Hello Pines, both of you, pleased to meet you. It's the 9th of January 2024. The cold, really cold weather has changed into plus degrees, so the snow in your crown is melting and dripping on me here when I sit on this bolder. There is a sign on the other side of the bolder that it's brought here from the area around Viborg by the ice during the ice age. Well, the area of Viborg was not the aerea of Viborg by then, but anyway it comes from the east, and is very ancient. But you, if we think of you as a family, are much much more ancient than that. You came here at the time of the dinosaurs, or even before. I decided - well I hope you don't mind, but - I decided I needed to study a little bit more about pine trees, to know more about pine trees, and what best way to do that to do it together with you. Since I met some of the other pine trees in the same park I decided I need to read a little bit also, so I found a book. And the other pines here in the park, they have their own specific character, but I guess most people walking by here would think of you as the real landmark, because you grow here, the two of you, on the... near the road and near the shore. So you're sort of easily recognisable. There are a lot of people walking and also skiing now in the park even though it's wet but never mind. So back to the book. I found a book by, written or compiled by, a huge book, by somebody called David Richardson, and it's called The Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. So there is a lot of information of all kinds and I began by reading the introduction, or part of the introduction and I'm going to, yeah. And that's where I learned that you are a part of the so-called gymnosperms and not the angiosperms like most plants or flowers and so on, and that you're very ancient. And yes, so maybe I should quote the text so I don't invent something. So yes, when the earliest angiosperms were appearing in the early Cretaceous, that's 120 million years ago, you were already here. So gymnosperms arose much earlier in the middle Devonian, 365 million years ago. And I quote: "Evidence from fossilised cones shows that ancestors of Pinaceae", that's your family however that's pronounced "had evolved by the Mid Jurassic and that Pinus", your kind " had evolved by the lower Cretaceous." So you really, your ancestors really are ancient. No wonder that you're so strong. So now I quote further: "By the end of the Mesozoic, pines had diversified into two major groups, or subgenera; representatives of both subgenera, Strobus (... or soft pines, with one fibrovascular bundle in the needle) and Pinus", that is your kind "(... or hard pines with two fibrovascular bundles in the needle), survive today." So I understand you're probably part of this second branch of the family. But where did I find, there was... There was a beautiful passage describing why it is that you are so strong and have survived so long and are so widespread around the world, especially in the northern hemisphere. So now I quote: "Among the factors that have contributed to the rapid migration and population increases of pines in the Holocene are: their abundant output of seeds from an early age; their ability to recruit dense daughter stands on exposed sites soon after disturbance; effective mechanisms for long-distance seed dispersal; a mating system that permits inbreeding and selfing in isolated trees; and various life-history traits that confer resilience at the population level under a wide range of disturbance regimes; and the ability to colonize nutrient-poor sites." So yes, that I've noticed when I've met other pines elsewhere that you really thrive there were nobody else wants to live, tree-wise I mean. And you can take both damp and dry conditions as long as there is light. Yeah, but my purpose is not to preach to you or just to read aloud stuff, but I would like to somehow have some sort of support or refutal or confirmation of this knowledge. I understand that you can't know by heart everything that happened to your distant ancestors, but I hope you could somehow inform me, if you agree with this knowledge or not, or if it's relevant at all. Or yes, why, if it's relevant for you, I wonder, does it make a difference if your ancestors are ancient or not. But on the other hand, if we think of the genetic legacy as some sort of accumulated knowledge over millennia and so on, then you must be really really wise. I don't know what else I could, what can I expect from you except tolerance and patience with me. Even though you might not be able to teach me directly or engage in this conversation, literally through language or even comment on the text I read to you, somehow I think it makes sense to learn about you together with you. So thank you for this new start at the beginning of the New Year and see you soon again. Take care.
Hello Pines, it's a while, more than a month since I was here. I spoke with you in January. Now I will try to continue my pine studies with you again. I looked a little bit on the next section in the book by Richardson, about the whole species Pinus, and one small section of the introduction is called Morphological traits of pines. And of course that's about beginning with the growth form and size and size, and then also there the whole-tree longevity, so how long the pine trees live. And that's of course always interesting. So I quote here, from page ten onwards: "Pines, like many other conifers, have the characteristics of monopodial growth and large size. The largest species of pines in the world are centred in distribution in California and the Pacific Northwest of the USA." End of quote. So monopodial, I suppose means like having one trunk. That's why we in Finland grow so many pines too. Of course the pines a part of the natural flora here, but they also are a staple of the forestry industry. But anyway, I quote from Richardson, again: "The largest species of pine in both height and girth is Pinus lambertiana, which reaches over 75 m in height and more than 5 meters in diameter in the Sierra Nevada of California." End of quote. There are other big pines, too, but those are the very biggest. That's absolutely amazing. Then about the longevity of pines. I quote: "Many pines are very long-lived, and the two bristlecone pines, Pinus aristata and Pinus longaeva are the oldest living organisms in the world" - well, that's what they claim at least in this book, alright that was a side remark from the quote, I continue quoting: "with the latter reaching documented ages of nearly 5000 years (according to Currey in 1968). The oldest living Pinus aristata was aged to 2435 years (by Brunstein & Yamaguchi in 1992). And NOoden (in 1988) lists two other pine species, Pinus cembra, which is about 1200 years and Pinus sylvestris 500 years. That's our common pine here in the north. And Nooden lists them as among the longest-lived plants in the world, but several other pines could also make this list, claims Richardson. And of course this made me interested in looking up what is the oldest pine in Finland. And they have found one almost by accident in the very north-east in the Urho Kekkonen National Park. And the pine at the time of measuring it or taking, making a hole and looking at that tree rings, they counted it's age to 764, so that's