Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The genetics of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata mill.) with implications for restoration and management

  • Review
  • Published:
Tree Genetics & Genomes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) is an important commercial timber resource and forest ecosystem component in the southeastern USA. The species occurs in mainly drier sites as an early- to mid-successional species, is fire-adapted, and it plays an important role in the fire ecology of the region. However, shortleaf pine genetics are not well-studied, especially in this era of molecular genetics and genomics. Most genetics research about the species has focused on provenance testing. Generally, shortleaf pine performs well in colder areas, when compared to loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.), a close relative, which is faster growing and the most common plantation species in the region. Though not as advanced in genetic improvement as loblolly pine, tree breeders have improved shortleaf pine in one to two generations of selection, and diverse, genetically improved shortleaf pine materials are available to foresters and landowners throughout the southeastern USA. Researchers have also studied the genetic variation of shortleaf pine using various molecular markers and have found that shortleaf pine is generally a prolific outcrosser, a trait it shares with other non-isolated members of the family Pinaceae. In recent years, however, it has shared less genetic material across long ranges, probably because of habitat fragmentation. Various anthropogenic factors also affect shortleaf pine’s future, as recent studies show that shortleaf pine introgression with loblolly pine puts the species—and the resiliency of southeastern forests—at risk. Importantly, fire exclusion is a likely cause of the increase in introgression. Herein, we provide further details and up-to-date genetic information and resources for foresters and ecologists interested in the restoration and management of shortleaf pine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Contact author C. Dana Nelson for SSPSSS data going out to 40 years on some sites.

  2. Contact author Barbara Crane for details.

References

  • Abbott JE (1974) Introgressive hybridization between shortleaf and loblolly pine in Southeast Oklahoma. Masters of science thesis. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, p. 31

    Google Scholar 

  • Allendorf FW, Leary RF, Spruell P, Wenburg JK (2001) The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:613–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreadis KM, Clark EA, Wood AW, Hamlet AF, Lettenmaier DP (2005) Twentieth-century drought in the conterminous United States. Am Meteorol Soc 6:985–1001

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker JB, Cain MD, Guldin JM, Murphy PA, Shelton MG. 1996. Uneven-aged silviculture for the loblolly and shortleaf pine forest cover types. General Technical Report SO-118. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service. Southern Research Station. 65p.

  • Benson JD, Schoenike RE, Van Lear DH (1982) Early growth and survival of loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and putative hybrid pines on littleleaf sites in the piedmont of South Carolina. South J Appl For 6:218–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley JC 2015. The response of shortleaf x loblolly hybrid pine seedlings to water and fire: is lack of disturbance allowing hybrids to displace shortleaf pine? MS Thesis, Oklahoma State University.114 p.

  • Bragg DC, Shelton MG (2010) Lessons from 72 years of monitoring a once-cut pine-hardwood stand on the Crossett experimental Forest, Arkansas, U.S.a. For Ecol Manag 261:911–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branan JR, Porterfield EJ. 1971. A comparison of six species of southern pine planted in the Piedmont of South Carolina. Res. Note SE-171. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 3 p.

  • Bryan WC. 1973. Height growth of shortleaf pine progenies from trees selected for resistance to littleleaf disease. Research Note SE-185. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7p.

  • Chapman HH (1922) A new hybrid pine (Pinus palustris × Pinus taeda. J For 20:729–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen JW, Tauer CG, Bai G, Huang Y, Payton ME, Holley AG (2004) Bidirectional introgression between Pinus taeda and Pinus echinata: evidence from morphological and molecular data. Can J For Res 34:2508–2516

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton MH, Hicks RR Jr, Flake RH (1975) Morphological variability among loblolly and shortleaf pines of East Texas with reference to natural hybridization. Castanea 40:309–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane B. Shortleaf pine genetic resources to support restoration in the southern region. In Will RE, Stewart Js, eds. 2014. Shortleaf pine workshop: ecology and management for multiple objectives in the interior highlands. Online webinar.

  • Critchfield WB, Little EL. 1966. Geographic distribution of the pines of the world. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 991. 97 pp.

