Natural Resources
Conservation Service
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Draft. A draft ecological site description is either incomplete or has not undergone quality control and quality assurance review.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 022A–Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountains
Major Land Resource Area 22A, Sierra Nevada Mountains, is located predominantly in California and a small section of western Nevada. The area lies completely within the Sierra Nevada Section of the Cascade-Sierra Mountains Province. The Sierra Nevada range has s gentle western slope, and a very abrupt eastern slope. The Sierra Nevada consists of hilly to steep mountains and occasional flatter mountain valleys. Elevation ranges between 1,500 and 9,000 ft. throughout most of the range, but peaks often exceed 12,000 ft. The highest point in the continental US occurs in this MLRA (Mount Whitney, 14,494 ft.). Most of the Sierra Nevada is dominated by granitic rock known as the Sierra Nevada Batholith. Additionally, glacial activity of the Pleistocene has played a major role in shaping Sierra Nevada features, including cirques, arêtes, and glacial deposits and moraines. Average annual precipitation ranges from 20 to 80 inches in most of the area, with increases along elevational and south-north gradients. Soil temperature regime ranges from mesic, frigid, and cryic. Due to the extreme elevational range found within this MLRA, Land Resource Units (LRUs) were designated to group the MLRA into similar land units.
LRU "B" Southern Sierra Subalpine
The Southern Sierra sublalpine LRU "B" occurs south of latitude 39 degrees north, and elevations are typically between 9,000 to 10,500 feet (2,743 to 3,200 m). MAAT ranges from 31 to 40 degrees F (-0.5 to 4.4 C), MAP ranges from 32 to 59 inches (813 to 1,499 mm), and the frost free season is 25 to 60 days. Forests are dominated by whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) and foxtail pine (Pinus balfouriana) near timberline, and a mix of Sierra lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana), whitebark pine, and/or mountain hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) at the lower elevations. Threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia) or purple mountainheath (Phyllodoce breweri) dominates the non-forested areas.Ecological site concept
This ecological site occurs on glacially scoured valley walls and basins with high cover of bedrock outcrop. The soils are typically shallow to moderately deep in linear bedrock fissures that support whitebark pine. Soils are typically non-skeletal with sandy loam textures and low organic matter accumulation. Whitebark pine grows as a multi-stemmed tree or in dense clusters of individual trees. Canopy height ranges from 6 to 25 feet tall. At upper elevations and in exposed positions trees develop a compact krummholz form. Mountain pride (Penstemon newberryi), Ross' sedge (Carex rossii), and Parry's rush (Juncus parryi) are common in these fissures.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Pinus albicaulis
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Juncus parryi
(2) Penstemon newberryiPhysiographic features
This site is found on glacial valleys and basins with elevation ranging from ---- and ---- feet. This site is found on all aspects. Slopes range from -- to -- percent, but are typically between -- and -- percent.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Mountain
Climatic features
The climate of this ecological site is characterized by cool temperatures, wet winters with most precipitation falling as snow in winters, and relatively dry summers. The mean annual precipitation ranges from -- to -- inches. The mean annual temperature ranges from -- to -- degrees F. The frost-free (>32F) season is -- to -- days. The freeze-free (>28F) season is ?? to ?? days.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 0 days Freeze-free period (average) 0 days Precipitation total (average) 0 in BarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 3. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 4 Annual average temperature pattern
">Influencing water features
Soil features
The soils associated with this ecological site are very deep, and formed in colluvium and residuum derived from granitic rock. They are ---- drained with --- permeability. The soil moisture regime is xeric and the soil temperature regime is cryic. Surface rock fragments smaller than 3 mm in diameter average -- percent cover, and larger fragments average -- percent. Surface texture is----. Subsurface textures are ---. Subsurface rock fragments smaller than 3 mm in diameter average -- percent by volume, and larger fragments average -- percent (for a depth of ---). The ---- soils are correlated to this ecological site. They are --(TAX).
