To learn more about the map elements, please download the "Pan-European strategy for genetic conservation of forest trees"
This distribution map has been developed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre (partly based on the EUFORGEN map) and released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0)
Caudullo, G., Welk, E., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., 2017. Chorological maps for the main European woody species. Data in Brief 12, 662-666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.05.007
The following experts have contributed to the development of the EUFORGEN distribution maps:
Fazia Krouchi (Algeria), Hasmik Ghalachyan (Armenia), Thomas Geburek (Austria), Berthold Heinze (Austria), Rudi Litschauer (Austria), Rudolf Litschauer (Austria), Michael Mengl (Austria), Ferdinand Müller (Austria), Franz Starlinger (Austria), Valida Ali-zade (Azerbaijan), Vahid Djalal Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Karen Cox (Belgium), Bart De Cuyper (Belgium), Olivier Desteucq (Belgium), Patrick Mertens (Belgium), Jos Van Slycken (Belgium), An Vanden Broeck (Belgium), Kristine Vander Mijnsbrugge (Belgium), Dalibor Ballian (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Alexander H. Alexandrov (Bulgaria), Alexander Delkov (Bulgaria), Ivanova Denitsa Pandeva (Bulgaria), Peter Zhelev Stoyanov (Bulgaria), Joso Gracan (Croatia), Marilena Idzojtic (Croatia), Mladen Ivankovic (Croatia), Željka Ivanović (Croatia), Davorin Kajba (Croatia), Hrvoje Marjanovic (Croatia), Sanja Peric (Croatia), Andreas Christou (Cyprus), Xenophon Hadjikyriacou (Cyprus), Václav Buriánek (Czech Republic), Jan Chládek (Czech Republic), Josef Frýdl (Czech Republic), Petr Novotný (Czech Republic), Martin Slovacek (Czech Republic), Zdenek Špišek (Czech Republic), Karel Vancura (Czech Republic), Ulrik Bräuner (Denmark), Bjerne Ditlevsen (Denmark), Jon Kehlet Hansen (Denmark), Jan Svejgaard Jensen (Denmark), Kalev Jðgiste (Estonia), Tiit Maaten (Estonia), Raul Pihu (Estonia), Ülo Tamm (Estonia), Arvo Tullus (Estonia), Aivo Vares (Estonia), Teijo Nikkanen (Finland), Sanna Paanukoski (Finland), Mari Rusanen (Finland), Pekka Vakkari (Finland), Leena Yrjänä (Finland), Daniel Cambon (France), Eric Collin (France), Alexis Ducousso (France), Bruno Fady (France), François Lefèvre (France), Brigitte Musch (France), Sylvie Oddou-Muratorio (France), Luc E. Pâques (France), Julien Saudubray (France), Marc Villar (France), Vlatko Andonovski (FYR Macedonia), Dragi Pop-Stojanov (FYR Macedonia), Merab Machavariani (Georgia), Irina Tvauri (Georgia), Alexander Urushadze (Georgia), Bernd Degen (Germany), Jochen Kleinschmit (Germany), Armin König (Germany), Armin König (Germany), Volker Schneck (Germany), Richard Stephan (Germany), H. H. Kausch-Blecken Von Schmeling (Germany), Georg von Wühlisch (Germany), Iris Wagner (Germany), Heino Wolf (Germany), Paraskevi Alizoti (Greece), Filippos Aravanopoulos (Greece), Andreas Drouzas (Greece), Despina Paitaridou (Greece), Aristotelis C. Papageorgiou (Greece), Kostas Thanos (Greece), Sándor Bordács (Hungary), Csaba Mátyás (Hungary), László Nagy (Hungary), Thröstur Eysteinsson (Iceland), Adalsteinn Sigurgeirsson (Iceland), Halldór Sverrisson (Iceland), John Fennessy (Ireland), Ellen O'Connor (Ireland), Fulvio Ducci (Italy), Silvia Fineschi (Italy), Bartolomeo Schirone (Italy), Marco Cosimo Simeone (Italy), Giovanni Giuseppe Vendramin (Italy), Lorenzo Vietto (Italy), Janis Birgelis (Latvia), Virgilijus Baliuckas (Lithuania), Kestutis Cesnavicius (Lithuania), Darius Danusevicius (Lithuania), Valmantas Kundrotas (Lithuania), Alfas Pliûra (Lithuania), Darius Raudonius (Lithuania), Robert du Fays (Luxembourg), Myriam Heuertz (Luxembourg), Claude Parini (Luxembourg), Fred Trossen (Luxembourg), Frank Wolter (Luxembourg), Joseph Buhagiar (Malta), Eman Calleja (Malta), Ion Palancean (Moldova), Dragos Postolache (Moldova), Gheorghe Postolache (Moldova), Hassan Sbay (Morocco), Tor Myking (Norway), Tore Skrøppa (Norway), Anna Gugala (Poland), Jan Kowalczyk (Poland), Czeslaw Koziol (Poland), Jan Matras (Poland), Zbigniew Sobierajski (Poland), Maria Helena Almeida (Portugal), Filipe Costa e Silva (Portugal), Luís Reis (Portugal), Maria Carolina Varela (Portugal), Ioan Blada (Romania), Alexandru-Lucian Curtu (Romania), Lucian Dinca (Romania), Georgeta Mihai (Romania), Mihai Olaru (Romania), Gheorghe Parnuta (Romania), Natalia Demidova (Russian Federation), Mikhail V. Pridnya (Russian Federation), Andrey Prokazin (Russian Federation), Srdjan Bojovic (Serbia) , Vasilije Isajev (Serbia), Saša Orlovic (Serbia), Rudolf Bruchánik (Slovakia), Roman Longauer (Slovakia), Ladislav Paule (Slovakia), Gregor Bozič (Slovenia), Robert Brus (Slovenia), Katarina Celič (Slovenia), Hojka Kraigher (Slovenia), Andrej Verlič (Slovenia), Marjana Westergren (Slovenia), Ricardo Alía (Spain), Josefa Fernández-López (Spain), Luis Gil Sanchez (Spain), Pablo Gonzalez Goicoechea (Spain), Santiago C. González-Martínez (Spain), Sonia Martin Albertos (Spain), Eduardo Notivol Paino (Spain), María Arantxa Prada (Spain), Alvaro Soto de Viana (Spain), Lennart Ackzell (Sweden), Jonas Bergquist (Sweden), Sanna Black-Samuelsson (Sweden), Jonas Cedergren (Sweden), Gösta Eriksson (Sweden), Markus Bolliger (Switzerland), Felix Gugerli (Switzerland), Rolf Holderegger (Switzerland), Peter Rotach (Switzerland), Marcus Ulber (Switzerland), Sven M.G. de Vries (The Netherlands), Khouja Mohamed Larbi (Tunisia), Murat Alan (Turkey), Gaye Kandemir (Turkey), Gursel Karagöz (Turkey), Zeki Kaya (Turkey), Hasan Özer (Turkey), Hacer Semerci (Turkey), Ferit Toplu (Turkey), Mykola M. Vedmid (Ukraine), Roman T. Volosyanchuk (Ukraine), Stuart A'Hara (United Kingdom), Joan Cottrell (United Kingdom), Colin Edwards (United Kingdom), Michael Frankis (United Kingdom), Jason Hubert (United Kingdom), Karen Russell (United Kingdom), C.J.A. Samuel (United Kingdom).
Status of Pinus uncinata conservation in Europe
Mountain pine has moderate to high levels of genetic diversity and variation, like Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), but higher than Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) (Monteleone et al., 2007; Dzialuk et al., 2009; Zaborowska et al., 2020). Most mountain pine genetic diversity and variation is within populations (up to 78%) (Monteleone et al., 2007). However, mountain pine has lower genetic polymorphism and diversity than its close relative dwarf mountain pine (Pinus mugo) (Zaborowska et al., 2020). Despite the species fragmented distribution gene flow has remained high enough to prevent genetic erosion, with high diversity populations of mountain pine even showing increased growth (González-Díaz et al., 2020).