  • Dipesh KC, Will RE, Lynch TB, Heinemann R, Holeman R (2015) Comparison of loblolly, shortleaf, and pitch × loblolly pine plantations growing in Oklahoma. For Sci 61:540–547

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorman KW. 1976. The genetics and breeding of southern pines. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service Handbook No. 471. 407 pp.

  • Echt CS, Saha S, Krutovsky KV, Wimalanathan K, Erpelding JE, Liang C, Nelson CD (2011a) An annotated genetic map of loblolly pine based on molecular cDNA markers. BMC Genet 12:–17

  • Echt CS, Crane BS, Nelson CD. 2011b. Establishing restoration seed reserves in National Forest System seed orchards. In Nelson CD, Rousseau RJ, Yuceer C, eds. 2007. 31st Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference Proceedings: 46–49.

  • Edwards MA, Hamrick JL (1995) Genetic variation in shortleaf pine Pinus echinata mill. (Pinaceae). For Genet 2:21–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction sites. Genetics 131:479–491

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Florence LZ, Hicks RR Jr (1980) Further evidence for introgression of Pinus taeda with P. echinata: electrophoretic variability and variation to Cronartium fusiforme. Silvae Genetica 29:41–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox TR, Jokela EJ, Allen HL (2007) The development of pine plantation silviculture in the southern United States. J For 105:337–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Guldin JM 2007. Restoration and management of shortleaf pine in pure and mixed stands—science, empirical observation, and the wishful application of generalities. In Kabrick JM, Dey DC, Gwaze D, eds. 2007. Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium. General Technical Report NRS-P-15. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 47–58.

  • Guldin JM, Loewenstein EF. 1999. Silvicultural practices. In: Pell WF, Bukenhofer GA. Ozark-Ouachita highlands assessment: terrestrial vegetation and wildlife. General Technical Report SRS-35. U.S. Department of Agriculture Southern Research Station. Pp. 73–102.

  • Gwaze D, Hoss G, Biram D. 2007a. Shortleaf pine seedling production and seeding trends in Missouri. In Kabrick JM, Dey DC, Gwaze D, eds. 2007. Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium. General Technical Report NRS-P-15. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 147–152.

  • Gwaze D, Myszewski J, Kabrick J. 2007b. Performance of shortleaf pine provenances in Missouri. In Kabrick JM, Dey DC, Gwaze D, eds. 2007. Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium. General Technical Report NRS-P-15. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 28–32.

  • Hare RC, Switzer GL. 1969. Introgression with shortleaf pine may explain rust resistance in western loblolly pine. Research Note SO-88. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 2 pp.

  • Hernandez-Leon S, Gernandt DS, Perez de la Rosa JA, Jardon-Barbolla L (2013) Phylogenetic relationships and species delimitation in Pinus section Trifoliae from plastid DNA. PLoS One 8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070501

  • Hicks RR Jr (1973) Evaluation of morphological characters for use in identifying loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and loblolly × shortleaf hybrids. Castanea 38:182–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam-Faridi MN, Majid A, Nelson CD. 2007a. Chromosomal locations of the ribosomal DNA genes in shortleaf pine. In Kabrick JM, Dey DC, Gwaze D, eds. 2007. Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium. General Technical Report NRS-P-15. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: pp. 99–101.

  • Islam-Faridi MN, Nelson CD, Kubisiak TL (2007b) Reference karyotype and cytomolecular map for loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L. Genome 50:241–251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Islam-Faridi NM, Majid A, Banda H, Nelson CD. 2008. Development of reference karyotypes for longleaf and shortleaf pines using fluorescence in situ hybridization. In: Byram TD, Rust ML, eds. Proceedings of the Joint Meeting 29th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference and the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Western Forest Genetics Association, June 20–22, 2007, Galveston, TX: pp. 20–27.

