Title Restoration Strategies for whitebark, western white, and sugar pine in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Ecological and Epidemiological Considerations
advertisement
Title Restoration Strategies for whitebark, western white, and sugar pine in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Ecological and Epidemiological Considerations Subtheme Theme: 1‐Forest Health; 1b‐subtheme, Impact of climate change on ecological communities and evaluation of adaptation strategies. Detlev Vogler PSW Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Institute of Forest Genetics, 2480 Carson Rd, Placerville, CA, 95667‐5107; Phone: 530 621 6881, Fax: 530 622 2633 Email: dvogler@fs.fed.us Patricia Maloney Department of Plant Pathology & Tahoe Environmental Research Center, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 Phone: 775 881 7560 ext. 7473 Fax: 775 832 1673 Email: pemaloney@ucdavis.edu Annette Delfino‐Mix PSW Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Institute of Forest Genetics, 2480 Carson Rd, Placerville, CA, 95667‐5107; Phone: 530 295 3023, Email: amix@fs.fed.us Principal Investigators and Receiving Institution Co‐Principal Investigator Agency Contacts David Fournier, US Forest Service, LTBMU, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, Phone: 530 543 2626, Email:dfournier@fs.fed.us Cheryl Beyer, US Forest Service, LTBMU, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, Phone: 530 543 2626, Email: cbeyer@fs.fed.us Rich Adams, California State Parks, Phone: 530 581 5746, Email: RAdams@parks.ca.gov Bill Champion, Nevada State Parks, Phone: 775 831 0494, Email: bchampion@parks.nv.gov Roland Shaw, Nevada Division of Forestry, Phone: 775 684 2741, Email: rshaw@forestry.nv.gov Grants Contact Person Forest Service: Jennifer Jones, Grants and Agreements Specialist, Operations, USDA‐FS, PSW Station, Albany, CA; Ph: (510) 559‐6316; e‐mail: jjones12@fs.fed.us University of California, Davis: Wendy Johnson‐Mesa, University of California, Plant Pathology/Nematology, 350 Hutchison Hall, Davis, CA; Ph: (530) 752‐0112; Fx: (530) 754‐9077; e‐mail: wjohnsonmesa@ucdavis.edu. $225,950.00 Funding Requested: Total cost share (value of financial and in‐kind contributions): $144,375.00 Abstract. Links with ecosystem health, resource conservation (vegetation, soil, water), and biological diversity are central to the health of Lake Tahoe. The white pine species – whitebark (Pinus albicaulis), western white (P. monticola), and sugar pine (P. lambertiana) are important components in low to upland forest communities. For more than a century, interactions among anthropogenic disturbances such as historical logging, fire suppression, an exotic pathogen, Cronartium ribicola, cause of white pine blister rust (WPBR), and climate‐driven outbreaks by Dendroctonus ponderosae, mountain pine beetle (MPB) have significantly affected populations of white pines in lower montane, upper montane and subalpine forests. White pine blister rust is one of the greatest threats to white pine sustainability and survival. In the Lake Tahoe Basin this invasive pathogen is significantly affecting recruitment potential and survival of small and intermediate sized trees. Such adverse demographic effects can have long‐ lasting consequences on population structure and dynamics. Comstock era logging, in some locations, has reduced effective population numbers and genetic variation of sugar pine. Both influences (e.g., WPBR, historical logging) can significantly affect how these species respond to other stressors, such as global climatic change. Strong evidence of negative population and genetic effects warrant white pine restoration in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Mitigating anthropogenic influences will require restoring effective population numbers, deploying WPBR‐resistant material, “facilitating” recruitment, enhancing genetic variation, and planting drought‐tolerant genotypes. Justification: We have identified populations of white pines that warrant species restoration. Reasons for restoration include high disease pressure by C. ribicola, negative population growth rates, negative WPBR‐effects on fecundity (e.g., cone production and recruitment), and survival (e.g., small and intermediate sized individuals), as well as loss of genetic variation as a result of historical logging. We are leveraged by ex situ conservation activities, which include; cone collections for seed‐banks (which can be used for restoration), genetic evaluations (e.g., diversity, structure), disease resistance screening, and