T
T
T
Treesearch

White pine blister rust resistance in Pinus monticola and P. albicaulis in the Pacific Northwest U.S. – A tale of two species

Informally Refereed
Download (PDF 260 KB): https://research.fs.usda.gov/download/treesearch/44922.pdf

Abstract

Western white pine (Pinus monticola Dougl. ex D. Don) and whitebark pine (P. albicaulis Engelm.) are white pine species with similar latitudinal and longitudinal geographic ranges in Oregon and Washington (figs. 1 and 2). Throughout these areas, whitebark pine generally occurs at higher elevations than western white pine. Both of these long-lived forest tree species are highly susceptible to white pine blister rust, caused by the non-native fungus Cronartium ribicola, and both have suffered extensive mortality in many parts of their range (Aubry et al. 2008, Fins et al. 2001, Geils et al. 2010, Schwandt et al. 2010). The high susceptibility of these two species to blister rust has limited their use in reforestation and restoration. In July 2011, due to multiple threats, including blister rust, whitebark pine was added as a candidate species eligible for protection under the United States Endangered Species Act and assigned a listing priority number of 2, which means the threats are of high magnitude and are imminent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Gene conservation efforts with whitebark pine are underway (Mangold 2011; Sniezko et al. 2011b).

Parent Publication

Citation

Sniezko, Richard A.; Kegley, Angelia; Danchok, Robert. 2012. White pine blister rust resistance in Pinus monticola and P. albicaulis in the Pacific Northwest U.S. – A tale of two species. In: Sniezko, Richard A.; Yanchuk, Alvin D.; Kliejunas, John T.; Palmieri, Katharine M.; Alexander, Janice M.; Frankel, Susan J., tech. coords. Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on the genetics of host-parasite interactions in forestry: Disease and insect resistance in forest trees. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-240. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. pp. 262-266.