I could use some help IDing this pine. The needles are about 4 inches long. Close to the tip of a branch (last two inches) they are uniformly single needles. Farther back, there are two needles in each papery sleeve.
It is growing in Gilroy, California, about 30 miles south of San Jose. It is on a south facing hillside. There are at least two smaller trees of the same species (or at least characteristics) within 100 feet of it.
Michael,
What is it about the pictures / words that help you id it as Pinus halepensis? I'm going to see the tree again in the morning, and I'll be looking closely at those single needles.
Also, you used the word "naturalised" and I'm not sure of the meaning. Does this mean these trees now grow "in the wild" and self-propagate rather than needing to be planted?
Michael,
What is it about the pictures / words that help you id it as Pinus halepensis? I'm going to see the tree again in the morning, and I'll be looking closely at those single needles.
Difficult to put into words, it is a species I'm very familiar with and recognised it even before clicking of the thumbnails. The overall crown shape, smooth, deflexed red-brown cones, smooth grey bark and fairly short, very slender needles are good pointers
Quote:
Originally Posted by petejacobsen
Also, you used the word "naturalised" and I'm not sure of the meaning. Does this mean these trees now grow "in the wild" and self-propagate rather than needing to be planted?
Yes; it may even be considered invasive (it is in some other areas with Mediterranean climates, e.g. South Africa lists it as a major problem invasive alien)
These Aleppo Pines were originally planted in this
area to help with watershed and soil erosion. These
were not planted in hopes of dramatic reproduction
as they have not reseeded themselves at the rate that
other areas such as in the deserts have. Where these
are located there is not enough year round heat to
break open the cones well to liberate the seeds into
the ground so they can imbibe water and germinate.
These Pines were meant to be planted and left alone
so in that case the use of the word naturalize does
indeed apply here. There are also Pinus halepensis
brutia - Calabrian Pine later classified as Pinus
brutia as well as Pinus eldarica sometimes
classified as Pinus brutia eldarica also planted
in this area. All of these Pines have needles two to
a bundle but it is the Eldarica Pine that I remember
is the one that has the white stripe or band on the
backside of the needle which distinguishes it from
the Mondell Pine.
The needles that may seem like only one are actually
a pair in which the newest growth needles have not
separated yet.
The cone in the third whorl down on Pete's photo has opened, so it does get hot enough at least occasionally. That's quite normal for the cones to open slowly over a few years in the wild in the Med too, even in the absence of forest fires (which, like e.g. Knobcone Pine, is its main method of reproduction)
Pinus brutia is now generally treated as a distinct species; the needles are nearly twice as long, and the cones stouter and forward-pointing, not reflexed down the stem. Pinus brutia subsp. eldarica (Eldarica Pine, Mondell Pine, Afghan Pine) is a subspecies of it. A useful ref.: Pinus brutia. Curtis's Botanical Magazine 16 (3): 173-184 (1999).
We are dealing with classifications that have
changed around since I first learned of them.
I am not offering a counter opinion of the
Aleppo Pine. Yes, the cones will open up
but they are so slow to do it. In other areas
of the world this Pine can be invasive but
here at this particular location the thought
of it being invasive later was not even an
afterthought at the time of their planting,
even now. These are on a slightly raised
hill right above a flood plain, that does
indeed flood almost every year. The desire
was to have a Pine used to root well and
fast into the soil to limit the amount of soil
erosion (some sheet and but mainly gullying)
that had become a problem for a few years
and was perceived at that time to be even
more of a problem later.
Personally, I do not agree that a Mondell Pine
and an Eldarica Pine are the same. The original
seed that came here were sold as Mondell Pine
but that Pine has a green colored needle whereas
the Eldarica forms have a blue-green needle,
closer to a silvery blue in selected forms with
the noticeable white stripe, as we called it, on
the backside of the needle. The Mondell Pine
will have slightly longer newest growth needles
than a Eldarica will have. The growth habits
are close to being the same and the cones are
similar.
Since we try to look at the whole tree and the
Europeans pay more attention to the cones, we
have a difference of opinion based on the
physical characteristics that we are seeing from
the tree itself. Which is why some of us believe
that Pinus monophylla is correct and others feel
it is just a form of Pinus cembroides edulis, now
just Pinus edulis I believe. Then we have to deal
with the fact that an Eldarica and Mondell Pine
can look different here for color and in stature
than in other growing locations, including Europe.
