Pinus albicaulis - Engelm.
Whitebark Pine
Other Common Names: whitebark pine
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Pinus albicaulis Engelm. (TSN 183311)
French Common Names: pin à écorce blanche
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.128475
Element Code: PGPIN04010
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Conifers and relatives
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Coniferophyta Pinopsida Pinales Pinaceae Pinus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Pinus albicaulis
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3?
Global Status Last Reviewed: 20Mar2018
Global Status Last Changed: 20Mar2018
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Pinus albicaulis occurs in upper subalpine forests of many western North American mountain ranges. It is, however, severely threatened in the majority of its range by introduced white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola), outbreaks of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), succession resulting from decades of fire suppression, climate change resulting in decreases in suitable habitat, and various synergies between these factors. Although a few areas such as the southern Sierra Nevada in California and the interior Great Basin ranges, as well as scattered stands in the rest of the range, still appear to contain large numbers of relatively healthy trees, it is expected that the blister rust will eventually become abundant in the vast majority of the range, causing significant tree mortality. Tree mortality rates exceeding 50% have already been documented in numerous parts of the range. A small percentage (1-5%) of trees appear naturally resistant to the blister rust, and restoration strategies hope to propagate these genotypes for use in restoration, although even rust-resistant trees will remain threatened by other factors. In addition, it has relatively low genetic variation and exists as a fragmentary species, making it more vulnerable than its range might indicate. This is a keystone species of high-elevation western ecosystems whose decline is expected to have cascading effects on ecosystem function and biodiversity.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3?
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3 (27Feb2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States California (SNR), Idaho (S3), Montana (S3), Nevada (S3), Oregon (S3?), Washington (SNR), Wyoming (S3)
Canada Alberta (S3), British Columbia (S2S3)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): C: Candidate (05Dec2014)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R6 - Rocky Mountain
Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (20Jun2012)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (25Apr2010)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This long-lived, five-needled pine is restricted in Canada to high elevations in the mountains of British Columbia and Alberta. White Pine Blister Rust alone is projected to cause a decline of more than 50% over a 100 year time period. The effects of Mountain Pine Beetle, climate change, and fire exclusion will increase the decline rate further. Likely, none of the causes of decline can be reversed. The lack of potential for rescue effect, life history traits such as delayed age at maturity, low dispersal rate, and reliance on dispersal agents all contribute to placing this species at high risk of extirpation in Canada.

Status history: Designated Endangered in April 2010.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Whitebark Pine occurs in subalpine and timberline zones from west-central British Columbia east to west-central Alberta and south to central Idaho, southwestern Wyoming, and southern California (Murray, 2005; Ward et al., 2006). Its distribution is split into two broad sections, one following the Coast and Cascade ranges and the Sierra Nevada, and the other following the northern Rocky Mountains. Scattered populations occur between the two sections in Great Basin regions of eastern Washington and Oregon and northern Nevada (Burns and Honkala, 1990; Fryer, 2002). Although historical sources include Utah in the distribution, more recent workers have not found it to occur there (FNA 1993). The easternmost extent of the species is in the Wind River Range in Wyoming (USFWS 2016). COSEWIC (2010) evaluated current estimates of the extent of occurrence of Pinus albicaulis and found the best estimates to be 190,067 sq km in Canada and 147,000 sq km in the U.S. for a total of 337,067 sq. km. (COSEWIC 2010).

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: In Canada, the area of occupancy of Whitebark Pine is estimated to be 47,972 sq km (COSEWIC 2010).

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Information to delineate and rank individual occurrences throughout the range of Whitebark Pine is lacking. However, based on its range and presence in isolated stands, the number of populations rangewide exceeds 300. The number of extant occurrences in British Columbia is 47 and in Alberta is 730 (NatureServe Network Database as of November 2017). There are 3,517 observations in Montana (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2018). Occurrences are not tracked in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada, and Wyoming as of 2017. Goeking and Izlar (2018) estimated the total area with Whitebark Pine in the western United States covers more than 4 million ha, with the vast majority of this area in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Notably, only 15% of the area with Whitebark Pine was classified as Whitebark Pine forest type; the Lodgepole Pine, Engelmann Spruce/Subalpine Fir, and Subalpine Fir forest types each contain more area than does the Whitebark Pine forest type (Goeking and Izlar 2018).

Population Size Comments: In Canada, the population of Whitebark Pine is estimated to be approximately 200 million (COSEWIC 2010).

Viability/Integrity Comments: In a study of 1,406 inventory plots, California plots had greater than 70% or greater than 90% live basal area of Whitebark Pine, while other U.S. portions of the range had less or far less Whitebark Pine remaining alive; northwestern Montana plots had less than 10% or less than 30% live basal area of Whitebark Pine (Goeking and Izlar 2018).

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: This species is seriously threatened by White Pine Blister Rust (Cronartium ribicola), increases in Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), fire suppression, climate change, and synergistic effects of these factors, there are minor impacts from road-building, development projects, and logging. white pine blister rust is believed to be the greatest threat throughout the range (Fryer, 2002; Murray, 2005; Murray and Rasmussen, 2000; Ward et al., 2006; COSEWIC 2010; USFWS 2016).