progeny testing. Restoration strategies will be guided by an extensive ecological database, knowledge on adaptive traits (e.g., water‐use efficiency, disease resistance, phenology, growth, survival), and a diversity of planting material available from greenhouse studies. This ecological and genetic approach will allow us to develop effective restoration and silvicultural strategies for current and future environmental conditions by planting suitable, diverse, rust‐resistant, and drought‐tolerant genotypes of white pines. Background/Goals/Objectives: A SNPLMA Round 7‐funded project by Vogler and Maloney, Natural and anthropogenic threats to white pines from lower montane forests to subalpine woodlands of the Lake Tahoe Basin: An ecological and genetic assessment for conservation, monitoring, and management, has completed a comprehensive cone collection (155 sugar pine, 195 western white pine, and 121 whitebark pine families) for seed‐ banking, greenhouse, and genetic studies. This is the first study of its kind to determine resistance frequency of C. ribicola at a landscape‐level, for three species of white pines (see Table 1) as well as evaluating the adaptive genetic variation of ecologically important plant traits (e.g., water‐use efficiency, disease resistance, phenology, growth, survival) in the white pine species of the Lake Tahoe Basin (LTB)(SNPLMA Round 9 & 10, NVDSL LTLPP funded projects by Vogler, Maloney, and Neale: Evaluation of montane forest genetic resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Implications for conservation, management, and adaptive responses of Pinus monticola to environmental change; Evaluation of montane forest genetic resources: Implications for conservation, management, and restoration of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) in the Lake Tahoe Basin; Evaluation of montane forest genetic resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Implications for conservation, management, and adaptive responses of Pinus lambertiana to 2 Table 1. Biological and environmental characteristics of 28 populations of white pines in the LTBMU. Highlighted in red are four white pine populations proposed for restoration. Sp % WPBR % MPB Mean surv. Mean fecund. λ CGR %surv./ Cr2 Freq./ Cr1 Freq. Ann. ppt. Parent material Rifle Peak Pial 64 1 0.979 0.061 1.021 TBD 889 volcanic rock Mt Rose/Ophir Creek Pial 56 3 0.959 0.252 0.996 19 1270 Snow Valley Peak Heavenly Freel Peak Pial 34 3 0.988 0.090 1.033 TBD 797 Pial 13 4 0.967 0.204 1.024 ‐ 782 Pial 1 2 0.954 0.144 1.022 33 1016 granodiorite volcanic rock/ granodiorite granodiorite granodiorite andesite or tuff brecia granodiorite/ volcanic rock 57 0 0.970 0.108 1.032 TBD 1270 Dick’s Pass Pial 38 1 0.950 0.118 1.003 TBD 1752 West Shore Peaks Pial 19 1 0.984 0.129 1.034 ‐ 1218 granodiorite Incline Lake Pimo 13 11 0.912 0.207 0.991 3/11 1394 granodiorite Flume trail Pimo 14 8 0.949 0.150 1.024 3/12 797 granodiorite Montreal Canyon Pimo 9 9 0.880 1.036 1.001 3/11 680 metamorphic Pimo 0 28 0.828 0.211 0.997 3/11 815 granodiorite Pimo 2 7 0.936 0.202 1.011 3/11 1100 granodiorite Pimo 4 1 0.979 0.357 1.073 3/11 1310 andesite or tuff brecia Pimo 6 5 0.958 0.112 1.056 3/12 1292 granodiorite Pimo 5 3 0.983 0.076 1.061 3/12 1218 granodiorite Blackwood Canyon Pimo 44 15 0.833 0.263 0.946 3/11 1472 tuff/lahar/ volcanic rock Mt Watson Pimo 21 9 0.929 1.437 1.005 3/11 1017 andesite Crystal Bay Pila 10 7 0.907 0.119 0.997 0.000 605 granodiorite Tunnel Creek Pila 11 3 0.960 0.038 0.994 0.000 791 granodiorite volcanic rock Heavenly Armstrong Pass Meiss Meadow Echo Lake Jake’s Peak Glenbrook Heavenly Meyers Sand Pit Upper Montane Pial Lower Montane Little Roundtop Subalpine Location Pila 0 0 0.943 1.482 1.041 0.114 565 Pila 3 0 0.987 0.075 1.041 0.059 715 granodiorite Pila 15 2 0.969 0.284 1.068 0.000 938 granodiorite 0.125 659 granodiorite granodiorite Pila 5 3 0.886 0.176 1.068 Pila 5 3 0.964 0.507 1.048 0.071 1070 Pila 41 0 0.621 0.577 0.993 0.125 869 mixed sources Granlibakken Pila 48 7 0.729 0.052 0.997 0.000 848 andesite/ volcanic rock Carnelian Bay Pila 30 0 0.967 0.167 1.004 0.045 808 andesite D.L. Bliss SP Sugar Pine Point SP Table 1 Notes: Sp = species: Pial = Pinus albicaulis/whitebark pine; Pimo = Pinus monticola/western white pine; Pila = Pinus lambertiana/sugar pine. % WPBR and MPB = percent incidence of white pine blister rust or mountain pine beetle in a stand. Mean surv. and fecund. = mean survivorship and fecundity estimated from size-based transition matrices. λ/lambda = estimated population growth rate. CGR % surv. = complex