quite amazing. And what I think is most amazing is that it didn't look so very old. It was not exceptionally big or, but it was growing in the far north in harsh circumstances and the tree rings where minute, very very very small. And that's good to remember that the tallest pines are not always the oldest ones. I also looked for the tallest pine and then tall you can mean either by height or then bye girth, and sort of the fattest, the broadest trunk of a pine they had found quite nearby, 120 km or so from here, in a place called Pikku Parola, in today part of Hämeenlinna city. And it's actually quite near my childhood summer house in Kalvola, which is also now part of Hämeenlinna, so I should go and try to find it sometimes. And it was like 4 m and something, almost 5 m around the 'waist'. But back to the book. One more thing is interesting, and that's the role that Pine trees have played in the dendrochronology, that is, counting the tree rings and understanding, for instance, climate change through changes in the tree trunks. And I quote: "Pines have played a fundamental role in the development of the modern science of dendrochronology, beginning with the pioneering work of Andrew Douglas, in the American Southwest. Douglas, who was an astronomer became director of the Lowell Astronomical Observatory in Flagstaff in Arizona in 1894. And with research interest in sunspot activity and possible related impacts on climate, Douglas was drawn to the possibility that tree rings might contain climatic records that would not otherwise be available from existing weather stations. Working with the Pinus ponderosa in the Flagstaff area, Douglas developed the concept of cross-dating to compare and extend these tree ring measures over broad regional areas to identify year-to-year variation in climate. It was this pine research that led him to establish the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at the University of Arizona in 1906." End of quote. Then one more quote, so I quote: "Although the field of dendrochronology has expanded greatly in scope and depth since these early studies and involves work with many tree genera throughout the world, research with pines still forms the heart of this field. Pines contain the longest single chronologies available and some of the most sensitive chronologies for evaluating regional patterns of climate." And the reference here is Brunstein 1996. End of quote. So this is actually fascinating to think of that especially pine trees are important for this tree research. I always used to think that you had to cut down a tree and then count the tree rings, but luckily you don't have to do that but you can sort of stick in, like in the same way that they do with ice, actually thousands of metres, hundred of metres down in the ice in the Antarctic. You can sort of take a small slice of the whole tree trunk, and obviously that doesn't damage the pine tree too much. Anyway, I wouldn't like that. It sounds like a visit to a dentist or something, but of course it's interesting to think that pine trees can help us sort out climate change. But now it can be measured so obviously, because the climate has changed so drastically during the recent years that we don't need tree ring evidence for that, because there are measurements already. But nevertheless, I think it's nice to think of pines as our allies, not only with storing carbon, taking it away from the atmosphere, but also in the early days in finding out about the changes. But now when I look at you here, I realise I don't understand how old you are, because in some sense you look, well, as in your best years, vigorous and healthy and thriving, so it's very difficult to think that you would be very old. But there's actually in some of the text that old pine trees have their crown sort of bent downwards so they become like rounded almost like mushrooms. And there is a little bit of that turning at least in you, the one of the two of you that is nearest to me. But then again the one that is further away, although it looks like it's thinner, it has a bark that characterises old pines, shield bark, which is found on pines that are in the minimum of a certain age, which I have forgotten, which I have to read again. Yeah so this is sort of basic. No news for you, of course. But maybe you can be proud of thinking that the very oldest plants on this planet actually are your relatives. Well, thanks for this lesson with you again, and I hope you have a nice rest of the February and see you again in March. Thank you.
Hello Pines, nice to see you. It's windy but not so bad and the wind is behind my back so maybe we can have a conversation. It's the 20th of March and this morning, early, around five, it was the spring equinox, meaning that the day and night are equally long. Spring equinox here in the north and of course autumn equinox in the southern hemisphere. To continue our studies or my studies about you with you, I looked up another section in the introduction to the book of Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus edited by David Richardson. And I chose one that speaks about pines in landscape, sort of what kind of areas pines live in. I quote: "Pines are found in a remarkably wide range of environments from near the Arctic where the winters are very cold and growing seasons are short to the tropics, where frost never occurs and growth continues through the year." (end of quote) Then they continue that (I quote) "Some pine species form virtually monospecific forests over very large areas whereas others form mixed forest with other conifers ... and broadleaf trees... or form savannas or open woodlands. Pines are the dominant trees over large parts of the boreal forest" (end of quote). So in some sence, although we are now in the middle of the city of Helsinki and in a park, this is in the area of the boreal forest of course; we are at the border of Siberia if you wish, or taiga. Well, Richardson further writes that, (I quote) "In boreal type forest pines (especially banksiana and contorta and ... pumila, and sibirica and also pinus sylvestris in Fennoscandia and the former USSR) occur with other conifers (like Abies, Larix and Picea); Abies, that's the spruce trees and Larix is what we call the 'leaf spruces' but I don't remember its proper name, the spruces that loose their needles for the winter, and then Picea and also several broad leaf genera, especially birches and aspen trees. Well, this was not a proper quote, but anyway. Now I try to read so I don't transform the text too much. (I quote) "Pines possess a range of specialised mechanisms that enable them to thrive (and usually attain dominance) in these harsh environments. Although the northern coniferous forest contain the greatest area of pine forest many more species occur in temperate regions. The ranges of the temperate pine species are generally much smaller than those of higher latitudes ....; in temperate regions, and even more so in the tropics, pines are usually associated with acidic, nutrient-poor soils." (end of quote) And of course that's true also for the boreal forest. So for instance in Finland where we have most of our forests today are forest plantations, the main trees cultivated are pine trees and spruce trees. And usually pine trees, I