  • Jost L (2008) GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol Ecol 17:4015–4026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kan XZ, Guo ZC (2011) Phylogenetic analyses on mitochondrial nad5 gene in Pinus (Pinaceae) and nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS region sequences in gymnosperm. NCBI direct submission PopSet 350612259

  • Kraus JF (1986) Breeding shortleaf × loblolly pine hybrids for the development of fusiform rust-resistant loblolly pine. South J Appl For 10:195–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus JF, Powers HK Jr (1984) Susceptibility of shortleaf pine seedlings to infection by Cronartium quercuum f. sp. fusiforme. Plant. Diseases 68(4):324–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus JF, Powers HR Jr, Snow G (1982) Infection of shortleaf × loblolly pine hybrids inoculated with Cronartium quercuum f. sp. echinatae and C. quercuum f. sp. fusiforme. Phytopathology 72:431–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Farge T, Kraus JF. 1977. Third year results of a shortleaf × loblolly pine hybrid progeny test in Georgia. In Proc. of the 14th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference, Gainesville, FL. pp. 63–69.

  • La Farge T, Kraus JF (1980) A progeny test of (shortleaf × loblolly) × loblolly hybrids to produce rapid-growing hybrids resistant to fusiform rust. Silvae Genetica 29:197–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambeth CC, Dougherty PM, Gladstone WT, McCullough RB, Wells OO (1984) Large-scale planting of North Carolina loblolly pine in Arkansas and Oklahoma: a case of gain versus risk. J Ecol 82(12):736–741

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantz CW, McKinley CR. 2003. Pioneering tree improvement in Oklahoma. In McKinley CR, ed. 27th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference, Stillwater, OK: pp. 1–5.

  • Lawson ER. 1990. Shortleaf pine. In Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods: 316–326.

  • Lilly CG, Will RE, Tauer CG (2012) Physiological and morphological attributes of shortleaf × loblolly pine F1 hybrid seedlings: is there an advantage to being a hybrid? Can J For Res 42:238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little EL, Righter FL. 1965. Botanical descriptions of forty artificial pine hybrids. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Technical Bulletin No. 1345. Washington, D.C. 45p.

  • Liu Y, Will RE, Tauer CG (2011) Gene level responses of shortleaf pine and loblolly pine to top removal. Tree Genetics and Genomes 7:969–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingston KW. 1972. Minor topographic changes affect growth and yield of planted southern pines. Bull. 439. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station. 15 p.

  • Lowe WJ, van Buijenen JP. 1990. The Western Gulf Forest Tree Improvement Program—history and accomplishments. In: Rose R, Campbell SJ, Landis TD, eds. National Nursery Proceedings, Biloxi, MS: pp. 19–24.

  • Mattoon WR. 1915. The life history of shortleaf pine. U.S. Department of Agriculture 244–15-1. 46 p.

  • Matyas C (1994) Modeling climate change effects with provenance test data. Tree Physiol 14:797–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meirmans PG, Hedrick PW (2011) Assessing population structure: FST and related measures. Mol Ecol Resour 11:5–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mergen F, Stairs GR, Snyder EB (1965) Natural and controlled loblolly × shortleaf pine hybrids in Mississippi. For Sci 11:306–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirov NT (1967) The genus Pinus. Ronald Press Company, New York, New York, p. 602

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr CT, Roth F (1897) The timber pines of the southern United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 176

    Google Scholar 

  • Nance WL, Nelson CD, Wagner DB, Li T, Patel R, Govindaraju DR. 1991. Chloroplast DNA variation in a study of shortleaf, slash, loblolly, and longleaf pine. In: Proc. 21st Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference, June 17–20, 1991, Knoxville, TN. pp. 276–280.

  • Neale DB, Wegrzyn JL, Stevens KA, Zimin AV, Puiu D, Crepaeau MW, Gardeno C, Koriabine M, Holtz-Morris AE, Liechty JD, Martinez-García PJ, Vasquez-Gross HA, Lin BY, Zieve JJ, Dougherty WM, Fuentes-Soriano S, LS W, Gilbert D, Marçais G, Roberts M, Holt C, Yandell M, Davis JM, Smith KE, Dean JFD, Lorenz WW, Whetten RW, Sederoff R, Wheeler N, McGuire PE, Main D, Loopstra CA, Mockaitis K, deLong PJ, Yorke JA, Salzberg SL, Langley CH (2014) Decoding the massive genome of loblolly pine haploid DNA and novel assembly strategies. Genome Biol 15:R59

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson CD. 1991. Fusiform rust incidence and volume growth in a first-generation backcross population, (shortleaf × slash) × slash pine. In: Proc. 21st Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference, June 17–20, 1991, Knoxville, TN. pp. 152–159.

