Turkish pine (Pinus brutia)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Pinus brutia Ten.
Common name(s):	Turkish pine

This weed is not known to be naturalised in Victoria

Habitat:

Grows on hilly areas, coastal plains (Virtue & Melland 2003), “cracked limestone, colluvial, marly and flysch deposits with alternating sandy, silt and limey layers... sandstone, schists and mica schists, as well as on limestone, metamorphic schists, volcanic tuffs and basaltic volcanic areas... many soil types, but primarily on rendzina soils on soft limestones and marl deposits... does not tolerate poorly drained soils” (Boydak 2004). “Sites with fog or high rainfall are avoided” (Frankis 1999). “Grows from sea level to 1500 m.” Tolerant of drought, alkaline soils and salinity (Spencer 2001).

Potential distribution

Potential distribution produced from CLIMATE modelling refined by applying suitable landuse and vegetation type overlays with CMA boundaries

Map Overlays Used

Land Use:
No climate match

Ecological Vegetation Divisions
No climate match

Colours indicate possibility of Pinus brutia infesting these areas.

In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable.

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	Grows up to 35 m high and to 2.1 m in diameter (Frankis 1999) and grows in pure stands (Boydak 2004). Major impediment to access waterways OR machinery. Significant works required to provide reasonable access, tracks closed or impassable.	H	HM
2. Reduce tourism?	Grows up to 35 m high and to 2.1 m in diameter (Frankis 1999) and grows in pure stands (Boydak 2004). Major impediment to access waterways OR machinery. Significant works required to provide reasonable access, tracks closed or impassable.	H	MH
3. Injurious to people?	Grows up to 35 m high and to 2.1 m in diameter (Frankis 1999) and grows in pure stands (Boydak 2004). Some recreational uses affected	MH	MH
4. Damage to cultural sites?	No injurious properties described (Boydak 2004: Spanos et al. 2001; Frankis 1999).	L	MH
Abiotic	Grows up to 35 m high and to 2.1 m in diameter (Frankis 1999) and grows in pure stands (Boydak 2004). Moderate visual effect.	ML	MH
5. Impact flow?	Terrestrial (Boydak 2004: Spanos et al. 2001; Frankis 1999). Little or negligible effect on water flow.	L	MH
6. Impact water quality?	Terrestrial (Boydak 2004: Spanos et al. 2001; Frankis 1999). No noticeable effect on dissolved oxygen OR light levels.	L	MH
7. Increase soil erosion?	Would be a better choice than some other Pinus spp. on “upper slopes as they have deeper roots and are more tolerant of a wider range of soils and variable climatic conditions” (Spencer 2001). “Valuable for... soil stabilization” (Boydak 2004). Decreases the probability of soil erosion.	L	MH
8. Reduce biomass?	“More invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008). Biomass may increase.	L	H
9. Change fire regime?	“More invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008). Greatly changes the frequency and/or intensity of fire risk.	H	H
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	Climate modelling predicts that this species is not likely to establish as a weedy species in Victoria. No impact on EVCs in Victoria.	L	MH
(b) medium value EVC	Climate modelling predicts that this species is not likely to establish as a weedy species in Victoria. No impact on EVCs in Victoria.	L	MH
(c) low value EVC	Climate modelling predicts that this species is not likely to establish as a weedy species in Victoria. No impact on EVCs in Victoria.	L	MH
11. Impact on structure?	“Usually grows in pure stands” (Boydak 2004) and is “more invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008). Major effects on all layers.	H	H
12. Effect on threatened flora?	“Usually grows in pure stands” (Boydak 2004) and is “more invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008), therefore is likely to effect threatened flora, however, as P. brutia is not yet established in Victoria, the effect on VROT and Bioregional Priority 1A species is unknown.	MH	L
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	“Usually grows in pure stands” (Boydak 2004) and is “more invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008), therefore is to dramatically change habitat, however, as P. brutia is not yet established in Victoria, the effect on VROT and Bioregional Priority species is unknown.	MH	L
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	“Usually grows in pure stands” (Boydak 2004) and is “more invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008). Habitat changed dramatically, leading to the possible extinction of non-threatened fauna.	H	H
15. Benefits fauna?	Homopteran insect Marchalina hellenica and honey-bees Apis mellifera feed on sap and pollen (Frankis 1999) “Valuable for... wildlife habitats” (Boydak 2004). “Is likely to provide a food source for black cockatoos” (Virtue, Melland 2003). May provide an important alternative food source to desirable species.	ML	MH
16. Injurious to fauna?	No injurious properties described (Boydak 2004; Spanos et al. 2001; Frankis 1999). No effect.	L	MH
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Seedlings browsed by goats (Spanos et al. 2001). Supplies food for one or more pest species.	ML	H
18. Provides harbour?	Grows up to 35 m high and to 2.1 m in diameter (Frankis 1999) and grows in pure stands (Boydak 2004). May provide harbour for birds.	ML	M
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	Not listed as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007), however it is “more invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008), and therefore may invade pastures. Although this is as yet unknown.	M	L
20. Impact quality?	Not listed as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007), however it is “more invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008), and therefore may invade pastures. Although this is as yet unknown.	M	L
21. Affect land value?	Not listed as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007), however it is “more invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008), and therefore may invade pastures. Although this is as yet unknown.	M	L
22. Change land use?	Not listed as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007), however it is “more invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008), and therefore may invade pastures. Although this is as yet unknown.	M	L
23. Increase harvest costs?	Not listed as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007), however it is “more invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008), and therefore may invade pastures. Although this is as yet unknown.	M	L
24. Disease host/vector?	“Large scale insect damage to conifers in Australia has been virtually non-existent until recently. Being introduced species, natural predators are absent. An insect causing substantial losses in P. halepensis plantations around the Mediterranean is the pine bast scale (Matsucoccus josephi). Although endemic to P. brutia, it apparently has minimal effect on that species. This insect has not yet arrived in Australia.” (Spencer 2001). Little or no host in Australia at present.	L	MH