think, they thrive better when there is less humidity, so higher up on the slopes or where the soil is less rich, sometimes like in mires or bog-like areas, whereas spruces are more, they need better soil but they also transform the landscape very much; well, more of that later. Richardson continues (I quote) "That pines are not restricted to such sites, with nutrient-poor soil, is clearly shown by their ability to spread into more productive sites, both within and outside their natural ranges, following disturbance that reduces the competitive superiority of vigorous angiosperms. The disturbance regime is thus an important determinant of pine distribution and abundance in the landscape." And fire is the main ingredient or the main form of disturbance and an important part of the life of pine trees in nearly all pine habitats, they claim. Well, nowadays in these managed forests of course any fire that occurs would be put down as quickly as possible, but as we've seen now with climate change, it was not many years ago, there were huge fires, for instance in north of Sweden nearby that were difficult to extinguish when it was a very dry and hot summer. And of course further south in Europe this is occuring even more. This question of disturbance is interesting because of course man-made disturbances are more and more common these days. (I quote) "Several authors have defined 'ecological groups' of pines based on their response to disturbance." For instance there has been described five groups for the pines of North America, like one group is "thick-barked species tolerant of surface fires"; another group is "species that become established rapidly from seed after fires"; a third group is "species with moderate tolerance to shade"; the fourth species, the fourth group of species "found in unusually dry or cold environments, which have wingless, animal-dispersed seed"; and then the fifth group, "species of warm, humid environments with rapid growth and short leaf duration" (end of quote or reference). And then based on these traits we can distinguish the propensity of different pines to different landscapes. So they often form savannas but become dense forest if fires are suppressed. Like group one forms seral even-aged stands, and group two occur in association with other conifers and broadleaved trees, group 3 form savannas or open woodlands rather than forests, and group four form dense, usually seral forests. Well excuse me, actually I said the numbers wrong, so I repeat: Group one form seral even-aged stands - No I don't, I'm sorry because the numbers occur after the group. So, one group form savannas but become dense forest if fires are suppressed and that's the group one. And then there is a group that forms seral even-aged stands, and that's group 2. And then there is the third group that occurs in association with other conifers and broadleaved trees; a fourth group that form savannas or open woodlands rather than forests and a fifth group that form dense, usually seral forests. Based on, of course disturbance is only one aspect that influences the landscape that pines thrive in, but Richardson nevertheless and his colleagues, they discuss "the major pine habitats beginning with the coldest and moving to warmer climatic regimes" and they are the "boreal forest habitats", the "subalpine and timberline habitats", the "temperate forest habitats", the "mediterranean coastal habitats, arid habitats and finally lowland and montane tropical habitats." (That was end of quote). So if I now think of what I associate with pine landscape here in Finland based on the reproductions - of course also walking in pine forest but that's a limited experience, I'm a city girl - but still, there is like the pine landscapes are an important part of the national landscape in the country. The first, of course we are all part of the boreal forest have habitats, even the forestry pine trees, but the difference between the pine trees in the archipelago, the so-called 'martallar' or pines that look a little bit like you but might be even much more bent like really twisted and like dwarfs. They are very special to the archipelago and the rocky islands and cubs, not cubs but like cobs that you can find at sea. And pines are among the first to come after the spruce [I mean birch!] and the rowans there. Then a similar type of twisted pine trees, which I think are very beautiful, so I apologise, I don't mean that in a pejorative sense at all, they occur also high up in the north, in Lapland and closer to the tree line. And then small pines, and of course the twists are partly produced by the wind. Then other type of like dwarf pines, small pines, not necessarily twisted, can be found on bogland everywhere or not really bog but like sour soil as was mentioned before. But somehow the national landscape is formed of the the tall straight pine trees up on the higher slopes, so not on rocky hills but on the sort of not really mountainous but on higher ground, where there is still sufficient soil but not like that much water so the spruces are not competing, and there the pine trees form beautiful landscapes. Why, what makes them, why do I say they're beautiful? Of course because pine trees are very beautiful when they're tall and straight and have their crowns high up and the trunks of Pinus sylvestris are reddish and shine in the sunlight. Because the pine forests are so pleasant because they allow some sunlight; the crowns are high up and there is not that much shrubs and vegetation under the pines because the pines like to keep the world for themselves. I don't know if their needles are poisonous or they make that specific acidic soil, but compared to spruce trees, spruce forests, which are more dense and dark and difficult to walk through, like traditional, what I call traditional pine forests, are more open and beautiful in many ways. But of course what they don't speak about now, Richardson and colleagues here in the introduction, is something that I remember from the book by philosopher Emanuele Coccia, The Life of Plants, where he agrees that all plants not only respond to their environment but they produce their environment. And that's very true for the pine trees as well. So maybe it's not so obvious here, where you two are here alone among all the deciduous trees in the park; there are a few more pine trees further up, but anyway this is a park environment and you don't have the chance to really produce your environment here, humans intervene. But when you have the chance you create your own kind of world and that's a world that many humans at least here find also very pleasant. Yeah you're not, you are the major landscape architects around in these areas. Well I thought about talking about another text I encountered about dead pine trees that are called 'kelohonka' or 'kelo' in Finnish and that can remain without rotting and standing up like grey sculptures in the forest. I encountered an interesting text about that, but maybe that will be for another time. I thank you for your patience with me and with all these basic stuff that I'm sort of learning with you, but yeah. We're heading towards warmer times and now already the light increases so let's enjoy the spring season, which now begins. Thank you and see you again in a month or so.
