Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Pinus muricata
|
|
 |
| Bishop pine. Image by Clarity at Flicker. |
Introductory
SPECIES: Pinus muricata
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Cope, Amy B. 1993. Pinus muricata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/pinmur/all.html [].
Images were added on 19 June 2018.
ABBREVIATION:
PINMUR
SYNONYMS:
Pinus muricata var. borealis (Howell) Axelrod
Pinus muricata var. stantonii Axelrod
Pinus muricata var. muricata [28]
Pinus remorata Mason
NRCS PLANT CODE:
PIMU
PIMUB
PIMUM
PIMUS
COMMON NAMES:
Bishop pine
Bishop's pine
prickle-cone pine
California swamp pine
TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of Bishop pine is Pinus muricata D. Don [8,22,35].
Bishop pine rarely hybridizes with Monterey pine (P. radiata); timing of
cone opening usually differs in the two species [8,44].
LIFE FORM:
Tree
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status
OTHER STATUS:
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Pinus muricata
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Bishop pine occurs in disjunct coastal populations from Curry
County, Oregon, into California from Humboldt County south
to Santa Barbara County. It is also found on Santa Cruz and
Santa Rosa islands, and in Baja California, Mexico [8,21,22,28,43].
 |
| Distribution of Bishop pine. Map courtesy of USDA, NRCS. 2018. The PLANTS Database.
National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC [2018, June 19] [43]. |
ECOSYSTEMS:
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES42 Annual grasslands
STATES:
CA OR MEXICO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS:
3 Southern Pacific Border
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K006 Redwood forest
K009 Pine - cypress forest
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K033 Chaparral
K035 Coastal sagebrush
K048 California steppe
SAF COVER TYPES:
218 Lodgepole pine
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
232 Redwood
255 California coast live oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES:
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Bishop pine is frequently dominant in closed-cone pine forests
[15,27,37,42,44]. Stands are open with little or no understory on dry,
rocky sites, with a more dense understory on moist sites [15]. Bishop
pine also occurs in mesic border areas of woodlands and savannas [27].
In the northern part of its range, Bishop pine occurs in pure stands and
in redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii),
and pygmy forests [15,26,28,44]. In the southern portion of its
range, it is found in annual grassland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral
communities. Scattered bisop pine stands often form a mosaic with these
communities [6,15,18,44].
Bishop pine is named as a dominant tree in the following published
classifications:
Terrestrial natural communities of California [15]
A vegetation classification system applied to southern California [36]
The southern California islands [37]
Vascular plant communities of California [42]
The closed-cone pines and cypress [44]
Associated canopy species not previously mentioned include Gowen cypress
(Hesperocyparis goveniana), Monterey cypress (H. macrocarpa), Tecate cypress
(H. forbesii), Mendocino cypress (H. pigmaea), Bolander pine (Pinus contorta
var. bolanderi), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), and Pacific madrone
(Arbutus menziesii) [3,6,17,26,45]. Understory associates include glossyleaf
manzanita (Arctostaphylos nummularia), woollyleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos
tomentosa), Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum), California
huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), and salal (Gautheria shallon) [3,15,17,26,44].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Pinus muricata
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE:
Bishop pine wood is light, strong, hard, and coarse-grained [25,35]. It
has good papermaking properties [40]. The growth habit of Bishop pine
varies, but on fair to good sites it shows good form and uniform size
[28,40].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Squirrels occasionally eat Bishop pine seeds, but the spiny cones
usually deter seed predators [23,44].
Browsing by exotic sheep on Santa Cruz Island has resulted in the absence
of regeneration and an accelerated deterioration of Bishop pine [7].
PALATABILITY:
NO-ENTRY
NUTRITIONAL VALUE:
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE:
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Bishop pine can be used for erosion control [16]. Its roots bind soil
more effectively than coastal sage scrub and annual grass species [7].
On low coastal terraces, Bishop pine helps to stabilize sand dunes
[17,38].
OTHER USES AND VALUES:
NO-ENTRY
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
When planting Bishop pine, the genotype of planted seeds or trees vs.
the genotype of existing populations should be compared in order to
preserve the genetic purity of Bishop pine. seeds of unknown origin
were sown in an area of northern California where two genotypically
distinct Bishop pine overlap in the mid-1960's. Genes from the unknown
source have been found in seeds from native trees. As a result, trees
from this site has lost their value for genetic and evolutionary studies
[31].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Pinus muricata
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Bishop pine is a native conifer, typically 49 to 50 feet (15-25 m) tall
[15,30,35,46]. The needles are 3 to 6 inches (10-15 cm) long and
persist for 2 to 3 years [11,24,29,35]. The asymmetric, thin- to
thick-scaled, spiny cones are 1.9 to 2.8 inches (5-7 cm) long
[23,24,47].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES:
The interval between good seed crop is 2 to 3 years. Bishop pine begins
to produce seed at the age of 5 to 6 years [19].
