L g term Monitoring of White Pine Blister Rust Infection and Survival at 10 Sugar Pine Evaluation Sites
Long‐term
Long
term Monitoring
M i i g off White
Whi Pine
Pi Blister
Bli
R Infection
Rust
I f i and
d SSurvival
i l at 10 SSugar
g Pi
Pine EEvaluation
l i Sites
Si
II Growth and Survival of Sugar Pine through age 25 in Six Progeny Tests of Low to High Blister Rust Hazard in Southwestern Oregon
II.
II. Growth and Survival of Sugar Pine through age 25 in Six Progeny Tests of Low to High Blister Rust Hazard in Southwestern Oregon
R.A. Sniezko
R
A S i k 1,, R. Danchok
R D h k1,, S. Long
S L g1,, D.P. Savin
D P S i 1,, A. Kegley
A K gl y1,, J. Mayo
J M y 1,, J. Hill
J Hill2
1 Dorena
1 Genetic Resource Center, 34963 Shoreview Road Cottage Grove, OR 97424, Genetic
Resource Center 34963 Shoreview Road Cottage Grove OR 97424 2 National Park Service, Southeast Utah Group, 2282 S. West Resource Blvd. Moab, UT 84532
National Park Service Southeast Utah Group 2282 S West Resource Blvd Moab UT 84532
RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
Sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) is an g p (
)
important long lived conifer in forest
important long‐lived conifer in forest ecosystems in California and Oregon.
ecosystems in California and Oregon. U f t
Unfortunately, it is extremely susceptible to t l it i
t
l
tibl t
the white pine blister rust (WPBR) caused by
the white pine blister rust (WPBR), caused by the non‐native fungal pathogen Cronartium
g p
g
ribicola WPBR has caused high mortality of
ribicola. WPBR has caused high mortality of sugar pine in many areas of Oregon, reducing
sugar pine in many areas of Oregon, reducing it i id
its incidence in many ecosystems as well as i
t
ll
its use in reforestation and restoration
its use in reforestation and restoration. Fortunately, there is some genetic resistance y,
g
to WPBR The USDA Forest Service (FS) and
to WPBR. The USDA Forest Service (FS) and USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) h
have been working together since the mid‐
b
ki t th i
th
id
1960’ss to select candidate trees and test 1960
to select candidate trees and test
their progeny for resistance. The resistance p g y
Large natural sugar pine near Boulder g
g p
screening is done at Dorena Genetic screening is done at Dorena
Genetic
test site
test site
Resource Center (DGRC).
Resource Center (DGRC).
Using wind‐pollinated
Using wind
pollinated progeny of some of the earliest selections from the progeny of some of the earliest selections from the
P ifi N th
Pacific Northwest Region’s resistance program, BLM and FS established six field tR i ’
it
BLM d FS t bli h d i fi ld
tests (‘progeny’
tests (
progeny tests) in the early 1980
tests) in the early 1980’ss in southern Oregon to evaluate long‐
in southern Oregon to evaluate long‐
term growth, survival and field resistance to WPBR. The FS also established five g
,
provenance trials of sugar pine to examine range wide genetic variation in this
provenance trials of sugar pine to examine range‐wide genetic variation in this species. These trials represent ‘permanent’
species. These trials represent permanent plots with known genetic plots with known genetic
composition and planting dates. These are likely the oldest well documented iti
d l ti d t Th
lik l th ld t ll d
t d
multi‐site test series for disease resistance in sugar pine to WPBR (and perhaps
multi‐site test series for disease resistance in sugar pine to WPBR (and perhaps in any conifer to any non‐native pathogen in western North America).
y
y
p
g
)
For this FHM poster, we present an overview of growth, survival, and impacts h
p
,
p
fg
h,
l, d p
of WPBR at the six progeny test sites through age 25 (for results through age 15
of WPBR at the six progeny test sites through age 25 (for results through age 15 see http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5280654.pdf).
see http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5280654.pdf). F t
Future reports will provide additional summary of this trial series (including t ill
id dditi
l
f thi t i l i (i l di
examination of family variation in rust resistance) and results of the
examination of family variation in rust resistance) and results of the provenance trials.
p
l
Figure 3. Mean and range of family survival at age Figure
3 Mean and range of family survival at age ‘25’
25 at at
each site and averaged over all sites. Year
Figure5. Height (mean and range) at latest assessment (24‐29 g
g (
g )
(
years) of surviving trees at each site Height of cankered (red)
years) of surviving trees at each site. Height of cankered (red) and non‐cankered (green) trees shown.
d
k d(
)t
h
Figure 4. Canker with little or no swelling.
