I was on the Wikipedia page for the shore pine when I discovered that it is described as a fire dependant species (under the ecology section). I am in southeast Alaska and we have shore pine here, (not everywhere, but it is dominant in some areas) but wildfires are exceedingly rare here. Should this descriptor be removed? I understand how fire can be beneficial in many cases, but it is definitely not essential for them to dominate certain niches.
by Chunty-Gaff
1 Comment
Maybe you didn’t read far enough into the wiki page? Under “cones” is this text.
>Many populations of the [Rocky Mountain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain) subspecies, *P. contorta* subsp. *latifolia*, have [serotinous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotinous) cones. This means that the cones are closed and must be exposed to high temperatures, such as from forest fires, in order to open and release their seeds.[^([14])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_contorta#cite_note-14) The variation in their serotiny has been correlated with [wildfires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfires) and [mountain pine beetle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle) attacks.[^([15])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_contorta#cite_note-feduck-15) The cones of the coastal Pacific subspecies, *P. contorta* subsp. *contorta*, are typically non-serotinous,[^([13])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_contorta#cite_note-FEIS_var_contorta-13) and those of the inland Pacific subspecies, *P. contorta* subsp. *murrayana*, are completely non-serotinous.[^([16])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_contorta#cite_note-16)