Bishop pine produces cones that remain closed for several years and open
after fire or on hot days [44]. Temperatures of up to 203 degrees
Fahrenheit (95 deg C) do not seriously reduce seed germination [23].
The germinative capacity is approximately 80 percent [19,23]. A
germination study indicated that seeds germinate equally well on highly
acid, serpentine, or clay soils [26].
Growth of Bishop pine is rapid [2,25,38].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
The climate where Bishop pine occurs is Mediterranean; most of the
precipitation falls in the winter, and summers are dry [45,46]. Fog
occurs in spring and summer is important to Bishop pine's survival
[15,29,33,36,44]. Slopes vary from flat to steep, and are often
north-facing [37,38,44,46]. Bishop pine occurs from near sea level to
1,320 feet (0-400 m) in elevation [44].
Soils in which Bishop pine grows are sometimes shallow and poorly
drained [44]. In the pygmy forest, the upper soil layer is devoid of
nutrients, has a low pH (4.7), and covers an impermeable hardpan. When
growing in this soil, Bishop pine has stunted growth [3]. It is also
found on less acidic soils which vary from dry, gravelly sands to peat
bogs [38]. Diatomaceous shale soils support good growth [44].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Bishop pine stands are typically even-aged, originating after fire
[15,18,33,44]. Fire is the most common natural disturbance in bishop
pine communities [9].
Bishop pine has intermediate shade tolerance [4,25].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Cones of Bishop pine open for pollination between April and June
[10,15,19]. Growth is initiated in the spring [15].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Pinus muricata
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Fire plays an important ecological role in continuance or maintenance of
Bishop pine communities [6,11,44]. Older trees have thick bark, which
enables them to survive surface fire in woodlands and savannas [25].
Bishop pine stands, however, are often dense [44], and stand-replacing
crown fire typically occurs in such stands. The generally serotinous
and persistent cones are adapted to open when exposed to such heat
[9,11,15,27,29]. Serotiny is somewhat variable; northern populations
are less serotinous than southern populations [47]. Seed released from
serotinous cones results in even-aged stands; most seedling
establishment occurs in the first postfire year [18,44].
Bishop pine's rapid growth and early production of seed help prevent its
elimination from areas where fires are frequent [2,19]. A fire-free
period of 80 years or more results in greatly increased susceptibility
to disease [44]. Analysis of point and composite data at Salt Point
State Park, California showed fire intervals of 20.5 to 29 years and 6.1
to 9.3 years, respectively [13].
Bishop pine does not sprout after fire [18].
FIRE REGIMES:
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:
Tree without adventitious-bud root crown
Crown residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Pinus muricata
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Large, thick-barked trees probably survive low- to moderate-severity
surface fires. Crown fire kills Bishop pine [44].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Bishop pine cones open and release seed after exposure to intense heat [27,44].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
The half-life of Bishop pine litter is approximately 7.5 years. Biomass
and productivity varies between stands [43].
Fire reduces fuel loading and improves seedbed conditions for bishop
pine [27].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Pinus muricata
REFERENCES:
1. Ades, P. K.; Simpson, J. A.; Eldridge, K. G.; Eldridge, R. H. 1992.
Genetic variation in susceptibility to Dothistroma needle blight among
provenance and families of Pinus muricata. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research. 22: 1111-1117. [20210]
2. Agee, James K. 1974. Environmental impacts from fire management
alternatives. Final Report on Purchase Order PX 8000 3 0644. San
Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Western Regional Office. 92 p. On file with: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [12404]
3. Anderson, Catherine L. 1983. Geobotany: An aid to geologic mapping.
California Geology. 36(2): 35-43. [20654]
4. Baker, Frederick S. 1949. A revised tolerance table. Journal of
Forestry. 47: 179-181. [20404]
5. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
6. Brown, David E. 1982. Relict conifer forests and woodlands. In: Brown,
David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United
States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 70-71. [8888]
7. Brumbaugh, Robert S.; Renwick, William H.; Loeher, Larry L. 1982.
Effects of vegetation change on shallow landsliding: Santa Cruz Island,
California. In: Conrad, C. Eugene; Oechel, Walter C., technical
coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on dynamics and management of
Mediterranean-type ecosystems; 1981 June 22-26; San Diego, CA. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 397-402.