gene resistance mechanism potentially found in whitebark pine and the percentage of families surviving after inoculation with C. ribicola. TBD = still to be determined, Cr2 and Cr1 = disease resistance gene found in western white pine (Cr2) and sugar pine (Cr1), for Cr2 are month and year screening results will be available. Ann. ppt = annual precipitation in millimeters (PRISM climate data provided by FHTET). Parent material information from the USDA NRCS Soil Survey of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada. 3 environmental change. In addition, we have developed demographic models that provide information about current population status (e.g., stable, declining, or growing) on Federal and non‐Federal lands. Initial genetic analyses of sugar pine from the LTB suggests that there is local adaptation, at a landscape‐ level, because of environmental gradients in precipitation, geology, soil type, topography, and temperature (Maloney et al. in preparation d). Our ability to evaluate adaptive genetic variation in forest tree populations will permit us to detect the sensitivity (e.g., narrowly versus broadly adapted) and resiliency of these species and populations to environmental change, as well as improve our ability to identify the vulnerability of populations to WPBR or climatic changes (e.g., warming and extended drought periods). Genetic evaluations for disease resistance, phenology, and drought tolerance will provide valuable information about suitable plant material for deployment, using within‐Basin seed‐ transfer guidelines, in restoration projects. Figure 1. Relationships between disease: WPBR incidence a. and branch cankers b. with cone production. Pinus albicaulis – whitebark pine. National concerns over the status of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Englem.), an important subalpine conifer in western North America, have resulted in the posting and potential listing of the species as “threatened and endangered” under the USFWS Endangered Species Act. Cause for concern include infection by the exotic pathogen, Cronartium ribicola ‐ cause of white pine blister rust (WPBR), climate‐driven outbreaks by the native insect Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (mountain pine beetle), and climatic warming. In the Lake Tahoe Basin, whitebark pine provides important forest cover in subalpine watersheds, and throughout most of its range in Western North America. While empirical studies have never been conducted to document the species importance in ecosystem functioning its role is apparent ‐ watershed protection, protracting snowmelt, soil and snow stabilization, biodiversity, food source, wildlife habitat, sequestering of greenhouse gases, recreation, economic, and aesthetic value (Tomback et al. 2001, and references therein). High levels of WPBR‐infection are found on whitebark pine in the LTBMU; average incidence = 35% and range from 1 to 64 % (Table 1). One of the primary and negative effects of WPBR on whitebark pine, is infection and mortality of cone‐ bearing branches, with trees essentially becoming reproductive dead‐ends (Maloney et al. in preparation b). There are strong and negative relationships between disease and fecundity parameters (e.g., cone production and recruitment). Whether it is the percent of individuals infected (WPBR incidence) or the average number of WPBR‐infected branches in a population, both significantly affect cone production (Figure 1a & 1b). While the population growth at Rifle Peak appears to be stable (λ = 1.021, Table 1) it has the lowest cone and recruitment numbers (960 cones ha‐1 & 44 seedlings/saplings ha‐1) and the highest incidence of WPBR (64%) of all whitebark pine populations surveyed in the LTB 4 (Figure 1a & 1b). A threshold number of ≥ 1000 cones ha‐1 has been estimated to maintain seed dispersal at a site by Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana), one of the primary dispersal agents of whitebark pine (McKinney et al. 2009). Whitebark pine cone production at Rifle Peak falls just below this threshold. This adverse demographic affect on reproduction and potentially dispersal, may result in negative population consequences in the future. Figure 2. Relationship between WPBR incidence a. and MPB incidence b. with western white pine survivorship. Pinus monticola – western white pine. The upper montane forests are dominated by red fir (Abies magnifica) and western white pine and from a watershed perspective this forest type has the deepest and longest lasting snowpacks than any other forested zone in