  • Nelson CD, Josserand S, Echt CS, Koppelman J. 2007. Loblolly pine SSR markers for shortleaf pine genetics. Shortleaf Pine Restoration and Ecology in the Ozarks: Proceedings of a Symposium: 95–98.

  • Oswalt CM (2011) Spatial and temporal trends of the shortleaf pine resource in the eastern United States. East Meets West, Huntsville, Alabama, Shortleaf Pine Conference, pp. 33–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Posey CE, McCullough RB (1969) Tenth year results of a shortleaf pine seed source study in Oklahoma. In: Agriculture research bulletin B-668. Oklahoma State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 14p

  • Powers HR Jr, Schmidt RA, Snow GA (1984) Current status and management of fusiform rust on southern pines. Annu Rev Phytopathol 19:353–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raja RG, Tauer CG, Wittwer RF, Huang YH (1997) Isoenzyme variation and genetic structure in natural populations of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata. Can J For Res 27:740–749

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saich R, Hipkis VD, Krutovsky KV, Wallace K (2005) Chloroplast DNA markers in Pinus virginiana and P. echinata. NCBI direct submission PopSet 61659099

  • Schmidtling R. 2001. Southern pine seed sources. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report SRS-44, Southern Research Station, Ashville, NC. 35p.

  • Schmidtling R. 2007. Genetic variation in the southern pines: evolution, migration, and adaptation following the Pleistocene. In: Kabrick JM, Dey DC, Gwaze D. 2006. November 7–9; Springfield, MO. General Technical Report NRS-P-15. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 28–32.

  • Schmitt D. 1968. Performance of southern pine hybrids in south Mississippi. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper SO-36. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. 15p.

  • Schoenike RE, Van Learn DH, Benson JD (1977) Comparison of shortleaf, loblolly, and putative hybrid pines in the piedmont of South Carolina. Silvae Genetica 26:182–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner EJ. 1937. Improvement of forest trees. P. 1247–1279 in 1937 Yearbook of agriculture. USDA, Washington, DC.

  • Schultz RP. 1997. Loblolly pine: the ecology and culture of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Handbook 713.

  • Sluder ER. 1970. Shortleaf × loblolly pine hybrids do well in central Georgia. Georgia Forest Research Paper 64. Macon, Georgia. 5p.

  • Snyder EB, Hamaker JM (1978) Needle characteristics of hybrids of some species of southern pine. Silvae Genetica 27:184–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder EB, Squillance AE. 1966. Cone and seed yields from controlled breeding of southern pines. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper SO-22. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. 7p.

  • Squillace AE. 1976. Geographic patterns of fusiform rust infection in loblolly and slash pine plantations. Research Note SE-232. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 4p.

  • Stewart JF, Liu Y, Tauer CG, Nelson CD (2010) Microsatellite versus AFLP analyses of pre-management introgression levels in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata mill.). Tree Genetics and Genomes 6:853–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JF, Tauer CG, Nelson CD (2012) Bidirectional introgression between loblolly pine Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata mill.) has increased since the 1950s. Tree Genetics and Genomes 8:725–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JF, Tauer CG, Guldin JM, Nelson CD (2013) Hybridization in naturally regenerated shortleaf pine near stands of artificially regenerated stands of loblolly pine. South J Appl For 37:102–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JF, Will RE, Robertson KM, Nelson CD (2015) Frequent fire protects shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) from introgression by loblolly pine (P. taeda. Conserv Genet 16:491–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Studyvin C, Gwaze D. 2007. Genetic improvement of shortleaf pine on the Mark Twain, Ouachita, and Ozark National Forests. Shortleaf Pine Restoration and Ecology in the Ozarks: Proceedings of a Symposium: 89–94.