Figure
4. Canker with little or no swelling.
Aecia observed in cracks in bark
Aecia observed in cracks in bark. L H
Low Hazard
d
Medium Hazard
High Hazard
g aad
Jamison
Anchor
Hayes
5
10
• Although the sites varied in their rust hazard (low to Although the sites varied in their rust hazard (low to
high)), by
high), by age 25, all 6 sites had high to very high levels b age 25, all 6 sites had
d high to e y high le els
of blister rust infection and mortality (Fig. 2).
f bli t
t i f ti
d
t lity ((Fig 2))
• Averaged over all six sites (excludes non‐rust Averaged
g over all six sites (excludes non rust
mortality):
mortality): • 8.9% of the trees are canker‐free (742/8340)
8 9% of the trees are canker free (742/8340)
• 13.5% are alive with cankers
13 5% are alive with cankers
• 77.6% are dead from rust
77 6% are dead from rust
• The sites with lower hazard ratings generally had The
h sites with
h llower h
hazard ratings generally
ll h
had
l
lower levels of cankering in the early years, but the l l f
k i gi h
ly y
,b h
diff
difference is much less by age 15 or 25. However, i
hl
by g 15 25 H
,
sites getting later infections (such as Boulder and
sites getting later infections (such as Boulder and Anchor) tended to have much higher survival through
Anchor) tended to have much higher survival through age 25 (Fig 3)
age 25 (Fig. 3). • .Few new cankers were evident since the 15 year Few new cankers were evident since the 15 year
assessment.
assessment. • So
S e ca ke s p oduced
Some cankers produced little or no stem swelling or d d little o o ste s elli g o
were only visible due to presence of aecia at the time ly i ibl d t p
f
i t th ti
of assessment (Figg 4) Thus manyy field assessments
of assessment (Fig. 4). Thus, many field assessments of blister rust may somewhat underestimate the level
of blister rust may somewhat underestimate the level and impact of rust infection
and impact of rust infection.
• Most cankers were low (<1.5 m) at age 15, suggesting Most cankers were low (<1 5 m) at age 15 suggesting
that timely branch pruning could complement genetic
that timely branch pruning could complement genetic resistance to increase survival.l
resistance to increase survival. • Mortality from other biotic and abiotic
M
li y f
h bi i
d bi i agents was low g
l
after age 5 (0.2‐8.5%) except for at Jamison Gulch ft
g 5 (0
( 2 8 5%))
pt f
tJ i
G l h
(23 1%)
(23.1%).
• Averaged over the 6 sites, families varied from 40% to Averaged over the 6 sites families varied from 40% to
96% mortality
96% mortality.
• Mean height of trees alive at age 25 varied from 5.9 m Mean height of trees alive at age 25 varied from 5 9 m
at Boulder to 10.7 m at Poker (Fig. 5).
at Boulder to 10.7 m at Poker (Fig. 5).
SUMMARY
As anticipated, many families from these field A
i i p d,
y f ili f
h
fi ld
selections are highly susceptible or have only low levels l ti
highly
ptibl
h
ly l l l
of partial resistance Breeding in seed orchards or
of partial resistance. Breeding in seed orchards or clones banks will be needed to increase resistance
clones banks will be needed to increase resistance levels The seven families with major gene (Cr1)
levels. The seven families with major gene (Cr1) resistance had the lowest infection and mortality
resistance had the lowest infection and mortality levels.
15
Information on rust hazard can provide land managers Information
on rust hazard can provide land managers
with an additional tool for planning sugar pine
with an additional tool for planning sugar pine reforestation or restoration efforts
reforestation or restoration efforts.
Because of the multiple sites, known genetic B
f h
l ipl i , k
g
i
composition and planting dates, and assessments over p iti
d pl ti g d t , d
t
~25 years these plantings provide the most detailed
~25 years, these plantings provide the most detailed look at the impact of WPBR on sugar pine to date
look at the impact of WPBR on sugar pine to date.
