of Forest Analysis. 17: 1190-1196. 
144. Schramm, J. R. 1966. Plant colonization research on black wastes from anthracite mining in Pennsylvania. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. [Philidelphia, PA]. 56(1): 5-194. 
145. Schultz, Robert P. 1997. Genetics and tree enchancment. In: Schultz, Robert P. Loblolly pine: The ecology and tradition of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Agricultural Handbook 713. Washington, DC: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service: 7-Three to 7-50. 
146. Seischab, Franz Ok.; Bernard, John M. 1996. Pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.) communities within the Hudson Valley area of New York. The American Midland Naturalist. 136(1): 42-56. 
147. Selender, Michael D. 1980. Increment borings of pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill., Pinacea) from websites on the Shawangunk Ridge and the Ramapo Mountains of southeastern New York State: age and progress dynamics. Skenectada. 2: 1-9. 
148. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2nd ed. Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L. Moldenke. 611 p. 
149. Sidelinger, John E. 1977. Composition and construction of vegetation and wildlife utilization of a scrub oak forest following a prescribed burn. College Park, PA: Pennsylvania State College. 93 p. Thesis. 
150. Smith, Robert Nolan. 1991. Species composition, stand construction, and woody detrital dynamics related to pine mortality within the southern Appalachians. Athens, GA: College of Georgia. 163 p. Thesis. 
151. Spalt, Karl W.; Reifsnyder, William E. 1962. Bark traits and hearth resistance: a literature survey. Occas. Paper 193. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 19 p. In cooperation with: Yale College, College of Forestry. 
152. Stanek, W.; State, D. 1978. Equations predicting major productiveness (biomass) of bushes, shrubs and lesser vegetation primarily based on present literature. [Ottawa]: Setting Canada, Forestry Service. 58 p. On file with: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Analysis Station, Fireplace Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
153. Starker, T. J. 1932. Fireplace resistance of bushes of northeast United States. Forest Employee. 8(3): 8-9. 
154. Stephenson, Steven L.; Ash, Andrew N.; Stauffer, Dean F. 1993. Appalachian oak forests. In: Martin, William H.; Boyce, Stephen G.; Echternacht, Arthur C., eds. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: Upland terrestrial communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc: 255-303. 
155. Stickel, Paul W. 1935. Forest hearth injury research within the Northeast. II. First-year mortality in burned-over oak stands. Journal of Forestry. 33: 595-598. 
156. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Analysis Station, Fireplace Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. 
157. Stone, E. L., Jr.; Stone, M. H. 1954. Root collar sprouts in pine. Journal of Forestry. 52: 487-491. 
158. Stone, Earl L.; Stone, Margaret H. 1943. Dormant buds in sure species of Pinus. American Journal of Botany. 30(5): 346-351. 
159. Strausbaugh, P. D.; Core, Earl L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p. 
160. Tiffney, W. N., Jr.; Barrera, J. F. 1979. Comparative progress of pitch and Japanese black pine in clumps of the N2-fixing shrub, bayberry. Botanical Gazette. 140(Complement): S108-S109. 
161. Trappe, James M. 1962. Fungus associates of ectotrophic mycorrhizae. Botanical Evaluation. 28: 538-606. 
162. Tuininga, Amy R.; Dighton, John. 2004. Modifications in ectomycorrhizal communities and nutrient availability following prescribed burns in two upland pine-oak forests within the New Jersey pine barrens. Canadian Journal of Forest Analysis. 34(8): 1755-1765. 
163. Turrill, Nicole; Buckner, Edward. 1997. Restoring southern Appalachian Pinus rigida communities with prescribed hearth. ASB Bulletin. 44(2): 121. Summary. 
164. U.S. Division of Agriculture, Pure Assets Conservation Service. 2007. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Obtainable: https://vegetation.usda.gov
165. Van Lear, David H.; Waldrop, Thomas A. 1991. Prescribed burning for regeneration. In: Duryea, M. L.; Dougherty, P. M., eds. Forest regeneration guide. The Netherlands: Kluwer Educational Publishers: 235-250. 
166. Vogel, Willis G. 1981. A information for revegetating coal minesoils within the jap United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-68. Broomall, PA: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 190 p. 
167. Vogl, Richard J. 1977. Fireplace: a damaging menace or a pure course of? In: Cairns, J., Jr.; Dickson, Ok. L.; Herricks, E. E., eds. Restoration and restoration of broken ecosystems: Proceedings of the worldwide symposium; 1975 March 23-25; Blacksburg, VA. Charlottesville, VA: College Press of Virginia: 261-289. 
168. Wagner, David L.; Nelson, Michael W.; Schweitzer, Dale F. 2003. Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New England and southeastern New York: ecology, conservation, and administration. Forest Ecology and Administration. 185(1-2): 95-112. 
169. Walker, Laurence C. 1967. Silviculture of the minor southern conifers. Bulletin 15. Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State School, College of Forestry. 106 p. 
170. Welch, N. T.; Waldrop, T. A.; Buckner, E. R. 2000. Response of southern Appalachian desk mountain pine (Pinus pungens) and pitch pine (Pinus rigida) stands to prescribed burning. Forest Ecology and Administration. 136(1-3): 185-197. 
171. Westveld, Marinus; Ashman, R. I.; Baldwin, H. I.; Holdsworth, R. P.; Johnson, R. S.; Lambert, J. H.; Lutz, H. J.; Swain, Louis; Standish, Myles. 1956. Pure forest vegetation zones of New England. Journal of Forestry. 54(5): 332-338. 
172. Wheeler, A. G., Jr.; Wilson, Stephen W. 1996. Planthoppers of pitch pine and scrub oak in pine barrens communities (Homoptera: Fulgoroidea). Proceedings, Entolomological Society of Washington. 98(1): 100-108. 
173. Whitney, Gordon G. 1991. Relation of plant species to substrate, panorama place, and facet in north central Massachusetts. Canadian Journal of Forest Analysis. 21(8): 1245-1252. 
174. Wilson, Louis F.; Wilkinson, Robert C., Jr.; Averill, Robert C. 1992. Redheaded pine sawfly–its ecology and administration. Agric. Handb. 694. Washington, DC: U.S. Division of Agriculture, Forest Service. 53 p. 
175. Windisch, Andrew G. 1987. Fireplace depth and stem survival within the New Jersey pine plains. Camden, NJ: Rutgers, The State College of New Jersey. 84 p. Thesis. 
176. Windisch, Andrew G. 1999. Fireplace ecology of the New Jersey pine plains and neighborhood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State College of New Jersey. 327 p. Dissertation. 
177. Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Information to the vascular vegetation of the Blue Ridge. Athens, GA: The College of Georgia Press. 384 p. 
178. Woodwell, G. M. 1974. Variation within the nutrient content material of leaves of Quercus alba, Quercus coccinea, and Pinus rigida within the Brookhaven Forest from bud-break to abscission. American Journal of Botany. 61(7): 749-753. 
179. Yahner, Richard H. 1987. Feeding-site use by pink squirrels, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, in a marginal habitat in Pennsylvania. The Canadian-Area Naturalist. 101: 586-589. 
180. Yahner, Richard H. 1987. Use of even-aged stands by winter and spring fowl communities. Wilson Bulletin. 99(2): 218-232. 
181. Zampella, Robert A.; Moore, Gerry; Good, Ralph E. 1992. Gradient evaluation of pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.) lowland communities within the New Jersey pinelands. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Membership. 119(3): 253-261. 
FEIS Residence Web page