Articles on this page are available in 1 other language: Spanish (9) (learn more)

Overview

Distribution

Range Description

Recorded from the western USA (coastal California; incl. Santa Cruz Island and Santa Rosa Island) and from Mexico (Baja California Norte).
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Unknown/Undetermined

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Unknown/Undetermined

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: California endemic known only from Santa Cruz Island and a small portion of adjacent mainland Santa Barbara County.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Unknown/Undetermined

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Unknown/Undetermined

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: Coastal California from Humboldt Co. southward, with a few stands in northwestern Mexico.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Bishop pine occurs in disjunct populations in coastal 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].
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 28. Metcalf, Woodbridge. 1921. Notes on the bishop pine (Pinus muricata). Journal of Forestry. 19(8): 886-902. [21352]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Regional Distribution in the Western United States

More info on this topic.

This species can be found in the following regions of the western United States (according to the Bureau of Land Management classification of Physiographic Regions of the western United States):

3 Southern Pacific Border

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Occurrence in North America

CA MEXICO

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Morphology

Description

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].
  • 35. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
  • 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]
  • 11. Evarts, Bill. 1986. Torrey pines: resurrection or remission. Environment Southwest. 514: 3-8. [5602]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Tree, Evergreen, Monoecious, Habit erect, Trees without or rarely having knees, Tree with bark rough or scaly, Young shoots 3-dimensional, Buds resinous, Leaves needle-like, Leaves alternate, Needle-like leaf margins finely serrulate (use magnification or slide your finger along the leaf), Leaf apex acute, Leaves > 5 cm long, Leaves < 10 cm long, Leaves yellow-green above, Leaves yellow-green below, Leaves not blue-green, Leaves white-striped, Needle-like leaves triangular, Needle-like leaves twisted, Needle-like leaf habit erect, Needle-like leaves per fascicle mostly 2, Needle-like leaf sheath persistent, Twigs glabrous, Twigs viscid, Twigs not viscid, Twigs without peg-like projections or large fascicles after needles fall, Berry-like cones orange, Woody seed cones < 5 cm long, Woody seed cones > 5 cm long, Seed cones bearing a scarlike umbo, Umbo with obvious prickle, Bracts of seed cone included, Seeds brown, Seeds black, Seeds winged, Seeds unequally winged, Seed wings prominent, Seed wings equal to or broader than body.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

Stephen C. Meyers

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Description

Trees to 24m; trunk to 0.9m diam., straight to contorted; crown becoming rounded, flattened, or irregular. Bark dark gray, deeply furrowed, ridges long, scaly-plated. Branches spreading-ascending, often contorted; twigs stout to slender, orange-brown, aging darker brown, rough. Buds ovoid-cylindric, dark brown, 1--2.5cm, resinous. Leaves 2 per fascicle, spreading to upcurved, persisting 2--3 years, 8--15cm ´ (1.2--)1.5(--2)mm, slightly twisted, dark yellow-green, all surfaces with stomatal lines, margins strongly serrulate, apex abruptly conic-acute; sheath to 1.5cm, base persistent. Pollen cones ellipsoid, to 5mm, orange. Seed cones maturing in 3 years, serotinous, long-persistent, mostly in whorls, mostly asymmetric, lanceoloid-ovoid before opening, curved-ovoid when open, 4--9cm, glossy bright to pale red-brown, sessile or on stalks to 1cm, mostly downcurved, scales with deep red-brown border distally on adaxial surface; apophyses much thickened, the abaxial ones progressively more angulately dome-shaped toward base of cone; umbo central, a stout-based, curved claw. Seeds obliquely ellipsoid; body 6--7mm, dark brown to near black; wing 15--20mm. 2 n =24.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Diagnostic Description

Synonym

Pinus muricata var. borealis Axelrod; P. muricata var. cedrosensis J.T. Howell; P. muricata var. stantonii Axelrod; P. radiata var. binata (Engelmann) Brewer & S.Watson; P. remorata H.Mason
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Type Information

Isotype for Pinus muricata var. borealis Axelrod ex Farjon
Catalog Number: US 2969341
Collection: Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Botany
Preparation: Pressed specimen
Collector(s): D. Axelrod
Year Collected: 1983
Locality: Vicinity of Salt point, state highway 1., Sonoma, California, United States, North America
  • Isotype: Farjon, A. K. 1993. Regnum Veg. 128: 136.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Botany

Source: National Museum of Natural History Collections

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Habitat and Ecology

Habitat and Ecology
Pinus muricata occurs from near sea-level to ca. 300 m a.s.l. in coastal areas. It grows within the chaparral zone influenced by (summer and autumn) fog and winter rain, probably amounting to ca, 500 mm annually. Often brush fires sweep the area during the long, hot summers, killing stands of pines, but the serotinous cones are adapted to open quickly after fire to release the seeds when the undergrowth has been cleared away. Massive regeneration then quickly reoccupies these sites. This species grows in dry sandy soils, on clay barrens and on swampy ground or in peat bogs. The associated vegetation often consists of Adenostoma, Arctostaphylos, Seriphidium (Artemisia), Ceanothus, Heteromeles, Salvia, and other shrubs.