[6043]
8. Critchfield, William B.; Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1966. Geographic
distribution of the pines of the world. Misc. Publ. 991. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 97 p. [20314]
9. D'Antonio, Carla M.; Howald, Ann M. 1990. Evaluating the effectiveness
of hydroseed mixes, topsoil conservation & other reveg techniques: a
case study in Santa Barbara Co., California. In: Hughes, H. Glenn;
Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration `89: the new management
challange: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the Society for Ecological
Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The
University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological Restoration:
338-348. [14710]
10. Duffield, J. W. 1953. Pine pollen collection dates--annual and
geographic variation. For. Res. Notes No. 85. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 9 p. [17970]
11. Evarts, Bill. 1986. Torrey pines: resurrection or remission. Environment
Southwest. 514: 3-8. [5602]
12. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
13. Finney, Mark A.; Martin, Robert E. 1989. Fire history in a Sequoia
sempervirens forest at Salt Point State Park, California. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research. 19: 1451-1457. [9845]
14. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
15. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial
natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department
of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]
16. Howald, Ann M.; D'Antonio, Carla. 1990. Designing a monitoring program
for a native plant community revegetation project. In: Hughes, H. Glenn;
Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration '89: the new management
challenge: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the Society for Ecological
Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The
University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological Restoration:
182-193. [14694]
17. Jenny, H.; Arkley, R. J.; Schultz, A. M. 1969. The pygmy forest-podsol
ecosystem and its dune associates of the Mendocino Coast. Madrono. 20:
60-74. [10726]
18. Keeley, Jon E.; Keeley, Sterling C. 1988. Chaparral. In: Barbour,
Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial
vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press: 165-207.
[19545]
19. Krugman, Stanley L.; Jenkinson, James L. 1974. Pinaceae--pine family.
In: Schopmeyer, C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in
the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 598-637. [1380]
20. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
21. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1975. Rare and local conifers in the United
States. Conservation Research Rep. No. 19. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 25 p. [15691]
22. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native
and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]
23. Linhart, Yan B. 1978. Maintenance of variation in cone morphology in
California closed-cone pines: the roles of fire, squirrels, and seed
output. Southwestern Naturalist. 23(1): 29-40. [19166]
24. Mason, Herbert L. 1927. Fossil records of some West American conifers.
Publications of the Carnegie Institute. 346: 139-159. [10707]
25. McCune, Bruce. 1988. Ecological diversity in North American pines.
American Journal of Botany. 75(3): 353-368. [5651]
26. McMillan, Calvin. 1956. The edaphic restriction of Cupressus and Pinus
in the Coast Ranges of central California. Ecological Monographs. 26:
177-212. [11884]
27. Menke, John W.; Villasenor, Ricardo. 1977. The California Mediterranean
ecosystem and its management. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene,
technical coordinators. Proc. of the symp. on the environmental
consequences of fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems;
1977 August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 257-270. [4847]
28. Metcalf, Woodbridge. 1921. Notes on the bishop pine (Pinus muricata).
Journal of Forestry. 19(8): 886-902. [21352]
29. Millar, Constance I. 1986. The Californian closed cone pines (subsection
Oocarpae Little and Critchfield): a taxonomic history and review. Taxon.
35(4): 657-670. [5972]
30. Millar, Constance I. 1989. Allozyme variation of bishop pine associated
with pygmy-forest soils in northern California. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research. 19: 870-879. [8912]
31. Millar, Constance I.; Libby, William J. 1989. Disneyland or native
ecosystem: genetics and the restorationist. Restoration and Management
Notes. 7(1): 18-24. [8071]
32. Millar, Constance I.; Strauss, Steven H.; Conkle, M. Thompson; Westfall,
Robert D. 1988. Allozyme differentiation and biosystematics of the
California closed- cone pines (Pinus subsect. Oocarpae). Systematic
Biology. 13(3): 351-370. [5674]
33. Minnich, Richard A. 1987. The distribution of forest trees in northern
Baja California, Mexico. Madrono. 34(2): 98-127. [6985]
34. Jaynes, Richard A. 1971. Seed germination of six Kalmia species. Journal
of the American Society of Horticultural Science. 96(5): 668-672.
[14606]
35. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
36. Paysen, Timothy E.; Derby, Jeanine A.; Black, Hugh, Jr.; [and others].
1980. A vegetation classification system applied to southern California.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-45. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
33 p. [1849]
37. Philbrick, Ralph N., Haller, J. R. 1977. The southern California
islands. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Malor, Jack, eds. Terrestrial
vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 893-906.
[7210]
38. Pinchot, Gifford. 1908. California swamp pine. Silvical Leaflet 30.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2 p.
[21354]
39. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
40. Shelbourne, C. J. A. 1974. Recent investigations of wood properties and
growth performance in Pinus muricata. New Zealand Journal of Forestry.
19(1): 13-45. [21355]
41. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
42. Thorne, Robert F. 1976. The vascular plant communities of California.
In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of
southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No.
2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 1-31. [3289]
43. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. PLANTS Database, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Producer).
Available: https://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
44. Vogl, Richard J.; Armstrong, Wayne P.; White, Keith L.; Cole, Kenneth L.
1977. The closed-cone pines and cypress. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major,
Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley
and Sons: 295-358. [7219]
45. Wells, Philip V. 1962. Vegetation in relation to geological substratum
and fire in the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, California. Ecological
Monographs. 32(1): 79-103. [14183]
46. Westman, W. E.; Whittaker, R. H. 1975. The pygmy forest region of
northern California: studies on biomass and primary productivity.
Journal of Ecology. 63: 493-520. [8186]
47. Zedler, Paul H. 1986. Closed-cone conifers of the chaparral. Fremontia.
14(3): 14-17. [18648]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/pinmur/all.html