California (Barbour et al. 2007). Thus forest cover and forest health are important in maintaining the functions of upper montane ecosystems. Moderate levels of WPBR are found in the upper montane (Table 1) and the highest WPBR incidence is on western white pine (44%) at Blackwood Canyon, which has a growth rate of λ = 0.946, indicating a population in decline (Table 1). Mesic conditions exist at Blackwood Canyon, which are conducive to blister rust infection (Maloney et al. in preparation a). More than any other white pine species across elevation zones, we find the highest levels of MPB on western white pine, with a mean of 9.6% and ranges from 1 ‐ 28% (Table 1). High rust infection can be a strong predisposing factor to MPB attack. In California MPB activity is often triggered by protracted drought periods (see CFPC reports 1970 ‐ 2009). Many parts of the western United States have experienced and continue to experience devastating infestations of MPB (Gibson et al. 2008). Elevated MPB activity is thought to be a direct result of warming temperatures and reduced precipitation (Vandygriff et al. 2010) and future projections of MPB activity are alarming, driven by predictions of more severe and protracted droughts linked to global climatic changes (Logan and Powell 2001). Because little is known about MPB in the high elevation forests of California or about historical outbreaks, it is difficult to say what might be out of the range of historical variability for this native insect. Nonetheless, WPBR (X1) and MPB (X2) explain 87% of the variation in survivorship of western white pine in the LTB (Y= 0.993 ‐ 0.001X1 ‐ 0.006X2; r2 = 0.87; F2,10 = 23.84, P = 0.0008, see Figure 2 a & b). Situated on the west side of the LTB, Blackwood Canyon has high annual precipitation (1472 mm), more than any other western white pine location studied (Table 1). Given the local environmental conditions at Blackwood Canyon the tree species here may be more mesic‐adapted and perhaps not as drought tolerant as species growing in more xeric conditions (e.g., east side locations). Future genetic evaluations will determine the degree of drought tolerance for western white pine in the LTB (Vogler and Maloney, SNPLMA RD 9). Pinus lambertiana – sugar pine. For more than a century, interactions among anthropogenic disturbances such as historical logging, fires suppression, and WPBR, have significantly affected populations of sugar pine in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Maloney et al. in preparation a). Some populations 5 have been adversely affected, while others appear Figure 3. Relationship between WPBR incidence and to be resilient, due to larger populations sizes, low sugar pine survivorship. disease levels, presence of WPBR resistance (Table 1). Negative consequences of logging and WPBR are apparent at Sugar Pine Point State Park where there has been a reduction in population size, poor survivorship, mainly due to WPBR‐mediated mortality, and lowered genetic variation, ci = 0.048 (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Mean survivorship probability and WPBR incidence were significantly related, r2 = 0.46, F1,10 = 6.72, P = 0.03 (Figure 3 and Table 1). A population specific drift parameter, ci, was estimated and has an expectation equal to FST (a measure of genetic differentiation) and ranged from 0.009 – 0.048 Figure 4. Posterior means for parameter ci are given by (Figure 4). Populations with large values of ci, such the black points. The larger the value of ci the more a as Sugar Pine Point State Park, have drifted away population has drifted (i.e. diverged) away from a set of from a set of ancestral allele frequencies, possibly ancestral allele frequencies as estimated from the data. as a result of a bottleneck caused by historical logging (Maloney et al. in preparation a). Allele frequency of the Cr1 gene, responsible for WPBR‐resistance in sugar pine, averaged 0.068 for all screened populations in the Lake Tahoe Basin; this indicates that 14% of sugar pines carry at least one copy of the resistance allele. Even though frequency of disease resistance, Cr1, (0.125) is moderate at Sugar Pine Point State Park, the remaining 87% of the individuals are susceptible and under strong disease pressure (WPBR incidence = 41%). The sugar pine population at Tunnel Creek has the second lowest population growth rate (λ = 0.994), following Sugar Pine Point State Park. This population has moderate levels of WPBR (11%), very low fecundity estimates (Table 1) and recruitment (only 10 recruits ha‐1), and the second highest