25
Figure 1 Location of test sites and parents represented in six progeny tests
Figure 1. Location of test sites and parents represented in six progeny tests MATERIALS AND METHODS
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SSugar pine seedlings from 53 families were planted in randomized complete g pi
dli g f
53 f ili
pl
di
d i d
pl
block designs at six sites in southwest Oregon in 1982 and 1983 (Table 1; Figure
block designs at six sites in southwest Oregon in 1982 and 1983 (Table 1; Figure 1). The families were distributed between two Sets and the Sets planted in ) e a es e e d st buted bet ee t o Sets a d t e Sets p a ted
separate adjacent trials at each site at 2 4 x 2 4 m spacing Up to 40 seedlings
separate adjacent trials at each site at 2.4 x 2.4 m spacing. Up to 40 seedlings per family were planted at each site in 10 tree row plots (except at Poker where
per family were planted at each site in 10 tree row plots (except at Poker where single tree non‐contiguous plots were used). The parent trees for all progenies i gl
ig
pl
d)) Th p
f
ll p g i
originated from southern OR (Figure 1) 31 families were common to all sites
originated from southern OR (Figure 1). 31 families were common to all sites. Based on seedling screening, the families were expected to represent a range in ased o seed g sc ee g, t e a es e e e pected to ep ese t a a ge
resistance from highly susceptible to partial resistant to major gene resistance
resistance from highly susceptible to partial resistant to major gene resistance (Cr1) The sites were rated for blister rust hazard in the mid‐1980’s
(Cr1). The sites were rated for blister rust hazard in the mid
1980 s – and and
represented a range from low to high rust. Rust hazard was based on infection p
d
g f
l
high
R h
d
b d
i f i
levels of 50 sampled trees from natural regeneration and the number of Ribes
levels of 50 sampled trees from natural regeneration and the number of Ribes
plants per 1/100
p
a ts pe / 00thh ac
acre plot within the sample area. The sites were assessed for e p ot t
t e sa p e a ea
e s tes e e assessed o
height survival blister rust and other damage at approximately 5 10 15 and
height, survival, blister rust, and other damage at approximately 5, 10, 15 and 25 years after planting DBH was recorded at the latest assessment (2006 to
25 years after planting. DBH was recorded at the latest assessment (2006 to 2010 d p di g
2010, depending on the site, so tree age varied from 24 to 29). h i
g
i df
24 29))
FUTURE ACTIVITIES
FUTURE ACTIVITIES
Figure 2 Temporal dynamics of blister rust infection (on individual trees) over 25 years in 3 of 6 sugar pine progeny tests
Figure 2. Temporal dynamics of blister rust infection (on individual trees) over 25 years in 3 of 6 sugar pine progeny tests. Alive and free of rust
Alive and free of rust
Alive with rust
Alive with rust
Dead with rust
Dead with rust
Dead and free of rust
Dead and free of rust
Filler/replaced tree
Filler/replaced tree
Table 1 Descriptions of progeny test sites
Table 1. Descriptions of progeny test sites
Elevation l
Slope l p
Aspect
(m)
(%)
SITE
Anchor
B ld
Boulder
Hayes
Jamison
Poker
Rocky
aExcludes
Vertical canker, possible ,p
expression of partial resistance
expression of partial resistance
1143
1097
869
853
1280
975
10
20
50
20
35
35
West
E
East
South
South
West
North
Rust Hazard
Year Year Year of Last f
# of Trees f
# of Families f
l
Sown Planted Inspection in
in Study
Studya Represented
Medium
M di
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
1982
1981
1982
1981
1982
1982
1983
1982
1983
1983
1983
1983
2006
2008
2010
2010
2010
2010
1669
1750
1827
1387
924
1761
49
48
49
42
36
49
filler/replaced trees
Living and dead trees at Boulder
Living and dead trees at Boulder • Several sites have had brush removal and/or been Several sites have had brush removal and/or been
retagged to greatly facilitate future evaluations of
retagged to greatly facilitate future evaluations of these trials
these trials. • Begin breeding work with the progeny selections.
Begin breeding work with the progeny selections
• More detailed analysis and summary including:
More detailed analysis and summary including:
• Examination of family variation in blister rust E
i i
f f ily i i i bli
resistance, including whether there is evidence of it
, i l di g h th th
i
id
f
a virulent vcr1 strain of blister rust and whether
a virulent vcr1 strain of blister rust, and whether efficacy of resistance varied by site or rust hazard
efficacy of resistance varied by site or rust hazard.
• Further examination of potential family variation Further examination of potential family variation
in non‐rust
in non
rust related mortality and possible related mortality and possible
maladaptation.
maladaptation. • Comparative growth of trees with and without Comparative growth
h off trees with
h and
d without
h
cankers.
k
• Examination and mapping of rust hazard estimates E
i ti
d
ppi g f t h
d ti t
for 265 plots from the BLM’ss 1980s surveys.
for 265 plots from the BLM
1980s surveys
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge BLM (and SIS NF) personnel for their insight and lead in establishing maintaining and assessing these valuable trials since the early 1980
We gratefully acknowledge BLM (and SIS NF) personnel for their insight and lead in establishing, maintaining and assessing these
valuable trials since the early 1980’ss. For help with the latest assessments, we thank BLM Medford District personnel, notably
For help with the latest assessments we thank BLM Medford District personnel notably Jim Brimble
Jim Brimble and the silviculture
and the silviculture group, and Paul LeBlanc and Dave Russell; and Paula Trudeau and Brian Luis (FS). Partial funding of this project was provided
group and Paul LeBlanc and Dave Russell; and Paula Trudeau and Brian Luis (FS) Partial funding of this project was provided FS
FS’ss Forest Health Monitoring grant WC‐F‐09‐01. This proposal was sponsored by Ellen and Don Goheen. Jennifer Christie produced the map.
Forest Health Monitoring grant WC F 09 01 This proposal was sponsored by Ellen and Don Goheen Jennifer Christie produced the map