Pine ID - help!

I got this nice pic today at the beach and I'd like to add it to PF but I don't know which pine it is. Anyone have an idea?

Closeup

Based upon the location (if it's spontaneous) and the general appearance, I would consider ruling out Pinus contorta first.

Guy S.

Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris).

Foliage arrangement is wrong for P. contorta.

Resin

Pinus contorta v contorta is native all along the coast so I've seen them and its not that one. It was strategically planted. So Pinus sylvestris? - how can I be sure? I thought they grew higher.

They usually do get taller, but not invariably, particularly in coastal exposure, and/or if affected by pine shoot moths when younger.

Forgot to say before, the cones are also typical Scots Pine

Resin

I'd say shore pine, Pinus contorta.

Pinus sylvestris usually has a slight blue hue to it.

Both have needles in 2s.

Pinus contorta, has cones attached that point toward the inside or trunk of the tree. That's what the photo shows.

The color is about perfect for shore pine.

There's a few Pinus contorta v contorta in the area and they are thinner in growth and foliage. The Pinus sylvestris I thought has a reddish hue to the trunk but this one doesn't. Could it be an Austrian Pine? Sounds like I need to go back to the tree and count needles.

Definite Scots. No need to count the needles, either, it's visible (number is 2) in the close-up photo (not that it would help a lot anyway, as all the options have 2s).

Needle colour isn't reliable in this situation; yes, Scots is bluer toned than Shore, but the difference is only visible in a photo when the two are side-by-side in the same photo; the variation in colour rendering by digi cameras from one pic to the next of the same item is greater than the colour difference between Scots and Shore Pines.

On cone orientation, Scots also has the cones deflexed down the stem, so no difference there; more useful is the cone shape, distinctly cone-shaped and widest near the base in closed cones of Scots (as visible here), more ovoid, widest nearer the middle, in Shore. Also immature Shore Pine cones are generally red-brown, not green, by this time of year (a big enough difference not to be affected by colour rendition).

Another useful difference is that Scots is always uninodal (one whorl of branches and cones per year), whereas Shore is often (not invariably) multinodal, with two whorls of branches and cones per year, comprising a weak whorl (or just a cone or two) on the mid-point of the previous year's shoot, and a strong whorl at the top.

Austrian Pine is easily excluded - that has much longer leaves (8-16cm), and cones that stick out at nearly 90° to the shoot, not reflexed down the stem.

Resin

PS here's a photo of P. contorta for comparison; note the multinodality with a mid-point pair of cones and weak shoot (middle of photo) and apical pair of cones and stronger branches (top of photo)

If I was a betting man, this is the point at which I'd put my money on it being a Scots Pine. :)

I'm holding my cash till the stomatal count (or at least the fascicle taste test) is verified.

Resin always keeps his ace up his sleeve...

Where's Decrepit? Maybe it's a CARpinus!

Guy S.

LOL! I'm just tryin' to be sure b4 I add it to PF and I'd say Resin's got "evidence" as to why it's a Scots Pine and this ain't my area of expertise.

Thanks Resin, appreciated. :-)

This is a bit off topic (I think its safe to say we've, with just a wee bit of help from Resin, ID'd the tree), but I've read that P. sylvestris in the US is inferior to that in the UK. I can't recall the source for this, but the author claims that seed brought by immigrants during the 19th century was from inferior trees, and that the overall quality from old world to new world is still significantly different. Does this make any sense? First, why would they bring inferior seed? Second, even if some brought seed from inferior trees, surely some must of had seed from better stock.

There are more sources available now (East Anglia, Spanish, French, etc.) because Christmas-tree growers have been experimenting. But the selection criteria have focused upon that use (needle color and retention, etc.) rather than mature form or other qualities. Probably doesn't matter much anyway because no one should be planting it in most of North America due to its extreme susceptibiltiy to PWN and other problems here.

Guy S.

This is where Canada might be a bit different. Exchanges with English Gardens, seedhouses, Botanical Gardens, etc have gone on for a long time and there has always been a strong connection with England. My father, having been born in Canada, was a "British Subject" until 1947. I phoned the University of British Columbia about the origins of their Fascicularia, a bromeliad from Chile, and they said Edinburgh. Quite a number of early introductions of unusual introductions came from England and if you take a look at the Robinia I listed, its rarely seen of here.

If you say the P. sylvestris in the US is inferior I'd probably say the P. sylvestris in Canada is from better stock.

Austrian pine would have buds on the end that have a bit of an onion shape to them, slightly bulbous at the base.