drift parameter (Figure 4). Even though there have been recent forest treatments (e.g., thinning and prescribed fire) in this area, the consequences of historical logging are evident; small population size (16 inds.ha‐1) and low genetic variation (ci = 0.027). Restoration strategies to mitigate anthropogenic influences should be based on strong evidence of negative population and genetic effects. Restoring effective population numbers, disease resistance, and genetic variation will require activities such as out‐planting seedlings that are genetically diverse and WPBR‐resistant; without resistance in these high‐risk sites restoration will likely fail. Restoration should be recommended on a site‐by‐site basis. At Rifle Peak the strategy will be to “facilitate” recruitment. Relatively high survivorship is found at Rifle Peak due to favorable site conditions. However, high WPBR infection at this site is negatively affecting cone production and subsequent recruitment. A diversity of seedling material should be planted as well as WPBR‐resistant genotypes. Western white pine at Blackwood Canyon will require restoring western white pine numbers, deploying 6 WPBR‐resistance, and genetically diverse material, including drought tolerant genotypes. Sugar Pine Point State Park will require restoring sugar pine numbers, as well as genetically diverse and WPBR‐ resistant material. A similar strategy of restoring sugar pine numbers by “facilitating” recruitment and planting genetically diverse material is recommended for Tunnel Creek as well. Leveraged by an extensive ecological, environmental, and genetic dataset, a comprehensive seed collection (Vogler and Maloney SNPLMA Round 7), and available planting material (Vogler and Maloney SNPLMA Round 9, 10, and Maloney NVDSL LTLPP), our objective is as follows: 1. Develop practical, effective, and science‐based restoration strategies for whitebark, western white, and sugar pine in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Approach/Methodology/Location of Research: We will use data collected from established plots to guide planting strategies for seedlings in three forest types: subalpine, upper montane and lower montane. In the first year we will plant seedlings in 6 different microhabitats: shrub nurse, tree nurse, rock shelter, log/litter debris, open canopy, closed canopy. We know that regional climate and landscape characteristics (e.g., topography) may strongly influence recruitment patterns, but micro‐ environmental conditions (e.g., substrate, canopy, microhabitat) may be as influential in the successful establishment of white pine species (Maloney et al. in preparation c). In the first year we will test the timing of planting, spring versus fall. Spring is often the planting time for reforestation and restoration in the LTBMU (D. Fournier, pers. comm.). In the 2009 spring planting of the Angora fire, average survival of container‐grown seedlings was 60% and ranged from 0 – 100%, with ¾ of the planting units having 90% survival (D. Fournier, pers. comm.). The efficacy of a fall planting will be tested as well. Greenhouse‐grown seedlings from containers may have higher survival in a fall planting when both above‐ and below‐ground tissue (e.g., shoots and roots) are entering winter dormancy (A. Delfino‐Mix, pers. observ.). A fall planting may allow roots to successfully establish and initiate active growth in the spring under favorable soil moisture conditions. For each season, 36 seedlings, at each of the 4 restoration sites, and in 6 microhabitats will be planted. We will use a triangle‐spacing planting pattern, with each seedling 1‐2 feet apart (D. Fournier, pers. comm.). In each microhabitat there will be 2 triangles of 3 trees each: one with plastic mesh tubing and one triangle of seedlings without mesh. This will allow us to determine if there is significant herbivore pressure, at each location, from deer (aboveground) or pocket gophers (belowground) that will warrant protective mesh, or not. The following year we will determine percent survival for all species, at all sites, microhabitats, and season. Restoration sites will be mapped; this will include tree, shrub, rock, litter, topographic features, canopy conditions, etc. A 100‐hectare area will be mapped out at Rifle Peak, a 20‐hectare area at Blackwood Canyon, and a 15‐hectare area at Sugar Pine Point State Park and at Tunnel Creek. All planted seedlings will be mapped and tagged. In restoration plantings we will continue using the triangle‐spacing planting pattern for both sugar and western white pine. Because