WHITE PINE BLISTER RUST: White Pine Blister Rust, a fungal disease caused by the pathogen Cronartium ribicola, was inadvertently introduced to Vancouver, British Columbia in 1910. In most parts of Whitebark Pine's range today, the majority of surveyed stands are declining in condition as a result of blister rust infection. For example, blister rust infection was found in 96% (164 of 170) of surveyed stands in Washington and Oregon (Ward et al. 2006), 83% in Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex in Montana (Keane et al., 1994), "the vast majority" of stands in Alberta, and "all of the regions sampled" during the most recent British Columbia survey (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). Throughout the species' range there are few stands that show no infection (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007).
In general, moist, humid conditions are believed to promote the spread of White Pine Blister Rust and dry conditions to slow it, therefore, increased global warming trends should favor the spread of the disease (see below). Stands that combine high elevation, dry conditions, and a fire regime of non-lethal underburns at long intervals are believed to be some of the healthiest remaining, avoiding the worst impacts of both blister rust and fire suppression; such stands occur mostly in the southern parts of the range in the Rocky Mountains (less than 10% of range) (Keane 1999). Nevertheless, environmental conditions at the extremes of whitebark pine's distribution - including cool temperatures, shorter growing seasons, and greater aridity - that were initially thought to provide some refuge from blister rust infection (e.g. USFWS 1994) are now known to only slow its spread. The epidemic is still spreading into and increasing within environments previously considered inhospitable, and the vast majority of the natural range is now believed to harbor the pathogen (Wars et al. 2006, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007).
The percentage of individual trees infected appears to vary widely throughout the range, with some areas having very high infection (> 90% per Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007) and a few areas believed to have low impacts as yet. The highest infection levels (50-100%) are believed to occur in the northwestern U. S. and southwestern Canada in the northern Rockies and Cascades (Tomback 2002, Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 2006); Tomback (2002) also notes high infection in the intermountain ranges. Ward et al. (2006) state that "there is a high degree of localized variation in the prevalence of blister rust infection...hot spots of higher damage can occur...even in areas of moderate infection." In Oregon and Washington, the average percentage of infected living trees per stand (for stands that had infected treees) ranged from 11% to 95% (Ward et al. 2006). At two locations east of the Continental Divide in the northern Rocky Mountains, Montana, 35% of sampled trees were infected (Resler and Tomback 2008). At four biogeographically variable sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 85% sampled trees were infected (Tinker and Bockino 2007). In Alberta, approximately 60% of sampled trees were infected in the northern region, 16% were infected in the central region, and 73% were infected in the southern region (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). In British Columbia, in 483 stands distributed over the major mountain ranges, forest district levels of infection ranged from 18% to 53% (average 34%) (Zeglen 2002 cited in Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). In contrast, in California, whitebark pine is not believed to be in serious decline in the Sierra or Warner Moutains; T. Keeler-Wolf (pers. comm. 2008) states that "despite the white pine blister rust problem and others [elsewhere in the range], there is still tons of [whitebark pine] in the Sierra and although some has died from disease it is still the most abundant subalpine conifer." A 2002 survey in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in the southern Sierra Nevada documented cankers on few to no trees (Duriscoe and Duriscoe 2002 cited in Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 2006). The interior Great Basin ranges also appear to be minimally impacted by blister rust at this time (Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 2006).
Within each stand, the percentage of dead trees (mortality) from blister rust alone, and from all causes combined, tends to be significantly less than the percentage of infected living trees. Nevertheless, some areas have already experienced substantial (>50%) mortality (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). Furthermore, most mature trees infected with blister rust suffer loss of reproductive potential well before mortality occurs; thus many infected trees are no longer contributing to the maintenance of the population even though they remain alive (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). In Oregon and Washington, the average mortality per stand from all causes ranged from 2% to 41% (Ward et al. 2006). In a study that measured 17 permanent plots in western Montana at two intervals separated by 20 years, there was an average mortality rate of 42% over the 20 year period (Keane and Arno 1993 cited in Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). At four biogeographically variable sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 52% of the whitebark pine sampled were dead from multiple causes (Tinker and Bockino 2007). In southern Alberta, the average mortality in a recent survey was 61%; at eight permanent plots in this region, the mortality rate increased from 26% to 61% between 1996 and 2003. However, mortality is lower in central and northern Alberta (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). In British Columbia, in 483 stands distributed over the major mountain ranges, the range of mortality caused by blister rust was estimated to be between 4% and 22% (average 10%) and the range of mortality from all causes was estimated to be between 6% and 31% (average 19%) (Zeglen 2002 cited in Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007).
Although projections of the future should technically not be considered in evaluating short term trend, it is worth mentioning that several studies have found these to be grim. In Mt. Rainier National Park, Washington, without any management intervention, 150-175 year simulations predict a 65-94% chance of whitebark pine extinction in the Park (Cottone 2001 cited in Ward et al. 2006, Ettl and Cottone 2004 cited in Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). In Crater Lake National Park, an overall decline of 0.4 percent per year for mature trees is predicted, which would lead to a 20 percent reduction in the Park within 50 years (Murray and Rasmussen 2000, 2003 cited in Ward et al. 2006). Murray (2005) predicts 95-99% mortality in Oregon populations due to blister rust.
However, there is some hope for the persistence and recovery of this species since naturally resistant trees have been found at many locations. Natural resistance to white pine blister rust infection is believed to exist in approximately 1-5% of the total whitebark pine population (Keane 1999), although resistant trees are still susceptible to other causes of mortality such as mountain pine beetle attack. Some researchers familiar with the species do expect it to persist, although noting that the structure of stands and the landscape pattern of their distribution may be different than the historical condition.