This ecological site has been correlated to the following mapunits and soil components in the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park Soil Survey (CA792):
Ecological dynamics
Abiotic Factors:
This ecological site occurs on glacially scoured valley walls and basins. The soils are typically shallow to moderately deep in linear bedrock fissures that support whitebark pine. Soils are typically non-skeletal with sandy loam textures and low organic matter accumulation. However, some fissures are filled with a deep layer of poorly decomposed pine needles. Whitebark pine grows as a multi-stemmed tree or in dense clusters of individual trees. Canopy height ranges from 6 to 25 feet tall. At upper elevations and in exposed positions trees develop a compact krummholz form. Mountain pride, Ross' sedge (Carex rossii), and Parry's rush are common in these fissures and small soil pockets. There is a diversity of microhabitats in these bedrock pockets, due to water accumulation or run off, degree of shading due to bedrock forms, and soil characteristics. A wide variety of alpine and subalpine forbs and grasses can be found among the bedrock outcrops.
Ecology-Disturbance Factors:
In this ecological site whitebark pine grows in linear bedrock fissures on glacially scoured granite bedrock outcrops. These trees are typically multi-stemmed, and canopy cover is limited due to the high percentage of bedrock. In areas exposed to wind, cold air drainage, or avalanche, whitebark pine is maintained in a krummholz form by wind and ice pruning of branches exposed above the snow pack. Krummholz trees may be greater than 1,500 years old (Miller 2014), but are typically less than 800 years, and continuously develop seedlings from seed caches. They may attain these older ages by layering of branches, which allows for new stem growth while older branches die back. Caching of whitebark pine seeds by Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) is the primary mode of seed dispersal. The birds often cache seeds in open areas that are suitable for young seedlings. If all seeds are not consumed, they give rise to dense clusters of genetically similar whitebark pine. These clusters appear to be one tree with many stems, but are more often individual trees (Burns et al. 1990, Tomback et al. 2001a). Whitebark pine has ongoing recruitment from Clark’s nutcracker caches in the absence of disturbance, resulting in an increase in stand density over time.
Fire and avalanche are the primary natural drivers for succession in this ecological site, which is relatively stable. Fire ignition is frequent on these exposed high elevation bedrock outcrops, but there is minimal and discontinuous fuel to carry large or hot fires. Small fires may play a minor role in maintaining openings that favor the germination and survival of young whitebark pine seedlings (Burns et al. 1990, Tomback et al. 2001b, Howard 2002). Fire studies specific for the Sierra Nevada in whitebark pine forests are lacking. However, studies in whitebark pine forest across the US, show a mean fire return interval that ranges from 29 to 300 years, while moderate severity fires range from 25 to 75 years, and stand replacing fires have greater than 140 year return interval (Fryer 2002).
Avalanche is common among the alpine peaks and ridges, and can remove swaths of whitebark pine in avalanche prone chutes or below wind formed cornices. Areas prone to frequent avalanche are not stable long enough to support whitebark pine, but areas prone to less frequent avalanches or rare large avalanches will develop whitebark pine over time.
Whitebark pine is threatened by the non-native white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola), and the native mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) (Cox 2000, Tomback et al. 2001b, Howard 2002). Severe epidemics have killed large areas of forest in the Rocky Mountains, but epidemics have not been as severe or as extensive in the Sierra Nevada. The non-native WPBR was introduced into North America, near Vancouver, British Columbia around 1910, and has been slowly spreading across the western United States and Canada. It was first detected in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in 1960’s. White pine blister rust is present in the northern Sierra Nevada and has been found at a few locations in the central Sierra Nevada, including Yosemite National Park and at a high Sierra location on the western slopes of the Sierra National Forest (Maloney 2011). It has not been detected on whitebark pine in the most southern Sierra Nevada including Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park.
White pine blister rust could potentially infect whitebark pine in the southern Sierras, but synchronous phenological and environmental factors need to occur for WPBR to infect whitebark pine. Within the dry and high southern Sierra Nevada, this may be less common than at lower elevations and more northern latitudes (Maloney 2011). For infection to occur in five-needled white pines, relative humidity has to be greater than 90 percent, temperatures have to be between 35.6 and 64.4 degrees F (2 to 18 degrees C), and stomates need to be open to allow the WPBR entry (Maloney 2011). The basidiospores, which infect whitebark pine, are released in fall from the alternate hosts gooseberry or currents (Ribes sp.), or less commonly, lousewort or Indian paintbrush (Pedicularis or Castilleja sp.). These spores do not travel far or last long in the environment. Whitebark pine may have early onset of winter dormancy, and the stomates may be typically be closed at the time WPBR basidiospores are released (Maloney 2011). The onset of winter dormancy for whitebark pine is dependent upon the length of growing season, precipitation and soil water holding capacity. This ecological site occurs on medium textured soils on shallow to moderately deep bedrock fissures in southern latitudes with lower precipitation than the northern latitudes. Due to the drier climate, these whitebark stands may be less prone to white pine blister rust.
A state altered by WPBR has been included in this state-and-transition model because of the documented incidences of WPBR in the central Sierra Nevada, and the slight potential that it may infect the southern Sierra Nevada. In other regions of whitebark pine forest, there is a potential to transition to a third state, where WPBR has cause a decline in cone production of less than 1000 cones/ Ha and basal area is < .5 m2/ acre. Below this threshold there may be insufficient seeds for Clark’s nutcracker and the regeneration of whitebark pine (McKinney et al. 2009).
WPBR affects the crown and cone producing limbs of mature trees, reducing cone production, and can kill younger trees within a year. The decrease in cone production, and high mortality of young trees threatens the regenerative success of this species (Maloney, Vogler et al. 2012). A few studies have been conducted on genetic resistance, and results vary from no resistance (Maloney, personal discussion), and 26 to 47 percent in the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Northwest (Keane, Tomback et al. 2012).
Mountain pine beetles (MPB) preferentially attacks whitebark pine trees that are heavily infected with WPBR. They also appear to prefer whitebark pine over lodgepole pine, and trees with diameters over 6” dbh. Mountain pine beetles targets larger diameter trees at lower elevations but WPBR infected trees at all elevations and ages (Cluck 2014).
Reduced seed production affects the presence and abundance of Clark’s nutcracker, and in turn the number and distribution of seed caches (Tomback and Resler 2007, Keane et al. 2012). This can lead to recruitment below the threshold required to sustain populations (McKinney et al. 2009).
Predictions about climate change due to global warming suggest that the whitebark pine communities in the Sierra Nevada Mountains may be threatened by rising temperatures and precipitation changes, primarily due to secondary impacts as pathogens and lower elevation conifer species extend their ranges to higher elevations. Recent California based climate models predict a 9 degree F increase in temperature by 2100, and older models predict a 2 to 4 degree F increase in winter and 4 to 8 degree increase in summer (Safford et al. 2012). Models are more variable for precipitation, but recent models for the Sierra Nevada, predict similar to slightly less precipitation. Most models agree that summers will become drier, since more of the precipitation is predicted to come as rain, and snow melt-off will occur earlier in spring (Hayhoe et al. 2004, Safford et al. 2012). Presently a severe drought is occurring in the Sierra Nevada, with 10 to 30 percent of average precipitation and very little snow accumulation. Whether this is climate driven, and thus will become more of the future normal remains to be seen.
The alpine zone is defined as having mean annual summer temperatures of less than 43.5 Degrees F or (6.4 degrees Celsius), and a growing season of less than 94 days (Korner et al. 2011). The warming temperatures will affect the structure and distribution of the alpine ecotone. High elevation areas with suitable soils and landforms for the upward migration of whitebark pine will be important for the sustainability of this community. The long lived whitebark pine will most likely persist through the initial shift in climate, but the slow regeneration of this species in the limited expanses of suitable higher elevation habitat may be slow. The intermediate effect of warming temperatures may allow for more upright tree growth of whitebark pine and increased leader growth on compact krummholz forms. Indeed, upright tree growth forms have already significantly increased in alpine krummholz whitebark pine communities (Millar et al. 2004). However, a decrease in snow pack or earlier melt off may cause dieback of leaders and exposed krummholz, creating a more compact or less extensive krummholz community.
The dwarf alpine herbaceous community may also be impacted by warming temperatures. These small forbs and grasses lie close to the surface to obtain the maximum heat possible at this elevation. They live in a much warmer microclimate than trees, with their limbs exposed to air currents. A few degrees of warming may make the temperatures too extreme for these alpine species. A modeling analysis of warming temperature on the distribution of alpine forbs in the White Mountains California predicts local extinction of several species. Fewseed drab (Draba oligosperma), a common plant on this ecological site, is predicted to be locally extinct in the White Mountains with 3 degrees of warming (Van de Ven et al. 2007).