  • Syring J, Willyard A, Cronn R, Liston A (2005) Evolutionary relationships among Pinus (Pinaceae) subsections inferred from multiple low-copy nuclear loci. American Journal of Botany 92:2086–2100

  • Tauer CG (1980) Twenty-year results of a shortleaf pine seed source study in Oklahoma. Agriculture research bulletin B-752. Oklahoma State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Stillwater, Oklahoma, p. 14

    Google Scholar 

  • Tauer CG, McNew RW (1985) Inheritance and correlation of growth of shortleaf pine in two environments. Silvae Genetica 34:5–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Tauer CG, Stewart JF, Rodney RE, Lilly CJ, Guldin JM, Nelson CD (2012) Hybridization leads to loss of genetic integrity in shortleaf pine: unexpected consequences of pine management and fire suppression. J For 110:216–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner DB, Nance WL, Nelson CD, Li T, Patel R, Govindaraju DR (1992) Taxonomic patterns and inheritance of chloroplast DNA variation in a survey of Pinus echinata, P. elliottii, P. palustris, and P. taeda. Can J For Res 22:683–689

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wakamiya I, Newton RJ, Johnston JS, Price HJ (1993) Genome size and environmental factors in the genus Pinus. Am J Bot 80:1235–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakeley PC, Wells OO, Campbell TE. 1966. Mass production of shortleaf × slash pine hybrids by pollinating unbagged female flowers. Joint Proceedings of the Second Genetics Workshop of the Society of American Foresters and the Seventh Lake States Forest Tree Improvement Conference; Research Paper NC-6. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 78–79

  • Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38(6):1358–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells OO, Wakeley PC (1970) Variation in shortleaf pine from several geographic sources. For Sci 16:415–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells OO, Barnett PE, Derr HR, Funk DT, La Farge T, Lawson ER, Little S (1978) Shortleaf × slash pine hybrids outperform parents in parts of the southeast. South. Journal of applied. Forestry 1:28–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook JF, Chhatre VE, Wu L, Chamala S, Neves LG, Muñoz P, Martínez-García PJ, Neale DB, Kirst M, Mockaitis K, Nelson CD, Peter GF, Davis JM, Echt CS (2015) A consensus genetic map for Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii and extent of linkage disequilibrium in two genotype-phenotype discovery populations of Pinus taeda. G3 Genes Genome Genetics 5:1685–1694.

  • Will RE, Lilly CJ, Stewart JF, Huff S, Tauer CG (2013) Recovery from topkill of shortleaf pine × loblolly pine hybrids compared to their parent populations. Tree: Structure and Function 27:1167–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu S, Tauer CG, Nelson CD (2008a) Natural hybridization within seed sources of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata mill.) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Tree Genetics and Genomes 4:849–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu S, Tauer CG, Nelson CD (2008b) Genetic diversity within and among populations of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata mill.) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Tree Genetics and Genomes 4:859–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D, Huebschmann M, Lynch TB, Guldin JM (2012) Growth projection and valuation of restoration of shortleaf pine-bluestem grass ecosystem. Forest Policy Econ 20:10–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimin A, Stevens KA, Crepeau MW, Holtz-Morris A, Koriabine M, Marçais G, Puiu D, Roberts M, Wegrzyn JL, de Long PJ, Neale DB, Salzberg SL, Yorke JA, Langley CH (2014) Sequence and assembly of the 22-Gb loblolly pine genome. Genetics 196:875–890

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zobel BJ (1953) Are there natural loblolly-shortleaf pine hybrids? J For 51:494–495

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Integrative Biology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

    John F. Stewart

  2. Department of Natural Resources Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

    Rodney E. Will

  3. Southern Regional Office, USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Barbara S. Crane

  4. Southern Institute of Forest Genetics, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Saucier, MS, USA

    C. Dana Nelson

  5. Forest Health Research and Education Center, Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    C. Dana Nelson

Authors
  1. John F. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rodney E. Will
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara S. Crane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Dana Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John F. Stewart.

Ethics declarations

Data archiving statement

This manuscript contains no new data for public use.

Additional information

Communicated by S. C. González-Martínez

Appendix

Appendix

Shortleaf pine resources survey

Tree improvement capacity: this section is to assess the capability of the tree improvement operation at the following location to meet the current and projected demand for genetically improved shortleaf pine seed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stewart, J.F., Will, R.E., Crane, B.S. et al. The genetics of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata mill.) with implications for restoration and management. Tree Genetics & Genomes 12, 98 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-016-1052-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-016-1052-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation