Hybridization leads to loss of genetic integrity in shortleaf pine: Unexpected consequences of pine management and fire suppression

Journal of Forestry

Volumn 110, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 216-224

  Tauer, Charles G ^a   Stewart, John F ^a   Will, Rodney E ^a   Lilly, Curtis J ^a   Guldin, James M ^b   Dana Nelson, C ^c  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

^c Southern Institute of Forest Genetics   (United States)

Author keywords

Hybrids; Introgression; Loblolly pine; Shortleaf pine

Indexed keywords

CONIFER FORESTS; FIRE SUPPRESSION; GENETIC INTEGRITY; HYBRIDS; INTROGRESSION; LAND-USE CHANGE; LOBLOLLY PINE; NATURAL REGENERATION; PINE STAND; SELECTION PRESSURES; SHORTLEAF PINE;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

REFORESTATION;

CLIMATE CHANGE; CONIFEROUS FOREST; EVERGREEN TREE; FOREST FIRE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HYBRIDIZATION; INTROGRESSION; LAND USE CHANGE; POPULATION DECLINE; POPULATION GENETICS;

CONIFEROPHYTA; PINUS ECHINATA; PINUS TAEDA;

EID: 84862996882     PISSN: 00221201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5849/jof.11-044     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. ABBOTT, J.E. 1974. Introgressive hybridization between shortleaf and loblolly pine in southeast Oklahoma. MSc thesis, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK. 31 p.
2. ALLENDORF, F.W., R.F. LEARY, P. SPRUELL, AND J.K. WENBURG. 2001. The problems with hybrids: Setting conservation guidelines. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:613-622.
3. ALLENDORF, F.W., AND G. LUIKART. 2007. Conserving global diversity? Conservation and the genetics of populations. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. 642 p.
4. BAKER, J.B., AND O.G. LANGDON. 1990. Pinus taeda L. loblolly pine. P. 497-512 in Silvics of North America, Vol. 1, Conifers, Burns, R.M., and B.H. Honkala (eds.). Agric. Handb. 654, US For. Serv., Washington, DC. BOHREROVA, Z., G. BOHRER, K.D. CHO, M.A.
5. BOLCH, AND K.G. LINDEN. 2009. Determining the viability response of Pinus taeda pollen under abiotic stresses typical to atmospheric conditions during long distance dispersal. Ecol. Applic. 19(3):656-667.
6. BUGGS, R.J.A. 2007. Empirical study of hybrid zone movement. Heredity 99:301-312.
7. CHEN, J.W., C.G. TAUER, G. BAI, Y. HUANG, M.E. PAYTON, AND A.G. HOLLEY. 2004. Bidirectional introgression between Pinus taeda and Pinus echinata: Evidence from morphological and molecular data. Can. J. For. Res. 34:2508-2516.
8. COTTON, M.H., R.R. HICKS JR., AND R.H. FLAKE. 1975. Morphological variability among loblolly and shortleaf pines of east Texas with reference to natural hybridization. Castanea 40:309-319.
9. DORMAN, K.W. 1976. The genetics and breeding of the southern pines. Agric. Handb. 471, US For. Serv., Washington, DC.
10. DORMAN, K.W., AND J.C. BARBER. 1956. Time of flowering and seed ripening in southern pines. Pap. 72, US For. Serv., South. For. Exp. Stn. 17 p.
11. DYER, R.J., AND V.L. SORK. 2001. Pollen pool heterogeneity in shortleaf pine, Pinus echinata Mill. Mol. Ecol. 10:859-866.
12. EDWARDS, M.A., AND J.L. HAMRICK. 1995. Genetic variation in shortleaf pine, Pinus echinata Mill. (Pinaceae). For. Genet. 2:21-28.
13. EDWARDS-BURKE, M.A., J.L. HAMRICK, AND R.A. PRICE. 1997. Frequency and direction of hybridization in sympatric populations of Pinus taeda (Mill) and P. echinata (Pinaceae). Am. J. Bot. 84:879-886.
14. FLORENCE, L.Z., AND R.R. HICKS JR. 1980. Further evidence for introgression of Pinus taeda with P. echinata: Electrophoretic variability and variation in resistance to Cronartium fusiforme. Silvae Genet. 29(2):41-43.
15. FOX, T.R., H.L. ALLEN, T.J. ALBAUGH, R. RUBILAR, AND C.A. CARLSON. 2006. Forest fertilization in southern pine plantations. Better Crops 90:12-15.
16. FOX, T.R., E.J. JOKELA, AND H.L. ALLEN. 2007. The development of pine plantation silviculture in the southern United States. J. For. 105: 337-347.
17. GULDIN, J.M. 2007. Restoration and management of shortleaf pine in pure and mixed stands-science, empirical observation, and the wishful application of generalities. P. 47-58 in Proc. of a symp. on Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozark, Kabrick, J.M., D.C. Dey, and D. Gwaze (eds.). US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-15, North. Res. Stn.