(Hello pines, nice to see you again. It's the tenth of April and finally the spring is here. Today even the geese.) Probably they were here before but we had a lot of snow and what we call back winter last week, so it's only now it feels like spring. Today it's like a mixture of mist and sun, there is a forecast for wind in the afternoon but right now there is no wind and it's really, really pleasant. And you look great. And I was reminded of, looking at you two as somehow separate and individuals, too, by a talk I listened to or a conversation, interview with Keith Williams, organised by the Networking with plants community, and he mentioned, he spoke about gift economy and indigenous ideas of reciprocity and so on, but he also emphasised the need for attending to specificities. So not to consider plants or trees too, I guess, only in terms of species, but to recognise that you have your special preferences depending on your life history and your place of growth and so on. Nevertheless I'm going to continue with a little bit of studying pine trees together with you, the pine trees, by going back to the book by Richardson and others about the biogeography and ecology of pinus. And to begin with I can tell you, if you didn't know already, that you or your species Pinus sylvestris is the most widespread European pine and you extend from boreal habitat southwards into the deciduous forests of both the Atlantic and central European forest regions. I quote: "For the Atlantic forest region along the west coast of Europe Pinus sylvestris is native only in Scandinavia and Scotland but it has been extensively planted and become naturalised in areas to the south in England and western France." End of quote. Yes I remember many years ago in Ireland people were very unhappy with the plantations of Scots pine which were not at all native there, and a forest that was completely different in character, no actually not Scots pines but spruces, which created a forest completely different from the woodlands they were used to, which were mostly deciduous trees. And of course spruce forests and pine forests are very different, so excuse me for mixing them up. Back to the home areas of Pinus sylvestris, so you are again the most dominant species in the forest regions and mountains of central Europe. So I quote: "Scots pine woodlands characteristically occcur on sandy soils across the lowlands of northern Germany and Poland with or without associated hardwoods", such as Betula, Alnus, birch and aspen and so on, "and often with the ericaceous shrubs in the understory." End of quote. Ericaceous, I think it refers to Erica, which is heather, and at least the heather that grows here in Finland, it could well be thriving together with pines because it's on poor soils. And then Richardson calls you a plastic species, plastic not in the sense of created of artificial material produced from oil, but plastic in the sense of adaptable or formable. So I quote: "This plastic species is successful in montane habitats as well, however, forming woodlands on dry calcareous gravels up to subalpine in levels in the Alps. Nutrient-poor acid soil at elevations of 1400 to 2500 m in the Alps and the Carpathians support sparse forests of Pinus cembra, often growing with Larix decidua", leaf spruce we call it. "Dry dolomitic soils in the mountains of Austria and southwards into Croatia support the typical subspecies of Pinus nigra, the black pine. The dwarf mountain pine, Pinus mugo, forms the highest subalpine community in central Europe, as previously discussed." So these your relatives, Pinus nigra and Pinus mugo, they are sometimes planted as park trees even here. I think that the small shrub-like pines that look like bushes or hedges, they are probably Pinus mugo. And Pinus nigra, I don't know, maybe Pinus cembra more than that. Later in the in the chapter there is a sequence with the title Widespread versus narrowly-endemic pines. And that's of course an interesting question I've never thought of, but of course there can be diversity not only between different species but diversity within a species. I quote: "Relatively little direct attention has been given to considerations of the historical, ecological and genetic factors that have interacted to determine the limits of distribution of individual pine species. The extremes of patterns of distribution can be shown by contrasting such widespread and ecologically plastic species as Pinus contorta and Pinus sylvestris with highly localised endemics such as Pinus peuce and Pinus radiata." And here are some Homo sapiens of the touristic variety, I suppose, but that's no problem. Anyway, it might be interesting for you to know that "Pinus sylvestris has the largest geographic distribution of any pine, ranging in its occurrence from the Scottish Highlands along the Atlantic to the Pacific coast of eastern Siberia," so across the whole Asian continent actually in the north, "with a relic population throughout the northern Mediterranean Basin" as well. "It reaches latitudes from 70° N in Norway to 37° N in Spain and elevations from sea level to 2600 m. The ecological range of Pinus sylvestris is equally broad." So not only geographic distribution but also the ecological range. I quote: "It is common in boreal forests in northern Europe and across Asia where it shows strong dominance of the most xeric slopes and sandy soils. In western Siberia and Mongolia it is a species of the arid steppes and is largely restricted to river courses and the margins of lakes." Well, they also suggest that what remains of Pinus sylvestris in the Mediterranean region and in Central Europe that they are relics from the Pleistocene. That shows how really, really old you are. So "here Pinus sylvestris occurs in the montane and subalpin habitats in the mountains of northern Portugal and central and northern Spain across the Pyrenees to the Alps and Apennines, and then on to the Balkan Peninsula and southwards through the former Yugoslavia to northern Greece. It is also common in the mountains across Turkey and in the Caucasus where it may be found from the coastal to subalpine habitats." So that's a huge area, but then "with such a wide range of biogeographic and ecological distribution, it is not surprising to find that Pinus sylvestris is highly plastic and contains considerable genetic diversity." So now we come finally to this idea of diversity. And they write that, I quote: "This genetic diversity is particularly high at the intra-population level, but lower between populations and races, suggesting that there may have been a blending of genetically diverse populations during the Pleistocene when the range of this species was much more restricted." I'm not sure I completely understand, but I think intra-population level means probably the pines in a specific area and then between populations would be like some forest with pines in Spain and some forest with pines in Greece and that it's within specific populations that the genetic variety is bigger, which seems somehow surprising. Anyway, they write: "Much of the ecological success of Pinus sylvestris appears to result from its strong ability to disperse and colonize disturbed sites. Populations of this species in refugia in the Mediterranean Basin were important sources for dispersal and recolonization of glaciated terrain in Europe and northern Asia in the early Holocene." So the early Holocene, that's a period we live in now, even though they have suggested that we've entered the Anthropocene, but they haven't agreed on that so we're still in the Holocene. So when after the Ice Age the pines came back on soil that was freed from ice, they came from populations in the Mediterranean Basin. So you're probably coming from the Mediterranean after all; no wonder you look so Mediterranean. Alright, jokes aside, I didn't know that Pinus sylvestris was the most widely distributed pine species, but a few years ago I didn't know that there were so many other pines, I thought that all pines were like you. Well, now I know this is not true and that you're a very special species, but thinking of Keith Williams' point, you two are also very different. Although you're probably, very probably close relatives, although not necessarily, but I think especially your bark is very different. So you, the one nearer to me here, don't have a shield bark like your neighbour behind you, which has much more poignant shielded bark. Well, anyway, I don't know about your differences further than that your roots might be very, very different and probably they're also entangled very tightly. But maybe that's enough for today and I will come back again in May and let's see what topic we find to study then. Meanwhile enjoy the spring and take care.