Systems
  • Terrestrial
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments: The two Mexican populations grow on dry to arid, steep slopes with rocky, sandy soil with probable rainfall of 400-500 mm annually. High temperatures during summer and frosts probably occur during winter.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat 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].
  • 36. Paysen, Timothy E.; Derby, Jeanine A.; Black, Hugh, Jr.; [and others]
  • 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]
  • 3. Anderson, Catherine L. 1983. Geobotany: An aid to geologic mapping. California Geology. 36(2): 35-43. [20654]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 33. Minnich, Richard A. 1987. The distribution of forest trees in northern Baja California, Mexico. Madrono. 34(2): 98-127. [6985]
  • 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]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Key Plant Community Associations

More info for the terms: mesic, natural, tree

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 previosly mentioned include Gowen cypress
(Cupressus goveniana ), Monterey cypress (C. macrocarpa), Tecate cypress
(C. guadalupensis var. forbesii), Mendocino cypress (C. goveniana var.
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].
  • 36. Paysen, Timothy E.; Derby, Jeanine A.; Black, Hugh, Jr.; [and others]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 3. Anderson, Catherine L. 1983. Geobotany: An aid to geologic mapping. California Geology. 36(2): 35-43. [20654]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Ecosystem

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in the following ecosystem types (as named by the U.S. Forest Service in their Forest and Range Ecosystem [FRES] Type classification):

More info for the term: shrub

FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES42 Annual grasslands

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Cover Types

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following cover types (as classified by the Society of American Foresters):

218 Lodgepole pine
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
232 Redwood
255 California coast live oak

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Plant Associations

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following plant community types (as classified by Küchler 1964):

K006 Redwood forest
K009 Pine - cypress forest
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K033 Chaparral
K035 Coastal sagebrush
K048 California steppe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat & Distribution

Dry ridges to coastal, windshorn forests, often in or around bogs; of conservation concern; 0--300m; Calif.; Mexico in Baja California.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Population Biology

Number of Occurrences

Note: For many non-migratory species, occurrences are roughly equivalent to populations.

Estimated Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80

Comments: Some EOs reportedly very extensive.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

Fire Management Considerations

More info for the terms: fuel, fuel loading, litter

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].
  • 43. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Immediate Effect of Fire

More info for the term: crown fire

Large, thick-barked trees probably survive low- to moderate-severity
surface fires. Crown fire kills bishop pine [44].
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Post-fire Regeneration

More info for the terms: crown residual colonizer, root crown

Tree without adventitious-bud root crown
Crown residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Fire Ecology

More info for the terms: serotinous, surface fire

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].
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 25. McCune, Bruce. 1988. Ecological diversity in North American pines. American Journal of Botany. 75(3): 353-368. [5651]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 11. Evarts, Bill. 1986. Torrey pines: resurrection or remission. Environment Southwest. 514: 3-8. [5602]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 47. Zedler, Paul H. 1986. Closed-cone conifers of the chaparral. Fremontia. 14(3): 14-17. [18648]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Successional Status

More info on this topic.

More info for the term: natural

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].
  • 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]
  • 25. McCune, Bruce. 1988. Ecological diversity in North American pines. American Journal of Botany. 75(3): 353-368. [5651]
  • 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]
  • 4. Baker, Frederick S. 1949. A revised tolerance table. Journal of Forestry. 47: 179-181. [20404]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 33. Minnich, Richard A. 1987. The distribution of forest trees in northern Baja California, Mexico. Madrono. 34(2): 98-127. [6985]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Growth Form (according to Raunkiær Life-form classification)

More info on this topic.

More info for the term: phanerophyte

Phanerophyte

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Form

More info for the term: tree

Tree

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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].
  • 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]
  • 25. McCune, Bruce. 1988. Ecological diversity in North American pines. American Journal of Botany. 75(3): 353-368. [5651]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 26. McMillan, Calvin. 1956. The edaphic restriction of Cupressus and Pinus in the Coast Ranges of central California. Ecological Monographs. 26: 177-212. [11884]
  • 38. Pinchot, Gifford. 1908. California swamp pine. Silvical Leaflet 30. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2 p. [21354]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Plant Response to Fire

Bishop pine cones open and release seed after exposure to intense heat [27,44].
  • 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]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Cyclicity

Phenology

More info on this topic.