Shore pine is a bit irregular. It has whorls of limbs, but is frequenly far less irregular than the typical symetrical branching commonly seen in Austrian pine.

I think Growin's photo shows the reported "inferiority" in terms of poor form as a timber tree. That doesn't make it inferior aesthetically, and there are many Scots pine in the Midwest with very "good" timber form. Some from southern and eastern Europe might actually be a lot better in that respect, in the right climate, than those from England. But regardless, the nematode gets most of them sooner or later, and the Zimmerman moth gets what the 'todes miss. We have many native pines here that are much better for our continent than P. sylvestris. If you find a nice old one try to save it, but no one should be planting them anymore.

Mario, keep pluggin' away at 'em! Sooner or later they'll concede that it's CARpinus just to shut us both up!

Guy S.

Yeah, now that you mention it I think the author was referring to timber quality rather than aesthetics. I sure hope there's still a place for Scots Pine in the upper midwest, because I've planted several of them. While most are cultivars, I planted a couple of seedlings just to see what I get. I don't think the nematode is a major factor this far north--at least not yet. I'm not familiar with Zimmerman Moth and I hope I never am.

Other reasons for differences in performance:

1. Pine shoot moth - this pest is native within the range of Scots Pine, so is effectively controlled by a whole host of predators and parasites, and doesn't cause a lot of damage; in the US it is introduced, and without most of those controls, so causes more extensive damage

2. Most of the US (and the Vancouver area, too) is too hot for Scots Pine, leading to poor growth. The best growth in the wild is in relatively cool conditions (which is why the trees in central/northern Canada are also better than in the US).

3. (relevant to this particular case) Most origins of Scots Pine are not very tolerant of maritime exposure with salt spray. The chance that this tree originates from the small oceanic-adapted coastal western Scotland population are very minimal. Native Scots Pines on e.g. the west coast of southern Sweden are also very small and stunted (seen them near Göteborg, only getting 3-4m tall on the coast). All the big, shapely ones are well inland.

Resin

Star Hill Forest...

Actually, it would be harder for me to tell President Bush apart from Osama Bin Laden than it would be to distinguish between shore pine and Scotch pine.

After about 2500 residential pruning contracts since 1988, I recognize some trees from as far as two miles away. I can distinguish between a deodar cedar and western hemlock at one mile, and a giant sequoia and Douglas fir at 2 miles.

There are thousands of Scotch pine and shore pine from Portland are where I lived for so long, to Vancouver, where I was born. After a few years of working with them, it's fairly easy to tell the difference at just a glance.

It's fun to stand outdoors with customers, or people receiving an estimate, and point out the various tree species that are 1/2 mile, 1 mile, or even 3 miles away. It's the canopy form and other characteristics that are useful at that distance.

In the images at the top, even if a bit fuzzy, there's a texture pattern to the twig bark, as well as a certain way the twigs diverge from other branches, that is recognizeable.


This message was edited Aug 12, 2006 5:35 PM

Please!!! Can we forget about all this conifer nonsense and get talking about hornbeams? My newest, Carpinus kawakanii (or something like that) is fairly promising. All pines look the same anyway.

Scott

I'm not familiar with shore pines, but I am with Scots. If you put it in the Plant Files as sylvestris, I respectfully request it be labeled as an "atypical" form. Otherwise, people will surely be confused when they come to the Plant Files to ID a tree.

If we're having an identification problem, think of them!

Do you think it might be a bristlecone pine?

Just messin with you !!

I agree with Rick -- leave it out of plant files completely. Looks superficially like P. contorta to me and to others, and definitely not like a typical (if there is one) P. sylvestris.

Guy S.

What? A new Carpinus I don't have? Scott? Is it hardy? Is it filled with Carpinus goodness?

Ok, luckily I didn't add it to PF...but almost. So I'm goin' out there on Tuesday, I'll grab a piece and a cone and a few extra shots. What am I looking for? The shot is very picturesque with the people sitting there, ocean in the back, etc - an example of how nice a Pine tree can look if properly situated - that's where I was going with this. The other option is the Parks Board office is about 30' from the tree so I'll ask for a City arborist to call me back with the species.

Yeah, we didn't mean it wasn't a really nice, picturesque tree, only that it would mislead a lot of people if they thought it was a typical P. sylvestris.

Guy S.

Its real easy to tell the difference. Take off all of your clothes and climb the tree if you get off the ground it is a shore pine, if not it is a scot. Pickiest buggers I ever climbed in my childhood.