Hello Pine, nice to see you again. There's a lot of traffic today but not so much wind, luckily. Now it's springtime and growth-time and you too, will have some small candles, or what those sprouts are called, but I can't see so many of them. So I was tempted to read about seed dispersal and pollination and all that kind of reproduction activity, but then I decided that I should continue in an orderly fashion, according to the book that I'm studying by Richardson and others, the biography, the biology and echo-geography and ecology of Pinus [Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus], the whole broad spectrum of different type of pine trees. So the section I am going to talk about today and maybe read some excerpts from is called Pines and Humans. So I quote: "People have interacted with pines since early hominids first encountered these trees in the Mediterranean Basin, probably about a million years ago. Human activities throughout the Holocene at least, and especially over the past few thousand years, have had a major influence on the behaviour of pines. The present-day distributions of pines over large parts of their range in the Old World are the net result of numerous expansions and contractions caused directly or indirectly by human activities." (End of quote) And they list important human-induced changes to many factors, such as changes in fire regimes or changes in grazing or browsing intensity, harvesting and construction activities, the abandonment of agricultural land, purposeful manipulation like in forestry, and also the alteration of biotas and last, but not least air pollution. And now I look at some of these aspects or some fragments of them, which they discuss. And of course one is the changes in fire-regimes. Because fire has played a pivotal role, as they say, in the evolution and spread of pines since they evolved from their precursor gymnosperms. Human-induced changes to natural fire regimes have had a major impact on vegetation in most fire-prone systems and have had a dramatic effect on pines throughout their range, they say. In many parts of the natural range of pines human activities have led to increased fire frequency, they write, and this has often arisen thorough the agency of slash-and-burn agriculture. In Finland that was very much practiced in the eastern parts of Finland, 'kaskikulttuuri' they called it. And this practice has benefited pines, at least temporarily, in some areas but in most cases this form of land use has devastated forests, of course. Heavy grazing of rangelands has reduced fire frequency in many parts of the American West by reducing fuel loads and this has had a major impact on vegetation. But fires have importantly, being purposefully excluded from pine forests in several parts of the northern hemisphere. Although in recent years we read and heard about the huge fires, a few years ago in Sweden, but also in the whole north of Russia, the Siberian forest fires, and in Canada, of course. Okay, but back to the book. So fire exclusion, I quote, "fire exclusion has allowed pines to spread to some areas where the natural fire regime excluded them, and has changed the forest composition in areas where the natural fire regime allowed pines to grow, but where changed fire characteristics have altered processes affecting vegetation dynamics." So fire is an important agent and any changes to the fire regimes will have a change on pines, too. And there are impacts of fire suppression in pine forests through the disruption of the complex relationships between pines, fire, pathogens and insects. And these different relationships vary in different biogas and habitats. Well, then they write about grazing and browsing. And changes in grazing pressure has triggered changes in pine distribution in many regions. I quote: "Interactions between grazing and fire-regimes (and often alien plants) are complex, and the relative importance of each factor is often not clear" (end of quote). Moreover, I quote: "Grazing at moderate to heavy intensities frequently enhances seedling establishment which sometimes leads to range expansions" (end of quote). On the other hand, I quote, "grazing also facilitates pine establishment by opening up vegetation in abandoned fields" and "grazing reduces the cover of vigorous grasses and thus competition with pine seedlings" (end of quote). And they also note that areas subjected to heavy grazing may remain susceptible to colonization by pines long after grazing pressure has been greatly reduced or eliminated. And then they mention examples with rabbits that have influenced pine regeneration, and also introduced goats that have had severe impacts on pine regeneration and so on. They also note that browsers do most damage to young trees rather than mature ones and most pines are long-lived. And that's why the primary effect of changes such as increased moose densities in Pinus sylvestris forests in Sweden are therefore on rates of recruitment to adult growth stages. So it's difficult to approximate the exact effect, but of course moose in Finland, too, they can destroy young pines easily. But humans have also interacted with pines directly through harvesting activities. I quote: "Humans have harvested pines and their products for thousands of years" (end of quote), so they consider four categories of harvesting that have actively influenced pine forests. And one is harvesting of nuts, another is fuelwood gathering, and then of course, logging of pines and also logging of broadleaved trees, their competitors. The harvesting of pine seeds or pine nuts for human consumption has a very long history in Europe and in Asia. Your pines [nuts], the pines [nuts] of Pinus sylvestris are not harvested but rather for instance Pinus cembra or Pinus koraiensis or Pinus pinea or Pinus sibirica, their nuts. I can go to the shop here and by pine nuts, of course. But here, what is or has been more important is bark, because bark has been harvested from at least eight Pinus species, the authors claim, for human consumption, but usually only in times of famine. And they also note that it has not taken place on such a scale that it would have influenced pine growth specifically. But pines have been cut for fuelwood for many centuries, and that has had much more impact. And the need for fuelwood in many parts of the natural