Warmer temperatures have shifted the thermal zone for mountain pine beetles upslope, subjecting higher elevations of whitebark pine to beetle attacks (Craig 2010, Keane et al. 2012, Keane and al 2013). Growth rates of whitebark pine stems has nearly doubled since 1880, due to warmer temperatures (Millar et al. 2004). The new leaders may obtain sufficient size (greater than 6 inch dbh), to be targeted by mountain pine beetles.
The historic temperature range for this ecological site is between 20 to 35 degrees F. With a 2 to 6 degree warming, species such as Sierra lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana) may move into this zone. A 9 degree warming shift over the next 85 years could make conditions favorable for upper montane species to establish. Species such as Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and California red fir (Abies magnifica) could survive with the longer growing season and warmer temperatures for seedling germination and leader growth. If lower elevation conifers establish in the whitebark pine zone, whitebark pine may become a seral species, dependent upon fire for continued regeneration and elimination of competitors.
In the state-and-transition model below, the reference community within the reference state consists of the most successionally advanced community phase (numbered 1.1) as well as other community phases that result from natural and human disturbances. Community phase 1.1 is deemed the phase representative of the most successionally advanced pre-European plant/animal community including periodic natural surface fires that influenced its composition and production. This phase is determined from the oldest modern day remnant forests and/or historic literature.
The potential for crossing the threshold for State 2 and State 3 is low to very low, but this ecological site may extend into the central Sierra Nevada where whitebark pine bister rust has been documented, and therefore may potentially affect this ecosystem. Potential shifts due to warming temperatures are not included in this state-and-transition model.
All tabular data listed for a specific community phase within this ecological site description represent a summary of one or more field data collection plots taken in communities within the community phase. Although such data are valuable in understanding the phase (kinds and amounts of ground and surface materials, canopy characteristics, community phase overstory and understory species, production and composition, and growth), it typically does not represent the absolute range of characteristics nor an exhaustive listing of species for all the dynamic communities within each specific community phase.State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
Figure 5. R022AB006CA STM
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textEcosystem states
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference StateThis is the reference state for this ecological site.
Community 1.1
Mature whitebark pine
Figure 6. Mature whitebark pine
Figure 7. Mature whitebark view
Whitebark pine typically has 20 to 45 percent cover in the bedrock fissures, with 10 to 45 percent cover from stunted trees less than 13' tall, and 0 to 20 percent cover from trees between 13 and 25 feet tall. Canopy height decreases at the higher elevations and in exposed positions. Canopy cover across the bedrock slopes is typically less than 5 percent. Trees are typically multi-stemmed or in clusters of individual trees.
The understory is dominated by mountain pride, Ross' sedge, and Parry's rush. Total forb cover ranges from 2 to 7 percent, and total grass and grass-like cover ranges from 3 to 10 percent. Cover is higher in open areas. Shrubs are typically sparse, but range from 1 to 3 percent cover with purple mountainheath (Phyllodoce breweri), and gooseberrry (Ribes spp.) present. Other common species (>20 percent occurrence) include: common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), rosy pussytoes (Antennaria rosea), rockcress (Arabis sp.), Mt. Hood pussypaws (Cistanthe umbellata var. umbellata), frosted buckwheat (Eriogonum incanum), naked buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum) rosy buckwheat (Eriogonum rosense), mousetail (Ivesia sp.), granite prickly phlox (Linanthus pungens), Rydberg's penstemon (Penstemon rydbergii), Watson's spikemoss (Selaginella watsonii), Rocky Mountain goldenrod (Solidago multiradiata), needlegrass (Achnatherum sp.), western needlegrass (Achnatherum occidentale), threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia), sedge (Carex sp.), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), muttongrass (Poa fendleriana), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), Wheeler's bluegrass (Poa wheeleri), and spike trisetum (Trisetum spicatum).Figure 8. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 4. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Tree 19 160 533 Grass/Grasslike 1 20 65 Forb 3 8 26 Shrub/Vine 0 3 8 Total 23 191 632 Table 5. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 20-50% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 0-0% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 0-10% Forb foliar cover 0-10% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 10-30% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0-30% Surface fragments >3" 0-10% Bedrock 20-80% Water 0% Bare ground 0-0% Table 6. Soil surface cover
Tree basal cover 0-0% Shrub/vine/liana basal cover 0-0% Grass/grasslike basal cover 0-0% Forb basal cover 0-0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 10-40% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0-30% Surface fragments >3" 0-30% Bedrock 20-90% Water 0% Bare ground 0-0% Table 7. Woody ground cover
Downed wood, fine-small (<0.40" diameter; 1-hour fuels) 0-2% Downed wood, fine-medium (0.40-0.99" diameter; 10-hour fuels) 0-2% Downed wood, fine-large (1.00-2.99" diameter; 100-hour fuels) 0-3% Downed wood, coarse-small (3.00-8.99" diameter; 1,000-hour fuels) – Downed wood, coarse-large (>9.00" diameter; 10,000-hour fuels) – Tree snags** (hard***) – Tree snags** (soft***) – Tree snag count** (hard***) Tree snag count** (hard***) * Decomposition Classes: N - no or little integration with the soil surface; I - partial to nearly full integration with the soil surface.