Isn't the whole idea of PF to show the same plant in its various forms? I can take a pic of a P. sylvestris in a apartment complex up the street - it's narrow reddish trunk but there's already a pic like that under the species.

Wow, I'm not the only one up to late on the internet.

Yeah, I'm done here! Been a long day.

Growin, I guess if there are some good typical pics up already and you want to add an oddball to show variation, that's up to you. But if you can't see any orange bark (tough to tell from the pics) you probably don't even have Scots.

Guy S.

Get some sleep. It's almost midnight here.

You're in Illinois, so you are at least near 1am in the morning.

We better turn it over to the people in Hawaii or something, where it's still early evening or something.

(but they probably won't be able to handle this thread, because how many shore or scotch pines do you find over there?)

What do you think of this Carpinus I added to PF? http://davesgarden.com/pf/showimage/121380/

Love the name: Carpinus fangiana.

Here's a more typical Scots Pine

Resin

PS I'd never trust anyone who can't spell 'Scots' properly . . .

Resin, it's interesting that you say most of the US is too hot for Scots Pine, because until the PWM started hitting them around here, the state of Kansas recommended this Pine for planting state wide. That includes the very hot dry Central and Western parts of the state. I always wondered why no North American native Pines had been recommended or planted throughout much of the state. Also, many of these Scots Pines grew to nice respectable sizes(40'-50' tall). The only large picturesque Pines I see around though are Eastern White Pines(Pinus strobus). But now the state is recommending Austrian Pine as a replacement for Scots Pine, even though in some of their own research Southwestern White Pine(P. strobiformis) has shown great promise. They do however suggest Ponderosa Pine for Western Kansas only, even though there are several larger old specimens in Eastern Kansas, including the 70' tall state champ. I still don't know why Shortleaf Pine (Pinus echinata) isn't planted at all. It's native range comes the closest to Kansas of any Pine. Heck, even the now tallest Pine in the state (95' tall) isn't planted anywhere or offered for sale and it's Loblolly Pine (P. taeda). Ok, enough of my Pine rant. he he

But I still like this little trivia bit,
Q: "What do Hawaii and Kansas have in common?"
A: "They're the only 2 states without any native Pines."

Why would they recommend Austrian? It has nearly as many problems here as Scots. We need to have a serious chat with your extension people! And BTW, Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine does OK even out here in Illinois -- much better than either of the European pines.

Perhaps the heat problem Resin mentioned with Scots pine is that they were evaluating northern- or maritime-source material instead of the French and Spanish types? It's a very diverse species genetically. We still see occasional large Scots pines here, like the beautiful specimen Resin posted. But usually it's the last remaining tree in a 19th-century windbreak. (Maybe someone should study such surviving old trees and see if there is any breeding potental there . . . )

Guy S.

Hi Kman blue,

According to the Kew Checklist of Conifers, P. echinata is native in Kansas (presumably in the extreme southeast somewhere). So you're not entirely pineless.

If I were recommending Scots Pine for KS in the absence of PWN, I'd have thought var. mongolica from Mongolia and NW China might be a better option; it occurs on some hot dry sites in that region. Unfortunately, I don't suppose it has any more resistance to PWN than other origins.

Guy - good idea on seeing if those survivors have any resistance to PWN.

BTW, the tree in my pic is near Braemar, in the central Scottish Highlands.

Resin

Hi Resin,

I think we had this discussion before, but there are no native Pines in Kansas. In The Flora of the Great Plains, it's not listed. In the Flora of North America, it's not listed and there are NO herbarium specimens anywhere collected from wild specimens in the state of Kansas. In "Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines in Kansas" it's not listed and the botanist who wrote this extensively traveled the state from the late 1930's through the 1970's. Also, I talked extensively with the head botanist at the University of Kansas and he actually wrote a little paper about this and found no native Pines in SE Kansas, but there is some circulstantial evidence that right after European settlement there may have been 1 isolated grove in extreme SE Kansas(within 1 mile of Oklahoma), but no herbarium specimens were collected and no other physical evidence existed back in the 1970's when the site was surveyed. The circumstantial evidence is apparently some farmers letter talking about an evergreen grove near his property or something to that effect. It's quite possible it was a grove of Juniperus virginiana though.

Also, apparently Austrian Pine is relatively disease free here so far. At least I haven't seen any of the problems people have with it farther East here yet. Who knows it might just be a matter of a couple more years or so when those problems became a major issue here.