range of pines still accounts for a large part of the total area of pine forest cleared every year, they write. The situation with respect to fuelwood resources in some developing countries is desperate actually, still. A wide range of influences of pine-logging, including a case where selective logging for one pine species benefits another species, have been studied. And in many areas the logging of trees other than pines have had a major influence on pine forest. For example, as already mentioned, the clearing of broadleaved forests in parts of Asia has created suitable conditions for pines. Other human activities, like construction and mining activities, which replicate the effects of natural disturbances such as floods, glaciations and landslides, and thus create areas of disturbed ground for recolonization by plants, including pines then, which often like.. Or you, because you like light so much, so when an area is cleared you are among the first to go there. Well here the birches might be first. They also mention abandonment of agricultural land; often pines are quick to re-colonise there. But of course, then there is the purposeful manipulation, which we could call forestry industry, and that's of course most evident. Of course, we could think of planting pine trees in parks, but that's not so common, and yeah, in many places pines are not considered park trees in the same way as lindens or maple trees or sycamores and so on. But anyway, the pines have been widely used and planted by humans, and large-scale afforestation started in the second half of the 19th century in Europe. But sustained, large-scale forestry was, however, not widespread in Europe until the early 20th century, and only expanded to other parts of the world in the second half of the 20th century. The development of forestry with alien species in different parts of the world is widespread and some places have proved highly successful, some pines have proved highly successful for use in plantations outside their natural range. Well, I quote: "Reasons for the widespread use of pines in exotic forestry plantations include: their simple design, with straight trunks, and an almost geometrical branching habitat makes them ideal for timber production; as mentioned previously, the fact that LAI values can be doubled or trebled, trippled, through silviculture contributes to their high productivity; they grow faster - you grow faster - they grow faster than many other potential species; they are relatively easy to manage in plantations; their seeds are easy to collect, store and germinate; and they are ideally suited for planting in grasslands or scrublands (marginal forest lands) where most afforestation is required" (end of quote). Well, easy to germinate? I've tried to germinate one of your cones or not your cones but a cone of your relative and have not succeeded yet, but that's another story. Anyway, I continue quoting: "Large-scale afforestation with pines outside the natural range of Pinus has transformed large tracts of former grassland and shrubland to forest. The obvious impact of this form of land transformation on native biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in these areas is causing problems in some areas." Moreover, I quote, "in the last few decades several pine taxa have spread from plantations outside their natural range, and in several areas invasive pines have major impacts on the functioning of invaded ecasystems." And partly related to this there is the question of altered biota, because introduced diseases, insects and plants have had detrimental effects on native pine taxa in many areas. And the various human activities have exacerbated, made worse, the problems of diseases in pine forests. And these include the replacement of disease- resistant species with more susceptible species and fire suppression which favours alternate hosts over disease-resistant and fire-tolerant species and so on. And on the other hand, the impacts of invasive alien plants on native pines have probably been much worse than is currently reflected. The detrimental impacts of invasive alien grasses on pine regeneration in many parts of the northern hemisphere are understated, they claim. Of course "the widespread movement of insects and disease agents on logs and shipping materials is a very serious threat. Fungi and subcortical insects like bark beetles and horntails and so on are likely to cause major damage to pine ecosystems in the future" (end of quote). And this is of course with the increased globalisation and the increased traffic this becomes more and more a problem, but especially the climate catastrophy, because the warming climate makes the conditions suitable for a broader range of insects here, too. And that has been noted by forestry people already, because the winters are warmer and many larvae, for sinatnce, they don't die any longer, they don't freeze tpo death, and so on. Okay, but that's a whole problematic of its own. The authors also mention air pollution and refer to the large-scale damage to conifer forests caused by acid rain, which was first observed in Europe in the early 1970s. But air pollution also enhances the likelihood of insect attack and pine mortality due to diseases such as Armillaria root rot, which is increased by pollution, or any factors that induce stress in the trees, also periods of drought, even though they don't mention it, but which come with climate catastrophe. Then they go on to speak about the genetic diversity of Pinus and the ecosystem functioning, but that's a topic for another day. But I think this scale of human impact on the life of pines is quite important, although, so that there are other areas except this forestry business that we're used to. And just to, if you think why do I speak to you about this, so of course we could say that humans impact your life here, extensively by their presence, but I guess that you might be planted here by humans, or if not, at least your continuous growth is supported and preserved by humans, because you're in the middle of the city. Well, I don't know, I guess I'm somehow, or I hope I'm not boring you too much with this talk. But for me it's personally important that I somehow try to learn from you and with you, not only about you. So thanks for your patience again and see you next time. Thank you.
Hello Pines, it's a great to see you again. It's a great day but a little bit windy, let's see how this works. It's the 11th of June and I plan to study with you the second chapter of the book Ecology and Biography of Pinus and this chapter is called Phylogeny and systematics of Pinus and it's written by Robert A. Price, Aaron Liston and Steven H. Strauss and most of the stuff is quite on the one hand difficult because they discuss classification based on molecular biology and chemistry and all kind of stuff like that, but also some of it is not so interesting for us or for me, because it's about the history of different types of classifications and so on, so it's more the history of the study of Pines. But nevertheless there are some things that might be interesting to know and in the introduction they begin with something that we already know. I quote: "Pinus with more than 100 species, is the largest genus of conifers and the most widespread genus of trees in the northern hemisphere. Its natural distribution ranges from arctic and subarctic regions of North America and Eurasia south to subtropical and tropical (though usually montane) regions of Central America and Asia." Well, end of quote. And then I further quote: "The greatest centre of pine species diversity is in North and Central America (with c. 70 species, with particular concentrations of species in Mexico, California and the southeastern USA) and in eastern Asia (c. 25 species, with particular concentrations in China). And because of its great economic and ecological importance, the systematics of the genus has received considerable attention from the perspectives of morphology, cytology, crossability, secondary product chemistry, protein electrophoresis, and most recently from restriction site and sequence comparisons of chloroplast and nuclear ribosomal DNA." End of quote, wow. So, but nevertheless they say that "comprehensive studies utilising both morphological and molecular data must be completed before a definitive worldwide treatment of the genus will be possible." End of quote. Allright. And they explain that in this chapter they present an overview of the history of pine classification, and they also discuss the types of characters that have been used in delimiting groups of species, and the progress towards a phylogenetic classification of the genus from recent molecular systematic studies. And I'm not going to give you an overview of the chapter, not at all, but I picked a few details from the beginning, first of all from Pinus in relation to other Pinaceae, other relatives. So the Pinaceae is a very distinct family of conifers, comprising ten or eleven genera distributed widely throughout the northern hemisphere. And the family is supported as monophyletic, I have to say that I'm not sure what monophytetic means, by a series of shared-derived features that are unique among the conifers. And these features include, and now I quote "a specialised pattern of proembryogeny, protein-type sieve cell plastids and the absence of biflavonoids. Other distinctive morphological features of the family are: the regular occurrence of two ovules per cone scale, each seed usually with a prominent terminal wing derived from the surface of the cone scale (but poorly developed or rudimentary in some pine species); the lack of fusion of the bracts and cone scales in early development; and the presence of two saccae on the pollen grains of most genera." Well, that's so microscopic so I can't see it, but the features of the seeds might be possible. They further write that "pines form a distinctive natural group within the pine family, supported as monophyletic by a form of shoot dimorphism in which the highly condensed short shoots (or 'needle clusters' or fascicles) bear one to eight (usually two to five) needle-like leaves sheathed at the base by series of bud scales. The genus is also distinguished from other members of the family by its often highly woody cone scales with specialised apical regions, the umbo and apophysis, which represent the areas left exposed in the first-year conelet and the mature cone, respectively." Wow, that's hard to understand but this idea of needle clusters or fascicles I remember when trying to classify some other pine trees. If I remember correctly you have, Pinus sylvestris, you have like two needles in each fascicle, but that I must check, but I think I believe that. Well, then there is a lot of talk of early classification of the genus, beginning with Linnaeus, so I quote: "Pinus is a classical Latin name for pines, and was applied by Linnaeus (in 1753) in his species is Species Plantarum to a group of ten species, including five species of pine and five species now placed in other genera of the family." And then, in another sub-chapter called Twentieth century classifications they begin by stating, I quote: "Many classifications of pines have been proposed since 1900, of which four of the most influential treatments covering the entire genus are discussed in detail in this section." But I'm not going to go into those here, but rather finish by a few observations about the morphological characters important to pine classification. And that sub-chapter they begin by stating, I quote: "Delimitation of species and higher-order groups within Pinus has traditionally been primarily based upon certain foliar (that is needle and needle fascicle) and reproductive (that is ovulate cone and seed) characters. The number of needles per fascicle is nearly constant within many species of pines, and has frequently been used as a diagnostic character for various sectional or subsectional groups in the genus. On the other hand, some species fairly regularly exhibit variation in the number of needles per fascicle within and among individuals. Most needle numbers are in the Fibonacci series of one, two, three, and five (and rarely up to eight, which is infrequently found in some Mexican species)." End of quote. And they also write that needles can vary substantially in length among and within species, ranging from as little as 2-4 cm to as much as 40 to 45 cm
depending on the species. And internal and external anatomical characters of the needles can also be very useful in separation of species, and in documentation of interspecific hybridisation. The number and position of resin canals in the needle cross-section can vary considerably among species of pines and has often been used in classification as well. The number of layers of cells in the hypodermis of the leaf can also vary significantly among species. In some species the cells are relatively uniform in wall thickness, while others have thicker walls on the inner cell layers. The morphology of the stomatal complexes and patterns of wax deposition on the needles have been surveyed for 51 species of pines, and so on. I thought I'd stop with these needles here, because that's somehow something that I've been, that I've acquainted recently. I was up in a workshop in the north of Finland in Äkäslompolo near Kittilä and there I performed with a beautiful pine. But also, we had a workshop where we made natural pigments from plants and then made a brush of a kind, or a mixture of brush and pen of pine needles. And that was quite funny, because taking sort of a bundle or a few fascicles and tying them with a thread or a thin rope to a small branch to make it more compact, rather than using a branch as it is. It made quite a nice brush. Of course the needles are not soft as in real paint brushes but it was possible to paint with your needles and that was very fun. I even thought about the option that trying to boil some of your needles and see if they could make a pigment or so, I mean some colour. Because we boiled some lingo berry leaves and if they were boiled long enough they made a beautiful brownish yellow. Anyway, I also earlier tried to work with your needles, then with dry needles, and trying to somehow use, create letters by placing your needles and trying to glue them there, but it was rather complicated. So maybe this paint brush is better. But anyway, thank you for helping me study again. I hope you have a nice Midsummer and rest of June. See you sometime in July. Take care.