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE (Dendroctonus ponderosae): Mountain pine beetle is native to western North America and appears to have periods of higher and lower population density over time. For example, between 1909 and 1940 and again from the 1970s to the 1980s, outbreaks of mountain pine beetle killed whitebark pine throughout the U.S. Rocky Mountains (Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 2006). Drought and warmer temperatures in recent years have allowed unprecedented increases in beetle abundance and distribution. The first decade of the 20th century has seen further outbreaks within much of the U.S. range as well as attacks in British Columbia and Alberta of unprecedented scope and severity.
Studies in various parts of whitebark pine's range suggest the severity of impacts. 2006 aerial surveys indicated large-scale outbreaks of beetles in whitebark pine in northern Idaho, west-central and southwestern Montana, and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Gibson 2006 cited in Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 2006). In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the current mountain pine beetle outbreak is unprecedented in scope and severity: more than 700,000 whitebark pines were killed by beetles in 2004 (Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 2006), and at four biogeographically variable sample sites, 70% of whitebark pine were attacked by the beetle (Tinker and Bockino 2007). Observations in 2005 suggested that mountain pine beetle occurrence in whitebark pine is increasing in Oregon and Washington locations as well, such as Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests and Crater Lake National Park (Ward et al. 2006). While whitebark pine losses due to mountain pine beetle in British Columbia and Alberta were relatively minor prior to the 1980s, warming climates have led to an expansion of beetle outbreaks into higher elevation forest containing whitebark pine (Campbell and Antos 2000, Campbell and Carroll 2007 cited in BC CDC 2008). In the 1980s outbreak, the beetle is believed to have affected a large decrease (30-40%) in mature whitebark pine canopy cover in southern Alberta. In British Columbia, 2007 aerial surveys indicated widespread beetle infestations and tree death, with about 7% of BC forests containing whitebark pine infested (Campbell and Carroll 2007 cited in BC CDC 2008) and impacts expanding into Alberta. This epidemic is projected to continue over the next few years (BC CDC 2008). A small percentage of whitebark pine trees (3-5%) appear able to resist mountain pine beetle attack (BC CDC 2008).
As of 2016, mountain pine beetle predation is less than in recent years, however, since epidemics are cyclical and climatic conditions increasingly favorable to the beetle, it is anticipated that future outbreaks will be more frequent and severe (USFWS 2016).

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND SUCCESSIONAL REPLACEMENT: Prior to about 1930, the replacement of whitebark pine by later successional species such as spruce and fir was usually interrupted by naturally occurring fires. However, decades of fire suppression have allowed spruce and fir to become dominant in many forests that were historically dominated by whitebark pine. This threat appears to be particularly significant in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States and the intermountain region (Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 2006), and in moister areas at lower elevations (Ward et al. 2006). Whitebark pine survives low severity fires better than its competitors because it has thicker bark, thinner crowns, and deeper roots. It is also well-adapted to recolonizing burned areas, as its seed disperser, Clark's nutcracker, appears to prefer open sites for seed caching (Keane 1999). Prescribed burn to control blister rust often results in reinfected trees returning in greater numbers that regenerate more slowly than non-infected trees (Tomback et al., 1995).

CLIMATE CHANGE: Major reductions in habitat suitable for this subalpine species are expected as the climate warms (BC CDC 2008). Modeling mostly predicts a decline in whitebark pine due to global increases in temperature and more frequent summer droughts (Mattson et al., 2001; McCaughey and Tomback, 2001). Climate modeling for Yellowstone National Park predicts that independent of other agents of decline such as blister rust, whitebark pine is the most at-risk conifer in the Park due to drying conditions in high-elevation habitats (Bartlein et al., 1997). However, impact of climate change on whitebark pine is inconclusive: Keane et al. (1996) and others predict expansion of whitebark pine in Glacier National Park due to more frequent fire return intervals resulting from global warming. Increased global temperature makes the species more vulnerable to fungus such as blister rust (Murray, 2005).

SYNERGIES: Numerous studies have found that whitebark pine trees stressed by blister rust are more susceptible to attack by mountain pine beetle. Mortality from the combination of blister rust and mountain pine beetle has apparently exceeded 50% in areas including Glacier National Park, northwestern Montana, north-central Idaho, and northern Washington, and mortality is increasing rapidly in the Cascades and Sierra Nevada Range (Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 2006). Furthermore, the significant threat from both white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle threatens the success of restoration strategies based on cultivating tree resistant to either threat alone (Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 2006). In addition, the tendency of both of these agents to kill mature, reproductive trees accelerates successional replacement processes resulting from fire suppression; and fire suppression itself is believed to have an inhibitory effect on whitebark pine's recovery from major beetle outbreaks (Keane 1999). Finally, climate change interacts significantly with the mountain pine beetle threat, as warmer temperatures increase he proportion of whitebark pine's range vulnerable to beetle attack (BC CDC 2008). Warmer temperatures also appear to permit the beetle to complete its life cycle more quickly (i.e. in one year) and to make summer dispersal flights more dependably (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). Logging has been noted as a threat in British Columbia; while it is not a significant threat on its own, since it occurs in healthy stands it reduces the number of intact stands as yet minimally affected by other threats, which may be important for future survival (E. Campbell, pers. comm., 2007 cited in BC CDC 2008).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 50-70%
Short-term Trend Comments: Whitebark Pine is declining at an unprecedented rate. In the U.S., the percentage of dead whitebark pine trees has increased greatly between the 1990s and 2016, from less than 25% to 51%. (Goeking and Izlar 2018). The size-class distribution of whitebark pine trees, in the U.S., is shifting toward the smallest size classes (Keane et al. 2017). Shepherd et al. (2018) found that in the Canadian Rocky and Columbia Mountains, blister rust infection is high in the southern and western areas and that the conditions required for blister rust infection exist throughout the region. "A rough estimate for the decline of the entire Canadian population of whitebark pine can be made using the estimated number of mature trees (198.3 million), a mean rust infection level of 38% of mature trees (Zeglan 2002, Smith et al. 2009), and a mortality rate of 21% of infected mature trees/decade, i.e. % trees with stem canker (Ainsley 2009, Smith et al. 2009) which causes death within 10 years (Hunt 1991). This estimate indicates a 57% population decline in 100 years." (COSEWIC 2010).