of the clustering nature of whitebark pine, we will have 3 to 5 nested triangles for an individual planting. Two‐year‐old seedlings will be planted for each species. Each individual seedling’s phenotype and genotype will be known and will have been evaluated for blister rust resistance, phenology, drought tolerance, water‐use efficiency, root:shoot ratio, and growth (see Vogler and Maloney SNPLMA Round 7, 9, 10, and Maloney and Vogler NVDSL LTLPP). Deploying disease resistance can have positive effects for white pine survival in high‐risk sites, yet selection for this simply‐inherited trait in sugar pine and western white pine may have unintended consequences; thus careful deployment of resistance will be exercised. Preliminary data from whitebark 7 pine resistance evaluations suggest that resistance is complex, and perhaps multigenic (Vogler and Delfino‐Mix, unpublished data). Location of research. Restoration activities will be conducted at Rifle Peak, Blackwood Canyon, Sugar Pine Point State Park, and Tunnel Creek (Figure 5). Figure 5. White pine blister rust distribution and incidence for a. whitebark pine, b. western white pine, and c. sugar pine in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Each proposed restoration location is indicated by a red circle. Relationship of proposed research with previous research and studies. A SNPLMA Round 7‐funded project by Vogler and Maloney allowed us to determine the current population status (e.g., stable, declining, or growing) of three white pine species on Federal and non‐Federal lands. Through this work we were able to identify populations that warrant restoration. Cone collections and genetic studies from SNPLMA Round 9 & 10, NVDSL LTLPP funded projects are making it possible to evaluate adaptive genetic variation of ecologically important traits such as water‐use efficiency, disease resistance, phenology, growth, and survival. These studies will provide valuable information about suitable plant material for deployment in restoration projects for current and future environmental conditions in the Lake Tahoe region as well as make available hundreds of seedlings for restoration. Strategy of Engaging with Managers. We have consulted with D. Fournier (USFS‐LTBMU) and C. Beyer (USFS‐ LTBMU) about restoration activities in the LTBMU at Rifle Peak and Blackwood Canyon. Both have agreed to be contacts and collaborators on these restoration projects. R. Adams (CA State Parks) has agreed to be a contact and collaborator for restoration work at Sugar Pine Point State Park. We have also talked with and contacted Roland Shaw (Nevada Division of Forestry) and Bill Champion (NV Sate Parks) about restoration work in the Tunnel Creek area. If funded, permits will be requested from each agency as we have done in the past. We will work very closely and consult with the LTBMU, CA and NV State Parks about all planting and restoration activities and strategies. Deliverables/Products. Our research will provide previously unavailable information on practical restoration treatments for white pine species. This includes the careful deployment of both multigenic (CGR, PR) and monogenic (Cr1, Cr2) disease resistance to mitigate the effects of WPBR and determining the appropriate timing of planting seedlings (e.g., fall vs spring). Enhance the genetic diversity of populations that have reduced genetic bases due to the effects of historical logging. Genetic evaluations of drought tolerance will provide valuable information about suitable plant material for deployment, using within‐Basin seed‐transfer guidelines, to potentially mitigate the effects of a warming climate. We will take all this information and develop a white pine restoration handbook, which will include information about planting time, microsite conditions, deploying resistance, within‐Basin seed‐transfer guidelines, etc. 8 Schedule of Events Activity Plant seedlings to determine planting time (spring 1a vs fall) with cages, and without cages. Map out restoration areas and enter data. Develop 1b maps for each restoration site. Select sugar pines for out‐planting, database 1c development, tagging of individual seedlings. Determine seedling survivorship from spring and 1d fall planting and if caging is warranted Schedule meetings with LTBMU, CA State Parks, NV 1e State Parks, and NDF. 1f File quarterly reports. Continue mapping out restoration areas and enter 2a data. Develop maps for each restoration site. Out‐plant sugar pine at Sugar Pine Point State Park 2b and Tunnel Creek. Select western white pines for out‐planting, database development, tagging of individual 2c seedlings. Schedule meetings with LTBMU, CA State Parks, NV 2d State Parks, and NDF. Monitor seedlings at Sugar Pine Point State Park 2e and Tunnel Creek. File quarterly reports, attend and report results at 2f meetings. Select whitebark pines for out‐planting, database 3a development, tagging of individual seedlings. Out‐plant western white and whitebark pine at 3b Blackwood Canyon and Rifle Peak, respectively. Schedule meetings with LTBMU, CA State Parks, NV 3c State Parks, and NDF. 3d Write and publish results. 