** >10.16cm diameter at 1.3716m above ground and >1.8288m height--if less diameter OR height use applicable down wood type; for pinyon and juniper, use 0.3048m above ground.
*** Hard - tree is dead with most or all of bark intact; Soft - most of bark has sloughed off.
Table 8. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – – 0-1% 1-3% >0.5 <= 1 – – 2-8% 1-3% >1 <= 2 – 0-2% 0-2% 1-2% >2 <= 4.5 0-3% 0-2% – – >4.5 <= 13 5-45% – – – >13 <= 40 0-20% – – – >40 <= 80 – – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.2
RegenerationFire, avalanche, or localized mortality from pathogens or insects creates canopy gaps for whitebark pine regeneration from Clark's nutcracker seed caches.
Whitebark pine is dependent upon Clark’s nutcracker for seed dispersal. Clark’s nutcracker prefers to cache seeds in open or disturbed areas, and those that are not recovered germinate and create young tree clusters. Seed predation in normal years may be up to 97 percent, leaving few seeds for germination. Germination and seedling establishment after fire may take several years because of the high predation rate, and short dormancy period in some seeds. Years with higher summer precipitation may have higher cone yields. The cones take two years to develop. After favorable cone production cycles, there will be more seeds left by predators for germination (Fryer 2002). Whitebark pine establishment after avalanche may take longer than after fire, depending upon the degree of soil and seed cache disturbance.
Growth of young seedlings is slow. In a typical stand, whitebark pine reaches cone maturity at 60 to 100 years (Fryer 2002), but the krummholz whitebark pine may take longer since it is in the coldest region of the whitebark pine zone.
The understory will likely remain intact after fire, avalanche or pest outbreak. Cover of grass-grasslikes and forbs may increase in the new canopy openings, and this site may resemble R022AB001CA after disturbance. Species may include mountain pride, Ross' sedge, Parry's rush, purple mountainheath, gooseberry, common yarrow, rosy pussytoes, rockcress, Mt. Hood pussypaws, frosted buckwheat, naked buckwheat, rosy buckwheat, mousetail, granite prickly phlox, mountain pride, Rydberg's penstemon, Watson's spikemoss, Rocky Mountain goldenrod, needlegrass, western needlegrass, threadleaf sedge, sedge, squirreltail, muttongrass, Sandberg bluegrass, Wheeler's bluegrass, and spike trisetum.Pathway 1.1a
Community 1.1 to 1.2This pathway is caused by fire, avalanche, windthrow, or pest outbreaks, which removes the overstory canopy.
Pathway 1.2a
Community 1.2 to 1.1With time, regeneration and growth of whitebark pine, this phase transitions to Community Phase 1.1.
State 2
Altered State, White Pine Blister RustThis state has developed with the introduction of the non-native white pine blister rust.
Community 2.1
Mature whitebark pineThis community is similar to community 1.1, but whitebark pine has low to moderate infection rates from white pine blister rust. There may be death of infected younger trees, and dieback of infected branches on larger trees. Over time, canopy cover of whitebark pine may decline.
Community 2.2
RegenerationRegeneration occurs in canopy gaps, from seeds germinating in Clark's nutcracker caches. Overall regeneration is lower due to reduced cone production and a higher percentage of seed consumption by Clark’s nutcracker, and potential infestation and mortality of young seedlings from WPBR infection.