In northern Idaho, Tomback et al. (1995) observed 29% of regeneration trees following a prescribed burn were infected once again with blister rust. Keane et al. (1994) noted 22% of Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, Montana with high mortality, and 39% with moderate mortality, due to blister rust. Keane et al. (1996) and others estimated a 45% decline in whitebark pine cover types in the Columbia River Basin and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex of Montana. Ironically, whitebark pine decline is greatest on seral sites, where its productivity was historically best. The area occupied by seral whitebark pine has plummeted 98% (Keane et al., 1996; Fryer, 2002). Agents causing major whitebark pine mortality include white pine blister rust, successional replacement, bark beetles, fire, root diseases, and weather (drought, high temperatures). In Oregon, Murray (2005) anticipates 95-99% mortality of trees infected with blister rust. In Oregon's Crater Lake National Park, blister rust infects up to 20% of whitebark pine and Murray and Rasmussen (2000) predict 46% decline by 2050. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks have erupted leading to noticeable loss of whitebark pine in the southern Cascades (Murray, 2005). Introduced white pine blister rust, increases in mountain pine beetle, fire suppression, climate change, and their synergistic effects are causing significant ongoing declines in this species.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-90%
Long-term Trend Comments: The decline in Whitebark Pine populations likely began sometime after the 1910 introduction White Pine Blister Rust (USFWS 2016).

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: This species grows slowly and takes considerable time to reach sexual maturity: trees start producing cones when 25-30 years old and do not produce sizable cone crops until 60-80 years old (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). It also has a high degree of dependence on one bird species, Clark's nutcracker, for dispersal and recruitment (BC CDC 2008). Whitebark Pine appears to be the only North American pine (Pinaceae) with a seed bank. Due to seed caching by Clark's nutcrackers and delayed seed germination, whitebark pine may show good seedling establishment even if the previous year's cone crop was poor. Studies conducted after the 1988 fires on the Gallatin National Forest and Yellowstone National Park found that germination rates of natural regeneration were greatest 2 years after good cone crops (Fryer, 2002). Whitebark Pine seedlings are generally considered hardy after their 1st few weeks of life (Tomback et al., 2001; Arno and Raymond, 1990). Measures of genetic diversity differed markedly among the studies and depended on the type of genetic marker used (isozyme or DNA) and the statistic reported. Using isozymes, Jorgensen and Hamrick (1997) found low expected heterozygosity both within populations (from 0.07 to 0.109 in Washington and Oregon) and within the species as a whole (0.102); reporting very low genetic diversity compared to other pines, including other stone pines, at both the population and the species level. In contrast, isozyme data in Krakowski et al. (2003) yielded expected heterozygosity of 0.257 in the species overall and 0.260 in one population from Washington. These measures fall midrange among reported values for pine species. Using chloroplast (cp)DNA, Richardson et al. (2002) found very high values for gene diversity, the haploid equivalent of expected heterozygosity; where gene diversity was 0.928 for the northern Cascades and 0.915 for southern Oregon. Estimates for genetic differentiation among populations were low to moderate in all studies from the region, and suggesting that most genetic variation in whitebark pine is found within populations. These measures of genetic differentiation are low compared to other pine species, but especially low for a species with a fragmented distribution (Ward et al., 2006). Significant levels of inbreeding were documented in whitebark pine (Jorgensen and Hamrick, 1997; Krakowski et al., 2003), which may increase the susceptibility of populations to blister rust. Evidence of slight genetic divergence between the eastern and western regions of whitebark pine's range was revealed using both isozymes (Jorgensen and Hamrick, 1997) and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (Richardson et al. 2002).