3e Continue monitoring seedlings at all sites. File quarterly reports, attend and report results at 3f meetings. 9 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X REFERENCES Barbour, M.G., Keeler‐Wolf, T., and Schoenherr, A.A. (Editors) 2007. Terrestrial Vegetation of California: Third edition. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. California Forest Pest Council (CFPC). 1970‐2009. Forest pest conditions in California annual reports, 1970‐2009. California Forest Pest Council, Sacramento, California. Gibson, K., K. Skov, S. Kegley, C. Jorgensen, S. Smith, J. Witcosky. 2008. Mountain pine beetle impacts in high‐elevation five‐needles pines: Current trends and challenges. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, R1‐08‐020. Pages 32. Kinloch, B. B., Jr., D. A. Davis, and D. Burton. 2007. Resistance and virulence interactions between two white pine species and blister rust in a 30‐year field trial. Tree Genetics and Genomes 4: 65‐74. Logan, J.A. and J.A Powell. 2001. Ghost forests, global warming, and the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). American Entomologist 47: 160‐172. Maloney, P.E., D.R. Vogler, A.J. Eckert, C.E. Jensen, and D.B. Neale. In preparation‐a. Population effects of logging, fire suppression, and an exotic pathogen on sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana Dougl.) in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Implications for restoration. Ecological Applications. Maloney, P.E., D.R. Vogler, C.E. Jensen, and A. Delfino‐Mix. In preparation‐b. Population ecology and and dynamics of whitebark pine, Pinus albicaulis, in the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Conservation Biology. Maloney, P.E., C.J. Jensen, and D.R. Vogler. In preparation‐c. Recruitment dynamics across three elevation zones in the Sierra Nevada: Can ecological and environmental heterogeneity buffer the next generation of forest trees? Ecology. Maloney, P.E., A.J. Eckert, D.R. Vogler, C.E. Jensen, and D.B. Neale. In preparation‐d. Ecological genetics of local adaptation at a landscape‐scale for Pinus lambertiana in the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. New Phytologist. Maloney, P.E., D.R. Vogler, and D.B. Neale. 2008. Evaluation of montane forest genetic resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Implications for conservation, management, and adaptive responses of Pinus lambertiana to environmental change. NVDSL Lake Tahoe License Plate Program Proposal. McKinney, S.T., C.E. Fiedler, and D.F. Tomback. 2009. Invasive pathogen threatens bird‐pine mutualism: implications for sustaining a high‐elevation ecosystem. Ecological Applications: 19:597‐607. Tomback, D.F., S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane. 2001. Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Unites States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Soil survey of the Tahoe Basin Area, California and Nevada. Vandygriff, J., B. Bentz, T. Coleman, A. Garcia, C. Jensen, P. Maloney and S. Smith. 2010. Monitoring mountain pine beetle life cycle timing and phloem temperatures at multiple elevations and latitudes in California. USDA Forest Health Monitoring Annual Meeting, poster. 10 Vogler, D.R., and P.E. Maloney. 2007. Natural and anthropogenic threats to white pines from lower montane forests to subalpine woodlands of the Lake Tahoe Basin: An ecological and genetic assessment for conservation, monitoring, and management. SNPLMA RD 7 Proposal. Vogler, D.R., P.E. Maloney, and D.B. Neale. 2008. Evaluation of montane forest genetic resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Implications for conservation, management, and adaptive responses of Pinus monticola to environmental change. SNPLMA RD 9 Proposal. Vogler, D.R., P.E. Maloney, and D.B. Neale. 2009. Evaluation of Montane Forest Genetic Resources: Implications for Conservation, Management, and Restoration of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) in the Lake Tahoe Basin. SNPLMA RD 10 Proposal. 11