Cones of bishop pine open for pollination between April and June
[10,15,19]. Growth is initiated in the spring [15].
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Molecular Biology and Genetics

Molecular Biology

Barcode data: Pinus muricata

The following is a representative barcode sequence, the centroid of all available sequences for this species.


Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Pinus muricata

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 4
Specimens with Barcodes: 10
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

IUCN Red List Assessment


Red List Category
VU
Vulnerable

Red List Criteria
B2ab(iii)

Version
3.1

Year Assessed
2013

Assessor/s
Farjon, A.

Reviewer/s
Thomas, P.

Contributor/s

Justification
Although no figures about decline are known, it is more than likely that this is happening due to habitat alteration in connection to fire fighting/ fire prevention measures. Many subpopulations occur near urbanized parts of the coast, where private property is urging for fires to be put out at quickly as possible. Without periodic destruction of the vegetation by (natural) fires, of which the chaparral vegetation is prone, this species will be out-competed. It qualifies for Vulnerable on these grounds and an estimate of its area of occupancy based on a distribution map from herbarium specimen data covering ca. 100 years. An additional threat is posed by changes in precipitation (fog and rainfall) patterns: some dieback has been attributed to recent droughts (Fischer et al. 2009, Baguskas 2010).

History
  • 1997
    Rare
    (Walter and Gillett 1998)
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: NU - Unrankable

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: TU - Unrankable

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N1 - Critically Imperiled

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: T1 - Critically Imperiled

Reasons: Endemic to Santa Cruz Island and an adjacent mainland area of California.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: T5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: NU - Unrankable

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: TU - Unrankable

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Reasons: In California the populations are scattered in a few regions along the Pacific coast, always near the shore, but the species is sometimes locally dominant in extensive areas. It is also found on the northern Channel Islands and on Cedros island. In Mexico, two very small groups are found near San Vicente, in Cerro Colorado and Arroyo San Vicente. It suffers there from some cutting for fuelwood.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Population

Population
This species occurs in eight locations, mostly with small severely fragmented subpopulations, in proximity of the Pacific coast.

Population Trend
Unknown
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Threats

Major Threats
Threats are mainly related to the fire frequencies, on which this species depends for successful regeneration. Fire fighting and suppression or prevention of fires benefits its competitors, and in or near urbanized coastal habitats of the species this will in the longer term prove detrimental.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Conservation Actions

Conservation Actions
This species occurs in several protected areas, mostly California State Parks. Fire management is crucial for the survival of this species and should attempt to allow fires with natural causes and within a natural cycle to burn out naturally where possible.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management considerations

More info for the term: genotype

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].
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems

Benefits

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].
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 38. Pinchot, Gifford. 1908. California swamp pine. Silvical Leaflet 30. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2 p. [21354]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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].
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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].
  • 35. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
  • 25. McCune, Bruce. 1988. Ecological diversity in North American pines. American Journal of Botany. 75(3): 353-368. [5651]
  • 28. Metcalf, Woodbridge. 1921. Notes on the bishop pine (Pinus muricata). Journal of Forestry. 19(8): 886-902. [21352]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Bishop pine

The bishop pine, Pinus muricata, is a pine with a very restricted range: mostly in California, including several offshore Channel Islands, and a few locations in Baja California, Mexico. It is always on or near the coast.[2]

In San Luis Obispo County it is found alone or in stands scattered on the coastal mountains and hills from Morro Bay to Shell Beach. A few stands of the tree are seen on the hills above the Sycamore Canyon Resort in Avila Beach. Within the City of San Luis Obispo, the Terrace Hill Open Space has several scattered specimens. Bishop pine seems to prefer already disturbed, unvegetated areas where it probably faces less competition from oaks and shrubs.

The common name "bishop pine" resulted from the tree having been first identified near the Mission of San Luis Obispo in San Luis Obispo, California. This tree has a large number of common names and other prior scientific names, due primarily to numerous variant forms. Other English names that have occasionally been used are: prickle cone pine, Obispo pine, Santa Cruz pine and dwarf marine pine.

Description[edit]

Growing tip of Bishop Pine, showing male cones and the long paired needles

Pinus muricata is a coniferous evergreen tree growing to a height of 15–25 m,[3] rarely up to 34 m, with a trunk diameter of up to 1.2 m. The species is often smaller, stunted and twisted in coastal exposures. It is drought-tolerant and grows on dry, rocky soil.