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Whitebark Pine survivorship is generally considered best on burns (Fryer, 2002), however, given open conditions and mineral soil, seedlings may show good survivorship on a variety of sites. Two strategies allow whitebark pine to survive in fire-prone ecosystems: survival of large and refugia trees, and postfire seedling establishment facilitated by Clark's nutcrackers. Mature whitebark pine survive low-severity surface fire. Moderate-severity surface fire kills the majority of mature trees. Severe surface and crown fires kill even the largest whitebark pine (Keane and Arno, 1993; Fryer, 2002). Plant life at timberline is challenged by poorly developed soils, heavy snowfall, a short growing season, ice storms, and ferocious winds; and several physical traits permit whitebark pine to endure a harsh environment - flexible branchlets shed snow, stout stems, and well anchored root systems (Murray, 2005). Although well-adapted to surviving at timberline, whitebark pine is not a strong competitor with other trees because of its relative shade intolerance and slow growth (Murray, 2005).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Whitebark Pine occurs in subalpine and timberline zones from west-central British Columbia east to west-central Alberta and south to central Idaho, southwestern Wyoming, and southern California (Murray, 2005; Ward et al., 2006). Its distribution is split into two broad sections, one following the Coast and Cascade ranges and the Sierra Nevada, and the other following the northern Rocky Mountains. Scattered populations occur between the two sections in Great Basin regions of eastern Washington and Oregon and northern Nevada (Burns and Honkala, 1990; Fryer, 2002). Although historical sources include Utah in the distribution, more recent workers have not found it to occur there (FNA 1993). The easternmost extent of the species is in the Wind River Range in Wyoming (USFWS 2016). COSEWIC (2010) evaluated current estimates of the extent of occurrence of Pinus albicaulis and found the best estimates to be 190,067 sq km in Canada and 147,000 sq km in the U.S. for a total of 337,067 sq. km. (COSEWIC 2010).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, WY
Canada AB, BC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
ID Adams (16003), Blaine (16013), Boise (16015), Bonner (16017), Bonneville (16019), Boundary (16021), Butte (16023), Camas (16025), Caribou (16029)*, Cassia (16031), Clark (16033), Clearwater (16035), Custer (16037), Elmore (16039), Franklin (16041), Fremont (16043), Idaho (16049), Latah (16057), Lemhi (16059), Nez Perce (16069), Shoshone (16079), Teton (16081), Valley (16085), Washington (16087)
MT Beaverhead (30001), Broadwater (30007), Carbon (30009), Cascade (30013), Deer Lodge (30023), Fergus (30027), Flathead (30029), Gallatin (30031), Glacier (30035), Granite (30039), Jefferson (30043), Judith Basin (30045), Lake (30047), Lewis and Clark (30049), Liberty (30051), Lincoln (30053), Madison (30057), Meagher (30059), Mineral (30061), Missoula (30063), Park (30067), Pondera (30073), Powell (30077), Ravalli (30081), Sanders (30089), Silver Bow (30093), Stillwater (30095), Sweet Grass (30097), Teton (30099), Toole (30101), Wheatland (30107)
NV Carson City (32510), Douglas (32005), Elko (32007), Humboldt (32013), Lyon (32019), Mineral (32021)*, Storey (32029), Washoe (32031)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
09 St. Marys (09040001)+, Belly (09040002)+
10 Red Rock (10020001)+, Beaverhead (10020002)+, Ruby (10020003)+, Big Hole (10020004)+, Jefferson (10020005)+, Boulder (10020006)+, Madison (10020007)+, Gallatin (10020008)+, Upper Missouri (10030101)+, Upper Missouri-Dearborn (10030102)+, Smith (10030103)+, Sun (10030104)+, Belt (10030105)+, Two Medicine (10030201)+, Cut Bank (10030202)+, Marias (10030203)+, Willow (10030204)+, Teton (10030205)+, Judith (10040103)+, Upper Musselshell (10040201)+, Flatwillow (10040203)+*, Milk Headwaters (10050001)+, Upper Milk (10050002)+, Sage (10050006)+, Yellowstone Headwaters (10070001)+, Upper Yellowstone (10070002)+, Shields (10070003)+, Stillwater (10070005)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Upper Wind (10080001)+, North Fork Shoshone (10080012)+
14 Upper Green (14040101)+, New Fork (14040102)+, Blacks Fork (14040107)+
16 Little Bear-Logan (16010203)+, Upper Humboldt (16040101)+, Lower Quinn (16040202)+, Thousand-Virgin (16040205)+, Lake Tahoe (16050101)+, Truckee (16050102)+, Upper Carson (16050201)+, Middle Carson (16050202)+, West Walker (16050302)+, Walker Lake (16050304)+*, Long-Ruby Valleys (16060007)+*
17 Upper Kootenai (17010101)+, Fisher (17010102)+, Yaak (17010103)+, Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Moyie (17010105)+, Elk (17010106)+, Upper Clark Fork (17010201)+, Flint-Rock (17010202)+, Blackfoot (17010203)+, Middle Clark Fork (17010204)+, Bitterroot (17010205)+, North Fork Flathead (17010206)+, Middle Fork Flathead (17010207)+, Flathead Lake (17010208)+, South Fork Flathead (17010209)+, Stillwater (17010210)+, Swan (17010211)+, Lower Flathead (17010212)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Priest (17010215)+, Pend Oreille (17010216)+, Upper Coeur D'alene (17010301)+, South Fork Coeur D'alene (17010302)+, St. Joe (17010304)+, Snake headwaters (17040101)+, Gros Ventre (17040102)+, Greys-Hobock (17040103)+, Palisades (17040104)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Teton (17040204)+, Blackfoot (17040207)+*, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Raft (17040210)+, Goose (17040211)+, Salmon Falls (17040213)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Medicine Lodge (17040215)+, Birch (17040216)+, Little Lost (17040217)+, Big Lost (17040218)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Camas (17040220)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Upper Owyhee (17050104)+*, South Fork Owyhee (17050105)+*, North and Middle Forks Boise (17050111)+, South Fork Boise (17050113)+, South Fork Payette (17050120)+, Middle Fork Payette (17050121)+, Payette (17050122)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Weiser (17050124)+, Brownlee Reservoir (17050201)+, Hells Canyon (17060101)+, Upper Salmon (17060201)+, Pahsimeroi (17060202)+, Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203)+, Lemhi (17060204)+, Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205)+, Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206)+, Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207)+, South Fork Salmon (17060208)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Little Salmon (17060210)+, Upper Selway (17060301)+, Lower Selway (17060302)+, Lochsa (17060303)+, South Fork Clearwater (17060305)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Upper North Fork Clearwater (17060307)+, Lower North Fork Clearwater (17060308)+
18 Honey-Eagle Lakes (18080003)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Duration: BIENNIAL, EVERGREEN
Reproduction Comments: Whitebark pine has large, wingless, nutrient-rich seeds that remain in the indehiscent cone after maturity. It is not adapted for wind dissemination and is almost entirely dependent on Clark's nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) for successful dispersal and reproduction (Flora of North America, 1993; Lanner, 1982; Burns and Honkala, 1990; Murray, 2005). Nutcrackers feed almost exclusively on whitebark pine seeds when they are available and store the seeds for year-round use. With a full pouch of seeds, nutcrackers fly to a suitable site and cache clusters of up to 15 seeds 2-3 cm below the soil surface. The birds have been observed traveling anywhere from several hundred meters to over 10 km to cache seeds (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007). Various mammals (red squirrel, black bear, grizzly bear, chipmunk, golden-mantled ground squirrel, deer mice) also transport and cache seeds (Hutchins and Lanner, 1982; Tomback, 1978), but not nearly to the extent of the Clark's nutcracker. Trees do not reach full cone production until 60 to 100 years of age on most sites (Lewis, 1971; McCaughey and Tomback, 2001). Peak cone production extends for another 250 years, then gradually declines. Whitebark pines may live over 1,000 years (Mahalovich and Stritch 2013).
Ecology Comments: Generation time is long; trees generally start producing cones when 25-30 years old, start producing sizable cone crops when 60-80 years old, and can live to be over 500 years old (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2007).
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Alpine, Forest - Conifer, Forest/Woodland, Woodland - Conifer
Habitat Comments: Within montane forests and on thin, rocky, cold soils at or near timberline. 1300 - 3700 m (Flora of North America 1993). In moist mountain ranges, whitebark pine is most abundant on warm, dry exposures; but in semiarid ranges, it becomes prevalent on cool exposures and moist sites (Burns and Honkala, 1990). Although its role in the plant community is changing, whitebark pine historically dominated many of the upper subalpine plant communities of the western United States and was a major component of subalpine forests in the northern Rocky Mountains, the northern Cascades, the Blue Mountains, and the Sierra Nevada. It comprises 10 to 15% of total forest cover in the northern Rocky Mountains (Fryer, 2002). It was a minor component of subalpine forests in British Columbia and Alberta, and showed scattered occurrence on the Olympic Peninsula, the southern Cascades and other ranges of southern Oregon and upper northern California, and in northern Nevada (Burns and Honkala, 1990). At high elevations, krummholz whitebark pine communities merge into alpine vegetation. At mid-elevation, whitebark pine communities merge into mixed-conifer forests (Burns and Honkala, 1990). Most whitebark pine stands grow on weakly developed (immature) soils. Many of the sites were covered by extensive mountain glaciers during the Pleistocene and have been released from glacial ice for less than 12,000 years (62); and chemical weathering is retarded by the short, cool, summer season. Throughout its distribution, whitebark pine is often found on soils lacking fine material (Burns and Honkala, 1990).
Economic Attributes
Help
Economically Important Genus: Y
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Continue monitoring, restoration, and research efforts across the species' range.  Specific recommendations include continue aerial monitoring surveys, proactive reforestation such as planting rust-resistant seedlings, tree protection methods against mountain pine beetle, prescribed burning and fuels treatments, thinning of shade-tolerant competitors, data collection efforts, and genetic study and conservation (USFWS 2016; Mahalovich and Stritch 2013; COSEWIC 2010; Keane et al. 2017).
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 15Mar2018
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Morse, Larry E. (2000), rev. K. Gravuer (2008), rev. J. Cordeiro (2010), rev. A. Tomaino (2018)
Management Information Edition Date: 15Mar2018
Management Information Edition Author: Tomaino, A. (2018)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 22Nov2010
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2007. Status of the Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Wildlife Status Report No. 63, Edmonton, AB. 22 pp. Online. Available: http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/status/pdf/Whitebark_Pine_Status_Report63_WEB.pdf (Accessed 2008)