Genetic differences among mountain pine populations are low but still significant with marginal populations being the most differentiated (Dzialuk et al., 2009). Typically, more isolated populations have lower genetic diversity (González-Díaz et al., 2020). However geographically isolated and rear edge populations at the species distribution limits unexpectedly do not always have the lowest genetic variation (González-Díaz et al., 2020; Zaborowska et al., 2020).
Within mountain ranges such as the Pyrenees and the Alps and even between them the genetic difference between Mountain pine populations has been found to be low (Dzialuk et al., 2009; Zaborowska et al., 2020). Isolated populations having high genetic diversity could be because gene flow was not restricted when mountain pine had a wider distribution prior to the Holocene during colder glacial periods (Dzialuk et al., 2009; Zaborowska et al., 2020). Mountain pine’s distribution was more restricted during the Holocene and underwent repeated isolation during warm periods, shifting the species up to the high mountains and reducing gene flow (Dzialuk et al., 2009). Fragmentation of mountain pines historically larger populations may have occurred too recently for significant geographic genetic structuring and differentiation to take place (Dzialuk et al., 2009).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Mountain pine has been treated as both an independent species and a subspecies/variety of dwarf mountain pine (Dzialuk et al., 2009; Zaborowska et al., 2020). Some research suggests morphological and genetic methods are not able to detect a clear differentiation between the two, suggesting they share the same gene pool and are sub-species (Monteleone et al., 2007). Genetic differentiation between mountain pine and dwarf mountain pine is low and the two are genetically similar, sharing a common ancestry (Zaborowska et al., 2020). It is hypothesized that mountain pine and dwarf mountain were historically part of one larger population and the species only fragmented recently (Monteleone et al., 2007; Dzialuk et al., 2009). Generally, Mountain pine is common in the Western part of the Alps and in the Pyrenees and dwarf mountain pine is in the Eastern part of the Alps and in the Carpathian Mountains (Monteleone et al., 2007). The two species overlap in their distribution with extensive hybridization and interspecific gene exchange taking place in the contact zones, creating intermediate forms (Monteleone et al., 2007; Zaborowska et al., 2020).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Threats to mountain pine include climate warming, exotic invasions or other species, overgrazing, and land use change which especially threatens potentially genetically important marginal populations (González-Díaz et al., 2020). Mountain pine’s distribution in patchy, scattered, and small populations across mountain chains makes it vulnerable to genetic drift and diversity loss through isolation (Zaborowska et al., 2020). However, many marginal populations are expanding in alpine regions such as northeast Spain (González-Díaz et al., 2020). Although, over the last few decades large areas of agricultural and livestock land have been abandoned, making mountain pine populations more vulnerable to uncontrolled exploitation and wildfires (González-Díaz et al., 2020). Interspecific gene flow and hybridization could have a negative and positive effect, causing genetic dilution but also increasing genetic diversity of populations (Zaborowska et al., 2020).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic Characterisation of Pinus uncinata and its GCUs
Availability of FRM
FOREMATIS
Contacts of experts
NA
Further reading
No available research.
References
Dzialuk, A., Muchewicz, E., Boratyński, A., Montserrat, J.M., Boratyńska, K. and Burczyk, J., 2009. Genetic variation of Pinus uncinata (Pinaceae) in the Pyrenees determined with cpSSR markers. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 277, pp.197-205.
González-Díaz, P., Gazol, A., Valbuena-Carabaña, M., Sangüesa-Barreda, G., Moreno-Urbano, A., Zavala, M.A. and Camarero, J.J., 2020. Remaking a stand: Links between genetic diversity and tree growth in expanding Mountain pine populations. Forest Ecology and Management, 472, p.118244.
Monteleone, I., Ferrazzini, D. and Belletti, P., 2007. Effectiveness of neutral RAPD markers to detect genetic divergence between the subspecies uncinata and mugo of Pinus mugo Turra. Silva fennica, 40(3), p.391.
Zaborowska, J., Łabiszak, B. and Wachowiak, W., 2020. Population history of European mountain pines Pinus mugo and Pinus uncinata revealed by mitochondrial DNA markers. Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 58(4), pp.474-486.
If you notice any error in the contents of this species page, please contact euforgen@efi.int
See details
Designed by Newtvision
