Pinus contorta
Lodgepole pine

Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) is a non-native tree species in Europe, introduced from North America. The history of lodgepole pine in Europe is closely tied to its economic importance as a timber resource, and its adaptability to various environments, including coastal areas. Lodgepole pine can grow in extremes of moisture stress, drained/poor soils, bogs, and temperatures from below freezing to over 38°C, thriving in diverse habitats, from lowlands to subalpine regions (Fazekas, 2003).

Lodgepole pine is well-known for its serotinous cones, which open and release seeds after wildfires, allowing it to quickly colonize disturbed areas and dominate successional stages, making it a successful pioneer species. It is a keystone species in many ecosystems in the western United States and Canada, providing important habitat for wildlife, offering shelter and food sources, and maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem function. However, changing fire regimes and fire suppression, other human disruption, and climate conditions pose ecological challenges, affecting its distribution and growth patterns, and threatening the genetic diversity of peripheral populations (Justin DeRose, 2023).

in situ genetic conservation unit
ex situ genetic conservation unit
Map elements
Download the distribution map
PDF (not available) SHAPEFILE (not available) JPG (not available)
About map elements

To learn more about the map elements, please download the "Pan-European strategy for genetic conservation of forest trees"

Acknowledgements

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 contorta conservation in Europe

Genetic diversity and variation

Lodgepole pine has as much as 94% of the genetic variation in the species within populations, with low genetic variation and differentiation between populations, which is a common feature in many boreal and wind-pollinated conifers (Neophytou et al., 2018). Naturally regenerated stands were found to have lower heterozygosity and genetic variation than planted or unharvested stands, which may be the result of tree clusters from bird and mammal seed stores and seed collection/nursery seedling production not altering genetic diversity relative to natural stands (Neophytou et al., 2018). Edge populations have been shown to decrease in genetic variability and have higher population structure and genetic differentiation than central populations of the species in North America (Fazekas, 2003; Parchman, Benkman, and Jenkins, 2011). European populations have limited genetic diversity in comparison with populations in their native range in North America, likely because of its introduction from a limited number of source populations and fragmented plantings.

Gene flow

High levels of gene flow, large population size, founder effects, geographical barriers, human-mediated activities, and high reproduction determine the genetic structure of the species, leading to some variations in genetic diversity between populations (Fazekas, 2003). The species has experienced isolation due to glacial events; most of the current range in North American originated from postglacial refugia in the Queen Charlotte Islands and other islands south of the ice margin (Fazekas and Yeh, 2006). Environmental changes such as warming, increased fire frequency, and mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreaks are becoming more of a threat, reducing genetic flow (Justin DeRose, 2023). This is especially so in Europe, threatening the persistence of the species. However, active management, such as restoration of natural disturbance regimes, can help improve genetic variability (Justin DeRose, 2023).

 

The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.

Interspecific taxa dynamics

There are four subspecies of Pinus contorta. Pinus contorta ssp. contorta is found along the Pacific coast of North America and growing in coastal environments. Pinus contorta ssp. latifolia is found throughout western North America, growing in low-elevation forests to high-elevation subalpine forests. Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana is found in the Sierra Nevada Mountain range in California, typically growing in high-elevation environments and subalpine forests. Pinus contorta ssp. bolanderi is also found in California. These four subspecies differ in their levels of genetic diversity and population structure. However, the low genetic divergence among the subspecies suggests they only recently diverged or that geneflow between subspecies still regularly occurs and is high enough to prevent population genetic differentiation (Fazekas, 2003; Fazekas and Yeh, 2006).

 

The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.

No information available.

 

The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.

Genetic Characterisation of Pinus contorta and its GCUs

Availability of FRM

FOREMATIS

Related publications

Contacts of experts

NA

Further reading

Critchfield, W.B. 1980. Genetics of lodgepole pine. Washington, DC, US Deparment of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Wheeler, N.C. and Guries, R.P. 1982. Population structure, genic diversity, and morphological variation in Pinuscontorta Dougl. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(3): 595–606. doi:10.1139/x82-091.

References

Fazekas, A.J. 2003. Population structure, diversity and gene flow in Pinus contorta Dougl. from RAPD markers and sequencing data. PhD Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Fazekas, A.J. and Yeh, F.C. 2006. Postglacial colonization and population genetic relationships in the Pinus contorta complex. Canadian Journal of Botany, 84(2): 223–234.  https://doi.org/10.1139/b05-150

Justin DeRose, R. 2023. Conserving lodgepole pine genetic diversity in the face of uncertainty. Forest Ecology and Management, 545: 121235. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121235.

Neophytou, C., Schueler, S., Loo, M., and Konnert, M. 2018. Natural regeneration of non-native tree species – Genetic aspects – WG2 Short report. Vienna, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences.

Parchman, T.L., Benkman, C.W., and Jenkins, B. 2011. Low levels of population genetic structure in Pinus contorta (Pinaceae) across a geographic mosaic of Co‐evolution. American Journal of Botany, 98(4): 669–679. DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1000378.