Just like I'll see single needles on the old and
youngest needles of my monophylla which cannot
be happening in the mindset of many. The thinking
is that there are two needles to a bundle originally
and one is later sloughed off. That is not true with
my form of monophylla but it can be true at times
when Pinus cembroides edulis (how I learned it)
is grown elsewhere. That is the whole problem
in a nutshell. Who is right and who isn't? I also
have the Piņon form that has four needles to a
bundle.
Personally, I do not agree that a Mondell Pine and an Eldarica Pine are the same. The original seed that came here were sold as Mondell Pine but that Pine has a green colored needle whereas the Eldarica forms have a blue-green needle, closer to a silvery blue in selected forms with the noticeable white stripe, as we called it, on the backside of the needle. The Mondell Pine will have slightly longer newest growth needles than a Eldarica will have. The growth habits are close to being the same and the cones are similar.
I don't think that need be any more difference than the difference between e.g. green- and blue-foliage Picea pungens cultivars. Different cultivars fine, but the same botanical taxon (which is what matters to botanists!!).
Michael,
You've used the terms deflexed, reflexed, and forward-pointing with respect to cones. Can you give me a little help with the meaning of those terms? You used "deflexed" in reference to my picture which shows the cones pointing back toward the trunk. Is that a correct understanding of the term?
Michael,
You've used the terms deflexed, reflexed, and forward-pointing with respect to cones. Can you give me a little help with the meaning of those terms? You used "deflexed" in reference to my picture which shows the cones pointing back toward the trunk. Is that a correct understanding of the term?
Yep, that's right. Deflexed and reflexed mean about the same - the cone is bent back so the narrow tip of the cone is pointing down the stem (towards the trunk). In my botanical glossary, 'reflexed' is "abruptly deflexed at a more than 90° angle", i.e., a more extreme version of the same.
The four-needle pinyon is Pinus quadrifolia[/QUOTE]
I've always know P. quadrifolia as Parry Pinyon, an unusual species with 4 needles to the bundle. However, relatively recent research done by Dr. Ron Lanner, an expert on southern California pinyon pines, suggests that P. quadrifolia is very possibly the result of hybridization between singleleaf pinyon, P. monophylla (1 needle) and the rare Sierra Juarez pinyon, P. juarezensis (5 needles). He sites a number of "intermediate" characteristics in the Parry pinyons, such as leaf resin canal numbers, twig hairiness, and stomate position. Additionally, many of the so-called "4-needled" Parrys often have needles in bundles of 3 and 5 as well. To quote Lanner, "That variability can now be attributed to hybridization between singleleaf and Sierra Juarez pinyon, and trees neither purely one or the other can be collectively termed Parry pinyon, Pinus X quadrifolia."
The problem with that is that P. juarezensis can also be "rarely four-needled" and is not guaranteed free of hybrid influence too, so therefore P. juarezensis becomes a synonym of P. quadrifolia. That's the view taken by e.g. Farjon & Styles (Pinus, Flora Neotropica Monograph 75; see pp. 251-255). While I don't agree with every taxonomic decision in that book, I think they have this one right.
Pinus monophylla is native in certain locales
in California, so is Pinus quadrifolia. There
are other forms, variants, of both Pines which
can and has caused some "wild" discussions in
the past out here and elsewhere. Even the
taxonomic keys tend to lump the physical
attributes, excluding the cones, of known
Pines into groups in which they can be sorted
out to an extent but to get into the nuts and
bolts of the Pine, a history of that Pine becomes
rather important to know. Yes, there is a form
of Pinyon Pine that will indeed start out with
two needles to a bundle and can slough off one
of the needles which gives rise that it may be a
monophylla to some people. In comparison
to the form I have there is not a second needle
to the bundle which dispels the notion that
my Pine is the more commonly seen "single
leaf" as seen in the Southern parts of our state.
I believe Mr. Lanner's thinking that a natural
form of hybrid occurring the wild did happen.
I have seen some forms of Pinyon that will
indeed throw out four and five needles to a
bundle and will slough off one of them as
the needles expand. The true form or at
least what I was told several years ago of
the Parry Pinyon is that the Pine will start
out with four needles to a bundle and when
the needles open up and expand they will
remain as four to a bundle.
It becomes a matter of who do we want to
believe as interpretations from two opposite
sides of the needle to a bundle equation can
both be correct depending on whether the
Pine is native, introduced, or is in fact a
hybrid. The hard part is proving that
hybridization has indeed occurred but I
for one cannot rule it out based on some
of the one, two, three and four needled
Pinyons that I have seen.
I always had my doubts that the five needle
Pine, that sloughed off one of the needles
and in some cases can also slough off two
needles, is a Pinyon Pine.
Jim
Last edited by mr.shep; September 22nd, 2005 at 04:09 PM.