The needles are in pairs, green to blue-green, and 8–16 cm (3-6 inches) long. Cones occur in one to five clusters.[4] The cones are strongly reflexed down the branch, 5–10 cm long; the scales are stiff, thin on the side of the cone facing the stem, but greatly thickened on the side facing away and with a stout 5–12 mm spine; both features adaptive to minimise squirrel predation and fire damage to the cones. The cones remain unopened for many years until fire or strong heat causes them to open and release the seeds.[5]

Forms[edit]

Growth habit

There are two Pinus muricata forms:

  • a southern form with bright green needles
  • a northern form with dark blue-green needles.

The resin composition also differs. The dividing line between the two is very sharp, five miles (8 km) south of the boundary between Mendocino County and Sonoma County, California. Experimental attempts to hybridize the two forms have consistently failed, indicating that their taxonomic relationship may be more distant than the very small differences in appearance would suggest.

Ecology[edit]

Bishop pine is found with several oak and cypress associates within the California Coast Ranges. There are also a number of common understory flora associates including Sword Fern, salal and Western Poison Oak.[6] Notable occurrences of Bishop pine is in association with Mendocino Cypress as a pygmy forest on coastal terraces in Mendocino County and Sonoma County, including one location within Salt Point State Park. It is classified an endangered species in Mexico.

Uses[edit]

Pinus muricata has been used in plantations with resultant growth rates higher than in the wild, but with adverse impacts to biodiversity.

This plant has ornamental value, and is cultivated in parks and gardens. It has gained the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit.[7]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Conifer Specialist Group, 1998
  2. ^ "Pinus muricata_Bishop Pine_EOL". 
  3. ^ "Pinus muricata_BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS". 
  4. ^ W.L. Jepson, 1909
  5. ^ Moore, Gerry; Kershner, Bruce; Craig Tufts; Daniel Mathews; Gil Nelson; Spellenberg, Richard; Thieret, John W.; Terry Purinton; Block, Andrew (2008). National Wildlife Federation Field Guide to Trees of North America. New York: Sterling. p. 90. ISBN 1-4027-3875-7. 
  6. ^ C.M. Hogan, 2008
  7. ^ RHS Plant Selector Pinus muricata AGM / RHS Gardening

Further reading[edit]

Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Notes

Comments

The several varieties described for Pinus muricata reflect the high variability in leaf characters and in degree of elaboration of apophysis and umbo in this species. The extremes can sometimes occur together.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

Comments: Four taxonomic varieties are recognized in Pinus muricata by Kartesz (1999 floristic synthesis), but in many works this species is treated without recognition of infraspecific taxa. This name may not be properly published; reportedly, no holotype was designated (cf. C.J. Earle, ed., Gymnosperms Database, Univ. Bonn, internet, consulted 3Jul01).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments: Four taxonomic varieties are recognized in Pinus muricata by Kartesz (1999 floristic synthesis), but in many works this species is treated without recognition of infraspecific taxa. This particular entity has sometimes been recognized at the species level (as P. remorata).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments: Four taxonomic varieties are recognized in Pinus muricata by Kartesz (1999 floristic synthesis), but in many works this species is treated without recognition of infraspecific taxa. Apparently, all plants in the northern portion of the species' range are var. muricata even if not only var. remorata but also vars. borealis and stantonii are recognized.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments: Four taxonomic varieties are recognized in Pinus muricata by Kartesz (1999 floristic synthesis), but in many works this species is treated without recognition of infraspecific taxa. This name may not be properly published; the type locality is Salt Point, Sonoma Co., Calif., but reportedly, no holotype was designated (cf. C.J. Earle, ed., Gymnosperms Database, Univ. Bonn, internet, consulted 3Jul01)

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments: This generally poorly-formed pine with very limited distribution has been very much studied. Its taxonomy and synonymy is complicated. A good study has been made by C.I. Millar (1985) as a Ph.D. dissertation. Kartesz (1999) includes Pinus remorata here as a variety; it has sometimes been recognized as a distinct species. Two other varieties recognized by Kartesz (var. borealis and var. stantonii) may not be properly published nomenclaturally; reportedly, holotypes were not designated (cf. discussion in Univ. Bonn Gymnosperm Database (C.J. Earle, ed.), consulted on web 3Jul01). LEM 3Jul01.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Common Names

More info for the term: swamp

bishop pine
Bishop's pine
prickle-cone pine
California swamp pine

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

The currently accepted scientific name of bishop pine is Pinus muricata
D. Don [8,22,35]. Recognized varieties are [28]:

Pinus muricata var. borealis (Howell) Axelrod
Pinus muricata var. stantonii Axelrod
Pinus muricata var. muricata

Bishop pine rarely hybridizes with Monterey pine (P. radiata); timing of
cone opening usually differs in the two species [8,44].
  • 35. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 28. Metcalf, Woodbridge. 1921. Notes on the bishop pine (Pinus muricata). Journal of Forestry. 19(8): 886-902. [21352]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Synonyms

Pinus remorata Mason

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!