18. GULDIN, J.M., F.R. THOMPSON, L.L. RICHARDS, AND K.C. HARPER. 1999. Status and trends of vegetation. P. 21-70 in Ozark-Ouachita Highland assessment; terrestrial vegetation and wildlife. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-35, Asheville, NC.
19. GUYETTE, R.P., M. SPETICH, AND M.C. STAMBAUGH. 2006. Historical fire regime dynamics and forcing factors in the Boston Mountains, Arkansas, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 234:293-304.
20. GUYETTE, R.P., R-M. MUZIKA, AND S.L. VOELKER. 2007. The historical ecology of fire, climate, and the decline of shortleaf pine in the Ozarks. P. 8-18 in Proc. of a symp. on Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks, Kabrick, J.M., D.C. Dey, and D. Gwaze (eds.). US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-15, North. Res. Stn.
21. HARE, R.C., AND G.L. SWITZER. 1969. Introgression with shortleaf pine may explain rust resistance in western loblolly pine. US For. Serv. Res. Note SO-88. South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, LA. 2 p.
22. HICKS, R.R. JR. 1973. Evaluation of morphological characters for use in identifying loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and loblolly x shortleaf hybrids. Castanea 38:182-189.
23. JUMP, A.S., AND J. PẼNUELAS. 2006. Genetic effects of chronic habitat fragmentation in a wind-pollinated tree. PNAS 103:8096-8100.
24. KNAPP, E.E., M.A. GOEDDE, AND K.J. RICE. 2001. Pollen-limited reproduction in blue oak: Implications for wind pollination in fragmented populations. Oecologia 128:48-55.
25. LAWSON, E.R. 1990. Shortleaf pine. P. 316-326 in Silvics of North America, Vol. 2, Hardwoods, Burns, R.M., and B.H. Honkala (tech. coords.). Agric. Handb. 654, US For. Serv. Washington, DC. 877 p.
26. LITTLE, E.L. JR. 1971. Atlas of United States trees, Vol. 1, Conifers and important hardwoods. USDA Misc. Publ. 1146. 200 maps, 9 p.
27. LITTLE, E.L., AND F.I. RIGHTER. 1965. Botanical descriptions of forty artificial pine hybrids. US For. Serv. Tech. Bull. 1345, Washington, DC. 45 p.
28. LILLY, C.G., R.E. WILL, AND C.G. TAUER. In press. Physiological and morphological attributes of shortleaf × loblolly pine F1 hybrid seedlings: Is there an advantage to being a hybrid? Can. J. For. Res.
29. LILLY, C.G., R.E. WILL, C.G. TAUER, J.M. GULDIN, AND M. SPETICH. 2012. Factors affecting the sprouting of shortleaf pine rootstock following prescribed fire. For. Ecol. Manage. 265:13-19.
30. LIU, Y., R.E. WILL, AND C.G. TAUER. 2011. Gene level responses of shortleaf pine and loblolly pine to top removal. Tree Genet. Genomes 7:969-986.
31. MAPLE, W.R. 1966. Appalachian loblolly grows well in Arkansas Ozarks. US For. Serv. Res. Note SO-33, South. For. Exp. Stn. 2 p.
32. MATTOON, W.R. 1915. Life history of shortleaf pine. USDA Bull. 244, Washington, DC. 46 p.
33. MERGEN, F., G.R. STAIRS, AND E.B. SNYDER. 1965. Natural and controlled loblolly x shortleaf pine hybrids in Mississippi. For. Sci. 11: 306-314.
34. MISTRETTA, P.A. 1984. Littleleaf disease. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 20, US For. Serv., Southern Region State and Private Forestry, New Orleans, LA. 6 p.
35. MOHR, C. 1897. The timber pines of the southern United States-Together with a discussion of the structure of their wood by F. Roth, rev. ed. USDA Div. For. Bull. 13. 176 p.
36. MOSER, W.K., M.H. HANSEN, W.H. MCWILLIAMS, AND R.M. SHEFFIELD RM. 2007. Shortleaf pine composition and structure in the United States. P. 19-27 in Proc. of a symp. on Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks, Kabrick, J.M., D.C. Dey, and D. Gwaze (eds.). US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-15, North. Res. Stn.
37. RAJA, R.G., C.G. TAUER., R.F. WITTWER, AND Y.H. HUANG. 1997. Isoenzyme variation and genetic structure in natural populations of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata). Can. J. For. Res. 27:740-749.
38. RAJA, R.G., C.G. TAUER, R.F. WITTWER, AND Y.H. HUANG. 1998. Regeneration methods affect genetic variation and structure in shortleaf pin (Pinus echinata Mill.) For. Genet. 5:171-178.