Hello Pines, good to see you. It is the end of July, the 20th of July. A little bit windy, but basically the sun is out; sometimes a little bit of clouds. It feels like ages I was here, but speaking of ages when it's about weeks, not even a full month, is of course a little bit crazy because I'm going to study with you now very old times. It's a chapter called Early Evolution of Pines by Constance I. Millar and I didn't realise that it's really so ancient, I mean you are so ancient, your ancestry. So in the introduction Millar notes that there has been "an explosion of information on the palaeohistory of the Earth." And "physical and biological evidence has been used to infer palaeoclimates with increasingly finer resolution in time and space. New fossil discoveries have added to the record of past vegetation, and new diagnostics for identifying taxa have led to systematic revisions of many fossil floras. The improved methods and widespread use of radioisotope dating have added precision to determining the ages of fossil floras. This information ... has contributed new insights and a revised understanding of evolution for many plant groups." And for "pines, major synthesis have focused on two time periods in the history of the genus. Studies on the Mesozoic history of the pine family and especially Pinus, have significantly changed our understanding of the origin of the genus. Similarly, studies on the Quaternary history of pines have led to new interpretations about the impact of recent palaeohistoric events on the genetic structure and evolutionary relationships of extant species." It's difficult to somehow understand the timescale that's relevant and I'll come back to that later, I had to look it up, but anyway Millar writes that "the broad-scale events that influenced the evolution of the genus, that is pines, between its origins in the Mesozoic and its present diversity remain obscure." So we don't really know, but "the impact of the Palaeogene, both Palaeocene and Oligocene events, especially the Eocene, on the evolution of the genus as a whole has only begun to be analysed. When recent information on plate tectonics, climate, fossils, and biogeography of pines is brought together, the Eocene emerges as one of the most important phases in pine evolution." All right Eocene... there is later in the text a lot of discussion and comparison between changes in the Pleistocene and then the Eocene. That is the most recent period before Holocene where we are now living, if not in the Anthropocene. That is, the Pleistocene, if I understood it correctly, began about 1,8 million years ago, so less than 2 million years ago. That's what we think of as the ice age, or the ice ages. Whereas the Eocene is much much earlier; and its 54.8 million years ago, so instead of 1.8 million years 54.8 million years ago, so it's a really ancient period of the Earth. Anyway, in the subchapter Origin of pines Millar writes: "The prevailing hypothesis until the mid-1970s on the origin of the genus relied on the contemporary interpretation of Mesozoic fossil flora and the prevailing theories of the origin of cool-temperate vegetation. Fossil pines had been described from Triassic, Jurassic, and abundant Cretaceous locals, with pines especially abundant and diverse at high northern palaeolatitudes. Mirov's widely cited interpretation dated the genus to the late Palaeozoic or earliest Mesozoic with its origin centred in a far-northern circumpolar continent known as Beringia", so a continent that existed then. And "according to Mirov, the subsequent evolution of pines unfolded in a steady and progressive migration southwards during the Mesozoic and the Tertiary, culminating in a final southward thrust toward the equator during the Pleistocene", that is the ice age. This interpretation, however, was cast into doubt, according Millar, by systematic revisions of Mesozoic coniferous fossils. And "the revisions, combined with new fossil discoveries in the last two decades", result in a new understanding. So I quote: "Although geographic biases may be expected due to unequal distribution of sediments and proximity of fossil locations to active palaeobotanists, fossil pines occur at middle and few high latitudes, widely spread east and west, with apparent centres in northeastern United States, Japan and western Europe. The earliest known pine, Pinus Belgica, from the Early Cretaceous (about 130 million years ago) was found in Belgium", or what is now Belgium, or it was found in Belgium. What it was then 130 million years ago, that's hard to say, or I don't know. Alright so 130 million years ago; that's a humbling number. I know that, what does it matter if your ancestors were alive 130 million years ago, you live here now, but still, something in the idea of sort of the time you have had to adjust to changes and developments, it's incredible. Anyway, Millar writes that I quote: "Most importantly, no fossil evidence exists for a high-latitude Mesozoic centre of origin for pines." So "hence, a circumpolar origin for Pinus is unsupported, and pine origins in middle latitudes are more likely. The regions of northeastern United States and western Europe, which would have been contiguous, so in contact, in the early and middle Mesozoic are the current candidates for the centre of origin of the genus. Alternatively, the diversity of Cretaceous pines and Pityostrobus, a relative of pines, in Japan suggests that pines might have evolved in eastern Asia." Then there is a lot of descriptions of the different periods and the changes over time referencing specific data, but I will jump to the end of the text, to the summarising the findings. And in a section called Pleistocene versus Eocene Impacts Millar writes: "This chapter emphasises that tectonic, climatic, and biogeographic events of the Eocene had a major impact on pine distributions and evolution." And Eocene was the 54.8 million years ago, period, or the period starting by then. "The Pleistocene differed in lasting less than 2 million years (compared to 20 million years for the Eocene), in having many more cycles and in having alternating periods of unequal duration with glacials longer than interglacials. The events of the Pleistocene had enormous effects on vegetation, including pines. In northern latitudes, pine distributions were displaced by continental ice sheets; in mountainous regions elsewhere, species migrated up or down in elevation. Along coasts and in other lowlands, pine populations shifted north and south in response to the climate cycles. In general, however, Miller continues, "the Pleistocene does not appear to have completely reshuffled the genus in the way that the Eocene did, and many of the Tertiary patterns and the evolutionary events that date to that period have been maintained. Pleistocene events primarily affected Pinus in a gradient from north to south, with the effect that species and populations shifted south then north (or down then up in elevation), following the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods. The impact of the Eocene, by contrast, the longer, earlier period, was greatest in the latitudinal centre of the genus and had the effect of dissecting the genus and concentrating pines into widely disjunct regions." So disjunct meaning separated. Millar writes that "insufficient time has elapsed since the close of the Pleistocene for its full impact to be felt on evolution in Pinus. Patterns initiated by the Pleistocene appear minor compared with the effects of the Eocene and are insufficient to erase the evolutionary impacts of the early Tertiary. Thus, many of the major evolutionary patterns of the early Tertiary can still be traced in the biogeography and relationships to extant pines." So the early Tertiary, that's the Eocene. Well, it sounds funny to say that insufficient time has elapsed since the close of the Pleistocene, but of course when we speak of this kind of evolutionary processes of millions of years a few thousand years is not enough. Alright, so what can I say. I expected to sort of learn about the early evolution but I was taken away to the early history of the Earth. But what I learned from this is that you belong to the Earth since 50 million years and that's so beautiful and humbling to think of it. And I'm so grateful that you're still here, I mean of course there are new species evolving all the time and we humans spread you and other species everywhere in weird places, but the idea that you or your relatives still thrive makes me happy. So that's all for today and enjoy the rest of the high summer. Take care and thank you.