  • Andersen, M.D. 2011. HUC10-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2008 . Conservation Status Report: Pinus albicaulis. B.C. Ministry of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (Accessed September 2008).

  • Bailey, D.K. 1975. Pinus albicaulis. Curtis's Botanical Magazine 180(111):140-147.

  • Bartlein, P.J., C. Whitlock, and S.L. Shafer. 1997. Future climate in the Yellowstone National Park region and its potential impact on vegetation. Conservation Biology 11(3):782-792.

  • Billings, W.D. 1951. Vegetational zonation in the Great Basin of western North America. Union of International Science: Biological Series B. 9:101-122.

  • Bruederle, L.P., D.F. Tomback, K.K. Kelly, and R.C. Hardwick. 1998. Population genetic structure in a bird-dispersed pine, Pinus albicaulis (Pinaceae). Canadian Journal of Botany 7:83-90.

  • Bruederle, L.P., D.L. Roger, K.V. Krutovskii, and D.V. Politov. 2001. Population genetics and evolutionary implications. Pages 137-157 in D.F. Tomback, S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane (eds.) Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Island Press: Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Burns, R. M., and B. H. Honkala, eds. 1990. Silvics of North America, vol. 1: Conifers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 654, Washington, DC. 675 pp.

  • COSEWIC. 2010c. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Whitebark Pine Pinus albicaulis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 44 pp.(www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

  • Campbell, E.M. and A. Carroll. 2007. Climate-related changes in the vulnerability of whitebark pine to mountain pine beetle outbreaks in British Columbia. Nutcracker Notes 12: 13-15.

  • Campbell, E.M. and J. Antos. 2003. Postfire succession in Pinus albicaulis - Abies lasiocarpa forests of southern British Columbia. Can. J. Bot. 81: 383-397.

  • Campbell, E.M., and J. A. Antos. 2000. Distribution and severity of white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle on whitebark pine in British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 30: 1051-1059.

  • Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2006. Wild species 2005: the general status of species in Canada. National General Status Working Group. Available oneline at: <http://www.wildspecies.ca>.

  • Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2011. Wild species 2010: the general status of species in Canada. National General Status Working Group. Available online at: <http://www.wildspecies.ca>.

  • Chang T., A.J. Hansen, and N. Piekielek. 2014. Patterns and variability of projected bioclimatic habitat for Pinus albicaulis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. PLoS ONE 9(11): 1-14.

  • Charlet, D. A. 1996. Atlas of Nevada conifers. Reno: University of Nevada Press. 320 pages.

  • Chourmouzis, C. A. D. Yanchuk, A. Hamann, P. Smets, and S.N. Aitken. 2009. Forest Tree Genetic Conservation Status Report 1 In Situ Conservation Status of All Indigenous British Columbia Species. TECHNICAL REPORT 053. Ministry of Forests and Range Forest Science Program.

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Whitebark Pine Pinus albicaulis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 44 pp.

  • Douglas, G.W., G.D. Straley, and D. Meidinger, eds. 1998b. Illustrated Flora of British Columbia, Vol. 1, Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons (Aceraceae through Asteraceae). B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch, and B.C. Minist. For. Res. Program. 436pp.

