Frequent fire protects shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) from introgression by loblolly pine (P. taeda)

Conservation Genetics

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 491-495

  Stewart, John F ^a   Will, Rodney E ^a   Robertson, Kevin M ^b   Nelson, C Dana ^c  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TALL TIMBERS RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^c U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecological genetics; Fire ecology; Introgression; Shortleaf pine; Silviculture

Indexed keywords

CONIFEROUS FOREST; CONSERVATION GENETICS; FIRE MANAGEMENT; GENETIC MARKER; GENETIC VARIATION; HYBRID; HYBRIDIZATION; INTROGRESSION; LAND MANAGEMENT; NATIVE SPECIES; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; SILVICULTURE;

PINUS ECHINATA; PINUS TAEDA;

EID: 84924768351     PISSN: 15660621     EISSN: 15729737     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10592-014-0669-x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Allendorf FW, Leary RF, Spruell P, Wenburg JK (2001) The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends Ecol Evol 16:613–622
2. Batek MJ, Rebertus AJ, Schroeder WA, Haithcoat TL, Compas E, Guyette RP (1999) Reconstruction of early nineteenth century vegetation and fire regimes in the Missouri Ozarks. J Biogeogr 26:397–412
3. Cain MD, Shelton MG (2002) Does prescribed burning have a place in regenerating uneven-aged loblolly-shortleaf pine stands? South J Appl For 26:117–123
4. Dey DC, Hartman G (2005) Returning fire to Ozark Highland forest ecosystems: effects on advance regeneration. For Ecol Manag 217:37–53
5. Guyette RP, Spetich MA, Stambaugh MC (2006) Historic fire regime dynamics and forcing factors in the Boston Mountains, Arkansas. For Ecol Manag 234:293–304
6. Guyette RP, Muzika R, Voelker SL (2007) The historical ecology of fire, climate, and the decline of shortleaf pine in the Missouri Ozarks. In: Kabrick, JM, Dey DC, Gwaze D (ed) Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks. Proceedings of a symposium, USDA, forest service general technical report NRS-P-15. Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, pp 8–18
7. Mattoon WR (1915) Life history of shortleaf pine. USDA Bulletin 244, Washington, DC
8. Mohr C (1897) The timber pines of the Southern United States. USDA Division of Forestry Bulletin 13, Washington, DC
9. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959
10. Reid AM, Robertson KM, Hmielowski TL (2012) Predicting litter and live herb fuel consumption during prescribed fires in native and old-field upland pine communities of the southeastern United States. Can J For Res 42:1611–1622
11. Schmidtling R (2007) Genetic variation in the southern pines: evolution, migration, and adaptation following the Pleistocene. In: Kabrick JM, Dey DC, and Gwaze D (eds). General technical report NRS-P-15. Forest Service, Springfield, pp 28–32
12. South DB, Buckner ER (2003) The decline of southern yellow pine timberland. J For 101:30–35
13. Stewart JF, Tauer CG, Nelson CD (2012) Bidirectional introgression between loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata Mill.) has increased since the 1950s. Tree Genet Genomes 8:725–735
14. Tauer CG, Stewart JF, Will RE, Lilly CJ, Guldin JM, Nelson CD (2012) Hybridization leads to loss of genetic integrity in shortleaf pine: unexpected consequences of pine management and fire suppression. J For 110:216–224
15. Van Wagtendock JW (2007) The history and evolution of wildland fire use. Fire Ecol Spec Issue 3:3–17
16. Will RE, Lilly CJ, Stewart JF, Huff S, Tauer CG (2013) Recovery from top kill of shortleaf pine × loblolly pine hybrids compared to their parent populations. Trees 27:1167–1174
17. Williams RA (1998) Effects of fire on shortleaf and loblolly pine reproduction and its potential use in shortleaf/oak/hickory ecosystem restoration. In: Waldrop TA (ed). Proceedings of the seventh biennial southern silviculture research conference. Forest Service. General technical report SRS-20, pp 321–325