Pathway 2.1a
Community 2.1 to 2.2This pathway is caused by fire, avalanche, windthrow, pest outbreak or other disturbances that remove the overstory canopy.
Pathway 2.2a
Community 2.2 to 2.1With time, regeneration of healthy whitebark pines, and growth this phase develops into Community phase 2.1.
Transition 1A
State 1 to 2This transition is triggered by infection of whitebark pine by Cronartium ribicola, cause of white pine blister rust, within this ecological site. White pine blister rust affects the crown and cone producing limbs of mature trees, reducing cone production, and can kill younger trees within a year. The decrease in cone production and high mortality of young trees threatens the regenerative success of this species (Maloney et al. 2012). Repeat waves of infection by WPBR under favorable climatic conditions can worsen the situation. Reduced seed production affects the presence and abundance of Clark’s nutcracker, and thus the number and distribution of seed caches (Tomback and Resler 2007, Keane et al. 2012). This can lead to recruitment below the threshold required to sustain populations (McKinney et al. 2009).
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Restoration practices that have been experimented with include spraying pesticides for mountain pine beetle, and planting of hopeful, disease resistant whitebark pine.
Additional community tables
Table 9. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Forb1 Forbs 3–26 mountain pride PENE3 Penstemon newberryi 4–19 1–12 rosy buckwheat ERRO Eriogonum rosense 0–5 0–2 frosted buckwheat ERIN9 Eriogonum incanum 0–4 0–2 granite prickly phlox LIPU11 Linanthus pungens 0–3 0–1 Watson's spikemoss SEWA2 Selaginella watsonii 0–2 0–1 Rocky Mountain goldenrod SOMU Solidago multiradiata 0–1 0–1 Rydberg's penstemon PERY Penstemon rydbergii 0–1 0–1 naked buckwheat ERNU3 Eriogonum nudum 0–1 0–1 mousetail IVESI Ivesia 0–1 0–1 common yarrow ACMI2 Achillea millefolium 0–1 0–1 rosy pussytoes ANRO2 Antennaria rosea 0–1 0–1 rockcress ARABI2 Arabis 0–1 0–1 Mt. Hood pussypaws CIUMU Cistanthe umbellata var. umbellata 0–1 0–1 Grass/Grasslike2 Grasses and Grasslike 1–65 needlegrass ACHNA Achnatherum 0–62 0–2 Ross' sedge CARO5 Carex rossii 1–12 1 threadleaf sedge CAFI Carex filifolia 0–9 0–2 Parry's rush JUPA Juncus parryi 0–7 0–3 squirreltail ELEL5 Elymus elymoides 0–7 0–2 spike trisetum TRSP2 Trisetum spicatum 0–3 0–2 western needlegrass ACOC3 Achnatherum occidentale 0–3 0–1 sedge CAREX Carex 0–1 0–1 muttongrass POFE Poa fendleriana 0–1 0–1 Sandberg bluegrass POSE Poa secunda 0–1 0–1 Wheeler's bluegrass POWH2 Poa wheeleri 0–1 0–1 Shrub/Vine3 Shrubs 0–8 currant RIBES Ribes 0–4 0–3 purple mountainheath PHBR4 Phyllodoce breweri 0–4 0–1 Tree4 Trees 19–533 whitebark pine PIAL Pinus albicaulis 19–533 5–45 Table 10. Community 1.1 forest overstory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height ft Canopy cover (%) Diameter in Basal area (square ft/acre) Treewhitebark pine PIAL Pinus albicaulis Native 0-25 0-10 3-10 0 Table 11. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Animal community
Clark’s Nutcracker and squirrels play a major role in seed dispersal for whitebark pine, by caching seeds. Bears have been reported to raid squirrel middens for the whitebark seeds (Howard 2002). Whitebark seeds provide valuable nutrition, and are an important food for bears, birds, and rodents. The trees also provide cover for and nesting cavities for birds and other wildlife.
Recreational uses
Backpacking, hiking, mountaineering are the main recreational activities in this area. Due to the highly erodible sandy soils, and steep slopes, trails should be constructed carefully.
Wood products
Whitebark pine has very low productivity and is not suited for timber or firewood production.
