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 peuce conservation in Europe
Macedonian pine shows some genetic structuring and significant genetic differentiation even among geographically close populations (Nikolić et al., 2008). Populations can be distinguished based on their needle terpene profile. Populations in Serbia and Montenegro are morphologically like those from Greece and Kosovo, while five ecological races of Macedonian pine have been identified in Bulgaria alone (Alexandrov, Dobrev, and Tsakov, 2004; Alexandrov and Andonovski, 2011).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
The composition of needle terpenes has been used to identify the clear divergence between the pine species (Mitić et al., 2017). Macedonian pine is closely related to Swiss pine (Pinus cembra), eastern white pine (Pinus strobes), and other pines inhabiting Europe. However, the distinct taxonomic status of Bosnian pine has been confirmed, separating it from hard pines such as black pine (Pinus nigra) and Bosnian pine (Pinus heldreichii) (Mitić et al., 2017). Numerous forms of Macedonian pine can be identified based on morphological and environmental differences – four from bark characteristics, three from coloration of strobiles, and two from ecotypes – demonstrating the high adaptability and variation in the species (Alexandrov and Andonovski, 2011).
Morphological variations and hybridization can make taxonomic identification difficult. Hybridization has occurred between Macedonian pine and eastern white pine, Japanese white pine (Pinus parviflora), and many others. Hybrids of Macedonian pine with related pines occur both naturally and artificially, with hybrids remaining competitive or possessing increased resistance to diseases (Alexandrov and Andonovski, 2011).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Macedonian pine is more resistant to insects, fungi, and other diseases than other conifer species, but they still represent a threat (Alexandrov and Andonovski, 2011). This resistance is conferred by the higher resin content in Macedonian pine wood, buds, and cones (Alexandrov and Andonovski, 2011). Macedonian pine is also tolerant to air pollution, but growth and regeneration can still be reduced (Alexandrov and Andonovski, 2011).
Macedonian pine occurs in pure stands but can mix well with other species such as Norway spruce (Picea abies) and silver fir (Abies alba) in two-storied stands (Alexandrov and Andonovski, 2011). Natural regeneration of Macedonian pine is dependent on factors such as altitude and crown cover. However, the state of most Macedonian pine forests means foresters need to take actions to encourage regeneration to preserve and propagate the species (Alexandrov and Andonovski, 2011). In situ conservation through national and nature parks, reserves, and seed stands, and ex situ conservation through provenance testing plantations, progeny trial plantations, seed orchards, and gene banks are needed to preserve the species’ genetic diversity (Alexandrov and Andonovski, 2011). Macedonian pine is a suitable species for reforestation in upper forest zones of mountains below the tree limit where human activity has negatively affected tree cover (Alexandrov, Dobrev, and Tsakov, 2004). However, genotypes should only be transferred from lower to higher altitudes and the change in altitude should be limited to 300 m for satisfactory growth (Alexandrov, Dobrev, and Tsakov, 2004). Some native Macedonian pine populations, such as those in Pirin, Bulgaria, have been identified as a valuable genetic resource for use in re-introduction activities (Alexandrov, Dobrev, and Tsakov, 2004).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic Characterisation of Pinus peuce and its GCUs
Availability of FRM
FOREMATIS
Pinus peuce - Technical guidelines for genetic conservation and use for Macedonian pine
Publication Year: 2011This species forms as pure, so mixed stands most often occur with Picea abies (L.) Karst., Pinus sylvestris L., Pinus mugo Turra and less often with Abies alba Mill., Pinus nigra Arn., Pinus heldreichii Christ., Fagus sylvatica L. and other species.
The contrasting bio-ecological peculiarities of Pinus peuce and Picea abies, of Pinus peuce and Abies alba and some other species have been combined very well in mixed, two-storeyed stands. That is why striving to establish such stands is reasonable from both the biological and ecological points of view.
The natural regeneration of Pinus peuce depends on a number of factors such as altitude, type of forest, rate and periodicity of seeding, crown closure, relief, application of corresponding felling, etc. The state of most of the Pinus peuce forests requires the processes of regeneration to be directed by foresters with a view to preserving, taking care of and propagating this species.
The in situ conservation method includes mainly the national and nature parks, reserves, seed stands and plus trees. By the ex situ method the genetic resources of Macedonian pine are preserved mainly through provenance testing plantations, progeny trial plantations, seed orchards and genebanks for seeds. Assessing the advantages of the two methods for conservation of genetic resources, in situ seems to be more reliable. The autochthonous populations of Pinus peuce in Pirin Mt., Pelister Mt. and Prokletije Mt. present valuable genetic resources for the introduction of this species in many countries of the Northern Hemisphere.
The area of Macedonian pine seed stands in Bulgaria is 693 ha and that of the seed orchards 10 ha, in Macedonia FYR - respectively 110 ha and 6 ha and in Serbia and Montenegro 10 ha of seed stands.
The high grade stands in which trees with spindle-shaped crowns and shallow-scaled bark fissuring prevail should be preferred for the purposes of breeding. The existence of two edaphotypes – silicate and carbonate – should be taken into consideration.
While selecting plus and candidate elite trees, individuals with narrow crown, fine and short branches of first order disposed approximately perpendicular to the stem should be selected.
Contacts of experts
NA
Further reading
No available research.
References
Alexandrov, A.H. and Andonovski, V. 2011. EUFORGEN Technical Guidelines for genetic conservation and use of Macedonian pine (Pinus peuce). Rome, Bioversity International Italy. 6 pages.
Alexandrov, A.H., Dobrev, R., and Tsakov, H. 2004. Genetic and conservation research on Pinus peuce in Bulgaria. In: R.A. Sniezko, S. Samman, S.E. Schlarbaum, and H.B. Kriebel, eds. Breeding and genetic resources of five-needle pines: growth, adaptability, and pest resistance. Proceedings of the IUFRO Five-Needle Pine Working Party Conference, 23–27 July 2001, Medford, Oregon, USA, p. 2001. Fort Collins, CO, USA, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Mitić, Z.S., Nikolić, B.M., Ristić, M.S., Tešević, V.V., Bojović, S.R., and Marin, P.D. 2017. Terpenes as useful markers in differentiation of natural populations of relict pines Pinus heldreichii, P. nigra, and P. peuce. Chemistry & Biodiversity, 14(8): e1700093. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.201700093
Nikolić, B., Ristić, M., Bojović, S., and Marin, P.D. 2008. Variability of the needle essential oils of Pinus peuce from different populations in Montenegro and Serbia. Chemistry & Biodiversity, 5(7): 1377–1388.
See details
Designed by Newtvision
