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 mugo conservation in Europe
Genetic diversity in the species is the same or even higher than other conifers in Europe and the Mediterranean, with most genetic variation of mountain pine observed within populations (around 95%) (Dzialuk et al., 2012). The genetic makeup of mountain pine showcases distinct traits that are specific to certain populations, reflecting local adaptations. Mountain pine populations also show greater genetic differentiation than other species, such as Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) (Sobierajska et al., 2020).
Levels of differentiation between mountain pine populations is typically weak. Alpine populations have a low level of genetic differentiation, whereas Iberian populations are strongly differentiated (Alexandrov, von Wühlisch, and Vendramin, 2019). The species shows stronger differentiation based on geographical regions than by morphological traits, indicating that geography determines genetic relationships in the species (Heuertz et al., 2010; Alexandrov, von Wühlisch, and Vendramin, 2019).
Balkan populations likely colonized from different glacial refugia than marginal populations in the Pyrenees or Alps, and populations in the Carpathians are highly differentiated from those in the Alps, likely as a result of long-lasting geographic isolation (Heuertz et al., 2010; Dzialuk et al., 2012).
The current range of mountain pine contains several isolated populations, with large distances between them reducing pollen gene flow (Dzialuk et al., 2012). Isolation has led to different growth forms and ecological adaptations in different part of the species’ range, despite large amounts of gene flow (Heuertz et al., 2010). It seems geographic distance is the main determinant of genetic structure in mountain pine populations However, the genetic distinctiveness of populations could also be because existing fragments are remains of a wider distribution (Dzialuk et al., 2012). Mountain pine recolonized European mountain chains from different glacial refugia which became more connected, allowing for greater gene flow (Heuertz et al., 2010). Refugial populations of mountain pine likely still existed north of the Alps, allowing northern populations to keep their genetic distinctiveness during the Holocene expansion (Heuertz et al., 2010).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Mountain pine likely diverged as a species in the Pliocene, originating from a wider glacial distribution that was split up into individual Pleistocene refugia by ice and snow (Heuertz et al., 2010; Dzialuk et al., 2012). However, its historical distribution is difficult to determine as mountain pine pollen is very similar to that of Scots pine and black pine (Pinus nigra) (Heuertz et al., 2010).
Mountain pine and Scots pine are closely related, sharing haplotypes, demonstrating historical hybridization and the recent divergence of the two species (Heuertz et al., 2010; Sobierajska et al., 2020). However, it seems hybridization of Scots pine and mountain pine is typically unidirectional, coming from mountain pine to Scots pine (Sobierajska et al., 2020).
There are several subspecies of mountain pine, including Pinus mugo ssp. mugo, Pinus mugo ssp. uncinata (sometimes considered a separate species called “dwarf mountain pine”), and Pinus mugo ssp. pumilio. Mountain pine often hybridizes with other Pinus species, but hybrids are typically infertile (Dzialuk et al., 2012; Alexandrov, von Wühlisch, and Vendramin, 2019). This makes separation of the species difficult, especially as morphological variability is high and not always representative of genetic variation (Heuertz et al., 2010).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
The wide distribution range of mountain pine in Europe means only the genetic diversity of isolated marginal populations in southern Spain, Italy, France, and the Balkans are a concern (Alexandrov, von Wühlisch, and Vendramin, 2019). Risks facing the species are linked to climate change and anthropogenic activity such as construction of ski slopes (Alexandrov, von Wühlisch, and Vendramin, 2019). Limited migration space to higher elevations is a common threat to the species, such as in Iberia; however, even black forest populations suffer from dieback and insufficient natural regeneration (Heuertz et al., 2010; Alexandrov, von Wühlisch, and Vendramin, 2019). This is because patterns of fire disturbance have been disrupted, meaning there are fewer available open habitats for mountain pine reproduction, and lowered water tables have created drier bog margins and denser undergrowth, making establishment difficult (Alexandrov, von Wühlisch, and Vendramin, 2019).
Conservation measures for the species should prioritize conserving marginal populations, sampling genetic diversity across Europe, and establishing dynamic conservation units in high biodiversity areas, while always prioritizing the use of local material in regeneration (Alexandrov, von Wühlisch, and Vendramin, 2019). Marginal isolated populations, such as those in Iberia, are genetically distinct, possibly containing high genetic variability and adaptability, justifying in situ conservation measures (Alexandrov, von Wühlisch, and Vendramin, 2019).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic Characterisation of Pinus mugo and its GCUs
Availability of FRM
FOREMATIS
Pinus mugo - Technical guidelines for genetic conservation and use of mountain pine
Publication Year: 2019Large autochthonous mountain pine populations are characterized by high genetic diversity and adaptability which suggest in situ conservation as the main strategy. In situ conservation of mountain pine contributes to the natural recovery of the treeline, which is lowered in many places due to anthropogenic impact (fires, felling, grazing, building activities).
National parks often harbour large mountain pine formations and provide in situ genetic conservation of this species. However, it still needs protection due to extension of natural and man-made disturbances. Therefore it is recommended that genetic conservation programmes start with the following objectives: conservation of endangered, marginal populations and habitats of Pinus mugo; sampling the genetic diversity; establishment of genetic conservation units based on long term autochthony, high biodiversity value and location in ecologically diverse regions of large populations (> 1000 individuals).
Whenever natural regeneration is unsatisfactory, like for restoration of burnt and eroded terrains in mountain pine zones, sowing and/or planting need to be carried out. When artificial regeneration is carried out according to the principles of genetic conservation, then the following requirements for the use of reproductive material must be observed:
Large autochthonous mountain pine populations are characterized by high genetic diversity and adaptability which suggest in situ conservation as the main strategy. In situ conservation of mountain pine contributes to the natural recovery of the treeline, which is lowered in many places due to anthropogenic impact (fires, felling, grazing, building...
Conifers Network: Report of the first meeting
Contacts of experts
NA
Further reading
Sannikov, S.N., Petrova, I.V., Schweingruber, F., Egorov, E.V., and Parpan, T.V. 2011. Genetic differentiation of Pinus mugo turra and P. sylvestris L. populations in the Ukrainian Carpathians and the Swiss Alps. Russian Journal of Ecology, 42: 270–276.
Żukowska, W.B. and Wachowiak, W. 2017. Nuclear microsatellite markers reveal the low genetic structure of Pinus mugo turra (dwarf mountain pine) populations in Europe. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 303: 641–651.
References
Alexandrov, A., von Wühlisch, G., and Vendramin, G. 2019. EUFORGEN Technical Guidelines for genetic conservation and use for mountain pine (Pinus mugo). Bonn, Germany, European Forest Genetic Resources Programme, European Forest Institute.
Dzialuk, A., Boratynski, A., Boratynska, K., and Burczyk, J. 2012. Geographic patterns of genetic diversity of Pinus mugo (Pinaceae) in Central European mountains. Dendrobiology, 68: 31–41.
Heuertz, M., Teufel, J., González‐Martínez, S.C., Soto, A., Fady, B., Alía, R., and Vendramin, G.G. 2010. Geography determines genetic relationships between species of mountain pine (Pinus mugo complex) in western Europe. Journal of Biogeography, 37(3): 541–556.
Sobierajska, K., Wachowiak, W., Zaborowska, J., Łabiszak, B., Wójkiewicz, B., Sękiewicz, M., Jasińska, A.K. et al. 2020. Genetic consequences of hybridization in relict isolated trees Pinus sylvestris and the Pinus mugo complex. Forests, 11(10): 1086. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11101086
If you notice any error in the contents of this species page, please contact euforgen@efi.int
See details
Designed by Newtvision