Supporting information
Inventory data references
The following NRCS soil and vegetation plots were used to describe this ecological site: 1.1 2012CA7921059- Type location 2013CA7921042 2013CA7921057 2013CA7927507 2013CA7928215 2013CA7928216
Type locality
Location 1: Fresno County, CA UTM zone N UTM northing 4109627 UTM easting 354101 General legal description The type location is south of the John Muir Trail, approximately 1.5 miles east of Helen Lake, in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park. Other references
Burns, R. M., B. H. Honkala, and United States. Forest Service. 1990. Silvics of North America. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., Washington.
Cluck, D. 2014. Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak in the Warner Mountains: Implications for Whitebark Pine.in Northern California Botanist Special Workshop / Session, Chico, CA.
Cox, S. 2000. Management of Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) in North American Forest and National Parks. Colorado State University.
Craig, R. K. 2010. “Stationarity is dead”—long live transformation: five principles for climate change adaptation law. Harvard Environmental Law Review:66.
Fryer, J. L. 2002. Pinus albicaulis. . In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory
Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan, C. B. Field, P. C. Frumhoff, E. P. Mauren, N. L. Miller, S. C. Moser, S. H. Schneider, K. N. Cahill, E. E. Cleland, L. Dale, R. Drapek, R. M. Hanemann, L. S. Kalkstein, J. Lenihan, C. K. Lunch, R. P. Neilson, S. C. Sheridan, and J. H. Verville. 2004. Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101.
Howard, J. 2002. Pinus albicaulis. Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.
Keane, et al. 2013. Climate Change and Whitebark Pine: Compelling reasons for restoration. WPEF Climate Change White Paper.
Keane, R. E., D. F. Tomback, C. A. Aubry, A. D. Bower, E. M. Campbell, C. L. Cripps, M. B. Jenkins, M. F. Mahalovich, M. Manning, S. T. McKinney, M. P. Murray, D. L. Perkins, D. P. Reinhart, C. Ryan, A. W. Schoettle, and C. M. Smith. 2012. A Wide Range Restoration Strategy for Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis). Page 108 GTR RMRS-GTR-279. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Center, Fort Collins, CO.
Korner, C., J. Paulsen, and E. M. Spehn. 2011. A definition of mountains and their bioclimatic belts for global comparisons of biodiversity data. Alpine Botany.
Maloney, P. 2011. Incidence and distribution of white pine blister rust in the high elevation forests of California. Forest Pathology:8.
Maloney, P., D. R. Vogler, C. E. Jensen, and A. D. Mix. 2012. Ecology of whitebark pine populations in relation to white pine blister rust infection in subalpine forests of the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA: Implications for restoration. Forest Ecology and Management 280:166-175.
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 19:10.
Meyer, M. D., et al. (2012). "Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) Mortality Monitoring in the Inyo National Forest – 2012 Report.“ United States Department of Agriculture
Millar, C. I. 2014. Climate, Bark Beetles, and High Elevation Pines (Whitebark and Limber) in the Great Basin: Not Always a Bad Combination. .in Northern California Botanist Special Workshop / Session, Chico, CA.
Millar, C. I., R. D. Westfall, D. L. Delaney, J. C. King, and L. J. Graumlich. 2004. Response of subalpine conifers in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA, to 20th-century warming and decadal climate variability. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36:181-200.
Safford, H. D., M. North, and M. D. Meyer. 2012. Climate change and the relevance of historical forest conditions. Page 22 in M. North, editor. Managing Sierra Nevada Forest. United States Department of Agriculture.
Tomback, D. F., S. F. Arno, and R. E. Keane. 2001b. Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology & Restoration. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Tomback, D. F., and L. M. Resler. 2007. Invasive pathogens at alpine treeline: consequences for treeline dynamics. Physical Geography 28:397-418.
Van de Ven, C. M., S. B. Weiss, and W. G. Ernst. 2007. Plant Species Distributions under Present Conditions and Forecasted for Warmer Climates in an Arid Mountain Range. Earth Interactions 11:33.Contributors
Marchel Munnecke
Rangeland health reference sheet
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.
Author(s)/participant(s) Contact for lead author Date Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
-
Presence of water flow patterns:
-
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
-
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
-
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
-
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
-
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
-
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
-
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
-
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
-
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
-
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):
Dominant:
Sub-dominant:
Other:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
-
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
-
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
-
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
-
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Print Options
Sections
Font
AAAAOther
PrintThe Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Accessibility statement