  • Evert, E. F. 2010. Vascular Plants of the Greater Yellowstone Area: Annotated Catalog and Atlas. Park Ridge, IL.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993a. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 2. Pteridophytes and gymnosperms. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xvi + 475 pp.

  • Fryer, J.L. 2002. Pinus albicaulis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (accessed 22 November 2010).

  • Goeking, S.A., and D.K. Izlar. 2018. Pinus albicaulis Engelm. (whitebark pine) in mixed-species stands throughout Its US Range: broad-scale indicators of extent and recent decline. Forests 9(3): 131, 16 pp.

  • Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group. 2016. Monitoring whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: 2015 annual report. Natural Resource Report NPS/GRYN/NRR?2016/1146. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 13 pp.

  • Haeussler, S., A. Woods, K. White, E. Campbell and P. LePage. 2009. Do whitebark pine - lichen ecosystems of west central British Columbia display tipping point behaviour in response to cumulative stress? Bulkley Valley Research Centre Research Report, Smithers, BC. 23 p. Online. Accessed: http://bvcentre.ca/files/research_reports/09- 06WhitebarkPineReportOct29-09.pdf (3 May 2011).

  • Hamann, A., and T. Wang. 2006. Potential effects of climate change on ecosystem and tree species distribution in British Columbia. Ecology 87 (11) Pp 27732786.

  • Hansen, A., K. Ireland, K. Legg, R. Keane, E. Barge, M. Jenkins, and M. Pillet. 2016. Complex challenges of maintaining whitebark pine in Greater Yellowstone under climate change: a call for innovative research, management, and policy approaches. Forests 7(54): 1-28.

  • Hoff, R., R.T. Bingham and G.I. McDonald. 1980. Relative blister rust resistance of white pines. Eur. J. For. Pathol. 10: 307-316.

  • Hunt, R.S. 1991. Operational control of white pine blister rust by removal of lower branches. Forestry Chronicle 67: 284-287.

  • Hutchins, H.E. and R.M. Lanner. 1982. The central role of Clark's nutcracker in the dispersal and establishment of whitebark pine. Oecologia 55:192-201.

  • Intermountain Research Station. 1990. Proceedings - symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report INT-270: 386 pp.

  • Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2018. Jepson eFlora. Online. Available: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html (accessed 2018).

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

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996.

  • Keane, R. E. 1999. Whitebark pine: A declining high mountain tree species. Sage Notes [Idaho Native Plant Society] 21(2): 6-9.

  • Keane, R.E., D.F. Tomback, C.A. Aubry, A.D. Bower, E.M. Campbell, C.L. Cripps, M.B. Jenkins, M.F. Mahalovich, M. Manning, S.T. McKinney, M.P. Murray, D.L. Perkins, D.P. Reinhart, C. Ryan, A.W. Schoettle, and C.M. Smith. 2012. A range-wide restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-279. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p.

  • Keane, R.E., L.M. Holsinger, M.R. Mahalovich, and D.F. Tomback. 2017. Evaluation of future success of whitebark pine ecosystem restoration under climate change using simulation modelling. Restoration Ecology 25(2): 220-233.

  • Keane, R.E., P. Morgan, and J.P. Menakis. 1994. Landscape assessment of the decline of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, Montana, USA. Northwest Science 68(3):213-229.

  • Keane, R.E., P. Morgan, and S.W. Running. 1996. FIRE-BGC - a mechanistic ecological process model for simulating fire succession on coniferous forest landscapes of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Research Paper INT-RP-484, Report to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 122 pp.

  • Keane, R.E., and S.F. Arno. 1993. Rapid decline of whitebark pine in western Montana: evidence from 20-year remeasurements. West. J. Appl. For. 8: 44-47.

  • Krajina, V. J., K. Klinka and J. Worral. 1982. Distribution and ecological characteristics of trees and shrubs of British Columbia. UBC Faculty of Forestry. 131 pp.

  • Krakowski, J., S.N. Aitken, and Y.A. El-Kassaby. 2003. Inbreeding and conservation genetics in whitebark pine. Conservation Genetics 4:581-593.

  • Lanner, R.M. 1982. Adaptations of whitebark pine for seed dispersal by Clark's nutcracker. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 12:391-402.

  • Lanner, R.M. 1996. Made for each other: a symbiosis of birds and pines. Oxford, New York.

  • Lewis, M.E. 1971. Flora and major plant communities of the Ruby-East Humboldt Mountains with special emphasis on Lamoille Canyon. Elko, Nevada. Unpublished report to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 4, Humboldt National Forest, Ogden, Utah. 62 pp.

  • Little, E.L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agriculture Handbook No. 541. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 375 pp.

  • Mahalovich, M., and L. Stritch. 2013. Pinus albicaulis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013.

  • Mattson D.J. and C. Jonkel. 1990. Stone pines and bears. Pages 29-31 in W. C. Schmidt and K. J. MacDonald, eds. Proceedings of a symposium on: Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: Ecology and Management of a High Mountain Resource. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270.

  • Mattson, D.J., K.C. Kendall, and D.P. Reinhart. 2001. Whitebark pine, grizzly bears, and red squirrels. Pages 121-136 in D.F. Tomback, S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane (eds.) Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Island Press: Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • McCaughey, W.W. and D.F. Tomback. 2001. The natural regeneration process. Pages 105-120 in D.F. Tomback, S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane (eds.) Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Island Press: Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Meyer, M.D., B. Bulaon, M. MacKenzie, and H.D. Safford. 2016. Mortality, structure, and regeneration in whitebark pine stands impacted by mountain pine beetle in the southern Sierra Nevada. Can. J. For. Res. 46: 572?581.

  • Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2018. Montana Field Guide. Online. Available: http://fieldguide.mt.gov (Accessed 2018).