Invasive

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Establishment
1. Germination requirements?	Establishes both after fire and without fire, however seedling establishment was found to be higher in an area that had been burnt, however “survivorship of P. brutia seeds was reduced after seeds were heated above 90⁰C” (Spanos et al. 2001), although Boydak (2004) states that seeds can remain viable when heated to 125 C and some to 150 C. “Seed germination occurs in the rainy season with two frequency peaks: the major one in spring and a minor one in autumn”. Requires natural seasonal disturbances.	MH	H
2. Establishment requirements?	“Adapted to a high light environment”... “P. brutia seedlings grow well under an open canopy” (Spanos et al. 2001). “Light demanding... seedlings degenerate and mortality increases when the light intensity falls below 5560% or 65-70%... confines germination and establishment primarily to open, well illuminated places” (Boydak 2004). Requires more specific requirements to establish.	ML	H
3. How much disturbance is required?	Dominant perennial on “relatively non-degraded areas” on a quarry with limestone substrates (Khater et al. 2003). Grows on hilly areas and coastal plains (Virtue & Melland 2003) and is “more invasive in grasslands and shrublands” (than in forests) (Fyllas et al. 2008) – establishes in relatively intact OR only minor disturbed natural ecosystems	MH	H
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	Tree (Spanos et al. 2001)	L	H
5. Allelopathic properties?	None described (Boydak 2004; Spanos et al. 2001; Frankis 1999)	L	H
6. Tolerates herb pressure?	“Browsing by cattle, sheep or wallabies while the plant is small can retard growth (of Pinus spp.) and will often result in poor stem form... large scale insect damage to conifers in Australia has been virtually non-existent until recently. Being introduced species, natural predators are absent. An insect causing substantial losses in P. halepensis plantations around the Mediterranean is the pine bast scale (Matsucoccus josephi). Although endemic to P. brutia, it apparently has minimal effect on that species. This insect has not yet arrived in Australia.” (Spencer 2001). Seedlings browsed by goats (Spanos et al. 2001). Consumed but non-preferred.	MH	MH
7. Normal growth rate?	“Fast-growing forest species tolerant of dry summers and drought” (Spencer 2001). “The growth rate of P. brutia is fast when young, to over 1 m per year on the best sites, but soon slows with age” (Frankis 1999). Rapid growth rate that will exceed most other species of the same life form.	H	MH
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Exhibits “high levels of drought tolerance... Withstands cold, high temperatures and drought”... “There is potential for the species in the Murray Darling Basin, especially in relation to helping mitigate salinity problems” ... “ability to tolerate fire” (Spencer 2001). Occurs in areas where the temperatures drop to -4 C (Frankis 1999). “Susceptibility to waterlogging – moderately to rapidly well drained” (Virtue & Melland 2003). Highly tolerant to drought, frost, salinity, fire, intolerant to waterlogging.	MH	MH
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Sexual, both self and cross pollinated (Kaya et al. 2006)	ML	H
10. Number of propagules produced?	“Each cone contains (40-)60-140(-200) potentially fertile seeds” (Frankis 1999). Above 2000.	H	MH
11. Propagule longevity?	“The age of cones did not affect the germination considerably” from 4 to 9 years. Trees also retain a canopy seed bank; it is this that the species depends on to regenerate after fire (Boydak 2004). “No long-lived seed bank” (Virtue & Melland 2003). Greater than 25% of seeds survive 5-10 years in the soil.	ML	H
12. Reproductive period?	“Reproductive maturity can be as early as the 10th year, and the potential life-span is in excess of 300 years” (Frankis 1999). Mature plant produces viable propagules for 10 years or more.	H	MH
13. Time to reproductive maturity?	“Flowering can begin in the second year. Normal cone development has been observed in four year old seedlings and in seven year old trees” (Boydak 2004). 2-5 years to reach sexual maturity.	ML	H
Dispersal
14. Number of mechanisms?	Winged seeds with “wind seed-dispersal ability” (Fyllas et al. 2008). However “the majority of wind dispersed seeds landing in close proximity to parent trees... is likely to provide a food source for black cockatoos... with subsequent risk of occasional long-distance dispersal” (Virtue & Melland 2003).	H	H
15. How far do they disperse?	“The majority of wind dispersed seeds landing in close proximity to parent trees... is likely to provide a food source for black cockatoos... with subsequent risk of occasional long-distance dispersal” (Virtue & Melland 2003) Very likely that at least one propagule will disperse greater than one kilometre.	H	H