39. RHYMER, J.M., AND D. SIMBERLOFF. 1996. Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27:83-109.
40. SCHMIDTLING, R.C. 1971. Geographic races of shortleaf pine not reproductively isolated in a mixed plantation. P. 212-217 in Proc. of the 11th Southern forest tree improvement conf., Atlanta, GA, June 15-16, 1971. Swofford, T.F. (ed.). Southern Forest Tree Improvement Committee.
41. SCHOENIKE, R.E., D.H. VAN LEAR, AND J.D. BENSEB. 1977. Comparison of shortleaf, loblolly and putative hybrid pines in the piedmont of South Carolina. Silvae Genet. 26(5-6):182-184.
42. SCHREINER, E.J. 1937. Improvement of forest trees. P. 1242-1279 in 1937 Yearbook of agriculture. USDA, Washington, DC.
43. SCHULTZ, R.P. 1997. Loblolly pine: The ecology and culture of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Agric. Handb. 713, US For. Serv., Washington, DC. 492 p.
44. SIMBERLOFF, D. 1996. Impacts of introduced species in the United States. Consequences 2(2): 13-23.
45. SNYDER, E.B., AND J.M. HAMAKER. 1978. Needle characteristics of hybrids of some species of southern pine. Silvae Genet. 27:184-188.
46. SMITH, B.W., J.S. VISSAGE, D.R. DARR, AND R.M. SHEFFIELD. 2001. Forest resources of the United States, 1997. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-219, North Cent. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, MN. 336 p.
47. SORK, V.L., F.W. DAVIS, P.E. SMOUSE, V.J. APSIT, R.J. DYER, J.F. FERNANDEZ, AND B. KUHN. 2002. Pollen movement in declining populations of California Valley oak, Quercus lobata: Where have all the fathers gone? Mol. Ecol. 11:1657-1668.
48. SOUTH, D.B., AND E.R. BUCKNER. 2003. The decline of southern yellow pine timberland. J. For. 101(1):30-35.
49. STEWART, J.F., Y. LIU, C.G. TAUER, AND C.D. NELSON. 2010. Microsatellite versus AFLP analyses of pre-management introgression levels in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) Tree Genet. Genomes 6:853-862.
50. STEWART, J.F., C.G. TAUER, J.M. GULDIN, AND C.D. NELSON. 2011. Hybridization in naturally regenerated shortleaf pine near artificially regenerated stands of loblolly pine. P. 54-56 in Proc. of the 31st Southern forest tree improvement conf., Biloxi, MS, June 13-16, 2011. Nelson, C.D., R.J. Rousseau, and C. Yuceer (eds.). Southern Forest Tree Improvement Committee.
51. STEWART, J.F., C.G. TAUER, AND C.D. NELSON. 2011. Bidirectional introgression between loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata Mill.) has increased since the 1950s. Tree Genet. Genomes (in press). DOI: 10.1007/s11295-011-0459-2.
52. WAGGONER, G.S. 1975. Eastern deciduous forest, Vol. 1, Southeastern evergreen and oak-pine region. Natural History Theme Studies No. 1, NPS 135, US Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington, DC. 206 p.
53. WEAR, D.N. 2002. Land use, Chap. 6. P. 153-173 in Southern forest resource assessment, Wear, D.N., and J.G. Greis (eds.). US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53, South. Res. Stn., Asheville, NC.
54. WILLIAMS, R.A. 1998. Effects of fire on shortleaf and loblolly pine reproduction and its potential use in shortleaf/oak/hickory ecosystem restoration. P. 321-325 in Proc. of the 7th Biennial southern silviculture research conf., Waldrop, T.A. (ed.). US For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-20.
55. WOODBRIDGE, W.C., F.E. BRIDGEWATER, AND D.L. BRAMLETT. 1995 A heat sum model for loblolly pine pollen development. P. 20-22 in Proc. of the 23rd Southern forest tree improvement conf., Asheville, NC, June 20-22. Southern Forest Tree Improvement Committee.
56. WRIGHT, H.A., AND A.W. BAILEY. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 501 p.
57. XU, S., C.G. TAUER, AND C.D. NELSON. 2008a. Natural hybridization within seed sources of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) Tree Genet. Genomes 4:849-858.
58. XU. S., C.G. TAUER, AND C.D. NELSON. 2008b. Genetic diversity within and among populations of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) Tree Genet. Genomes 4:859-868.
59. ZOBEL, B.J. 1953. Are there natural loblollyshortleaf pine hybrids? J. For. 51:494-495.