  • Murray, M. 2005. Our threatened timberlines: The plight of whitebark pine ecosystems. Kalmiopsis 12:25-29.

  • Murray, M.P. and M. Rasmussen. 2000. Status of whitebark pine in Crater Lake National Park. Unpublished Final Report, Cooperative Cost-Share Agreement No. H9320000035. U.S. Department of Interior, Park Service, Crater Lake National Park, Resource Management Division. 13 pp.

  • Murray, M.P., and J. Siderius. 2018. Historic frequency and severity of fire in whitebark pine forests of the Cascade Mountain Range, USA. Forests  9(3): 78, 10 pp.

  • Resler, L. M. and D. F. Tomback. 2008. Blister rust prevalence in krummholz whitebark pine: Implications for treeline dynamics, northern Rocky Mountains, Montana, U.S.A. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 40(1): 161-170.

  • Richardson, B.A., S.J. Brunsfeld, and N.B. Klopfenstein. 2002. DNA from bird-dispersed seed and wind-disseminated pollen provides insights into postglacial colonization and population genetic structure of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Molecular Ecology 11:215-227.

  • Schrag, A.M., A. G. Bunn, and L. J. Graumlich. 2007. Influence of bioclimatic variables on tree-line conifer distribution in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: implications for species of conservation concern. Journal of Biogeography. In press.

  • Shepherd, B., B. Jones, R. Sissons, J. Cochrane, J. Park, C.M. Smith, and N. Stafl. 2018. Ten years of monitoring illustrates a cascade of effects of white pine blister rust and focuses whitebark pine restoration in the Canadian Rocky and Columbia Mountains. Forests 9(3): 138, 18 pp.

  • Smith, C.M., B. Wilson, S. Rasheed, R.C. Walker, T. Carolin, and B. Shepherd. 2008. Whitebark pine and white pine blister rust in the Rocky Mountains of Canada and northern Montana. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 982-995.

  • Thompson, L.S. and J. Kuijt. 1976. Montane and subalpine plants of the Sweetgrass Hills, Montana, and their relationship to early post-glacial environments of the Northern Great Plains. Canadian Field Naturalist 90(4):432-448.

  • Tinker, D. B. and N. K. Bockino. 2007. Blister rust severity and stand composition influence whitebark pine susceptibility to selection by mountain pine beetle in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Abstract of presentation at Contributed Session 94: Plant-insect interactions, Ecological Restoration in a Changing World: Ecological Society of America/Society for Ecological Restoration Joint Meeting, August 5-10, 2007, San Jose, California. Online. Available: http://eco.confex.com/eco/2007/techprogram/P6212.HTM (Accessed 2008)

  • Tomback, D. 2002. Rapid decline of whitebark pine communities: Ecological implications. Mountain Science Highlights 7. Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia. Online. Available: http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/Portals/54/docs/screen-pdfs/07-mountain-science-whitebark-pine-view.pdf (Accessed 2008)

  • Tomback, D. F., S. F. Arno, and R. E. Keane, editors. 2001. Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and restoration. Island Press. Washington, DC. 440 pp.

  • Tomback, D. and K. Kendall. 2001. Biodiversity losses: the downward spiral. Pages 254-266 in D. F. Tomback, S. F. Arno, and R. E. Keane, eds. Whitebark pine communities: ecology and restoration. Island Press. Washington, DC.

  • Tomback, D.F. 1978. Foraging strategies of Clark's nutcracker. Living Bird 16(1977):123-160.

  • Tomback, D.F., A.J. Anderies, K.S. Carsey, M.L. Powell, and S. Mellmann-Brown. 2001. Delayed seed germination in whitebark pine and regeneration patterns following the Yellowstone fires. Ecology 82(9):2587-2600.

  • Tomback, D.F., J.K. Clary, J. Koehler, R.T. Hoff, and S.F. Arno. 1995. The effects of blister rust on post-fire regeneration fo whitebark pine: The Sundance Burn of northern Idaho. Conservation Biology 9(3):654-664.

  • Tomback, D.F., S.C. Blakeslee, A.C. Wagner, M.B. Wunder, L.M. Resler, J.C. Pyatt, and S. Diaz. 2016. Whitebark pine facilitation at treeline: potential interactions for disruption by an invasive pathogen. Ecology and Evolution 6(15): 5144-5157.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of Finding on a Petition to Add Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) to the List of Threatened and Endangered Species. Federal Register 59(18): 3824-3825.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form for Pinus albicaulis. Region 6 (Mountain-Prairie Region) Fish and Wildlife Office.

  • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1999. Digital representation of "Atlas of United States Trees" by Elbert L. Little, Jr.: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1650. Online. Available: http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/data/atlas/little/ (Accessed 2008)

  • Ward, K., R. Shoal, and C. Aubry. 2006. Whitebark pine in Washington and Oregon: A synthesis of current studies and historical data. Pacific Northwest Albicaulis Project. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. February 2006. Online. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/genetics/publications/detail/pub0601 (Accessed 2008)

  • Warwell, M., G.E. Rehfeldt and N. Crookston. 2006. Modeling contemporary climate profiles of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) and predicting responses to global warming. Proc. of the Conference on Whitebark pine: A Pacific Coast Perspective.

  • Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation. 2006. Why we are concerned about the future of whitebark pine. Online. Available: http://www.whitebarkfound.org/threats.html (Accessed 2008)

  • Zeglen, S. 2002. Whitebark pine and white pine blister rust in British Columbia, Canada. Can. J. of Forest Res. 32: 1264-1274.

  • Zeglen, S. 2002. Whitebark pine and white pine blister rust in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 1264-1274.

  • van de Gevel, S.L., E.R. Larson, and H.D. Grissino-Mayer. 2017. Separating trends in whitebark pine radial growth related to climate and mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Forests 8(6): 195,  14 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.