References

Boydak M (2004) Silvicultural characteristics and natural regeneration of Pinus brutia Ten. – a review. Plant Ecology 171, 153-163.

Frankis M (1999) 367. Pinus brutia. Curtis’s Botanical Magazine 16(3), 173-184.

Fyllas NM, Dimitrakoploulos PG, Troumbis AY (2008) Regeneration dynamics of a mixed Mediterranean pine forest in the absence of fire. Forest Ecology and Management 256, 1552-1559.

Kaya N, Isisk K, Adams WT (2006) Mating system and pollen contamination in a Pinus brutia seed orchard. New Forests 31, 409-416.

Khater C, Martin A, Maillet J (2003) Spontaneous vegetation dynamics and restoration prospects for limestone quarries in Lebanon. Applied Vegetation Science 6, 199-204.

Raskin VI, Marder JB (1997) Chlorophyll organization in dark-grown and light-grown pine (Pinus brutia) and barley (Hordeum vulgare). Physiologia plantarum 101, 620-626.

Virtue JG, Melland RL (2003) The environmental weed risk of revegetation and forestry plants. The Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, SA. Available at http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/assets/files/2003_02_environmental_weed_risk_revegetation.pdf (verified 15 June 2009).

Randall R (2007) Global compendium of weeds. Available at http://www.hear.org/gcw/species/pinus_brutia/ (verified 15 June 2009).

Spanos IA, Radoglou KM, Raftoyannis Y (2001) Site quality effects on post-fire regeneration of Pinus brutis forest on a Greek island. Applied
Vegetation Science 4, 229-236.

Spencer D (2001) Conifers in the dry country. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Available at https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/items/01-146 (verified 10 June 2009).

Global present distribution data references

Department of the Environment and Heritage (Commonwealth of Australia). (1993 – On-going) Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) http://www.cpbr.gov.au/apni/index.html (verified 10 June 2009).

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2009) Global biodiversity information facility, Available at http://www.gbif.org/ (verified 10 June 2009).

Integrated Taxonomic Information System. (2009) Available at http://www.itis.gov/ (verified 10 June 2009).

Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) (2009) w³TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, Available at http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html (verified 10 June 2009).

United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN) [Online Database]. Taxonomy Query. (2009) Available at http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxgenform.pl (verified 10 June 2009).

Feedback

Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment?
If so, we would value your contribution. Click on the link to go to the feedback form.

Page top