Montane - Subalpine Limber Pine Woodland
Global Name:
Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Limber Pine Woodland
Global Rank:
GNR
State Rank:
S3S4
(see reason below)
External Links
State Rank Reason
These high elevation limber pine habitats are much more limited in extent than the lower elevation G209. They have likely been relatively stable or experienced only minor declines. Blister rust and severe wildfires may impact occurrences in the near- and long-term. Other threats appear to be minor in scope and/or extent.
General Description
This National Vegetation Classification Group is composed of Limber Pine Woodlands, occurring intermittently from the lower montane zone to upper timberline. They occur east of the Continental Divide primarily on limestone-derived soils and can be found from the foothills of the Rocky Mountain Front, south to the mountains of extreme southwest Montana (Italian Peaks) and east to the island ranges including the Snowy Mtns and the Pryor Mtns. Elevations range from about 4,500ft in central Montana to over 8,500ft in the southwest. Sites are xeric and occur on exposed, windswept slopes and ridges to gentle slopes such as along the Rocky Mountain Front. They occur on all aspects but are most common on dry south- and west-facing slopes, especially at higher elevations. Soils are typically shallow, skeletal and coarse-textured, such as gravelly, sandy loams or loams, but may include alkaline clays. Exposed rock, gravel and soil are common. The vegetation is characterized by an open canopy of relatively short-statured Limber Pine (Pinus flexilis) up to about 50ft tall. Other tree species that may be present or codominant on some sites include Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis), Engelmann Spruce (Picea engelmannii), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The understory vegetation is typically sparse as the sites are dry with shallow, rocky soils.
Sites that are co-dominated by Rocky Mountain Juniper or Utah Juniper are part of G209 as are arid communities of Limber Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass.
This group incorporates the higher elevation plant associations included within the Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine - Juniper Woodland Ecological System.
Diagnostic Characteristics
Xeric Conifer Forest and Woodland; Montane and Subalpine Zones; Upper Timberline; Rocky Mtn Region
Typical Dominants: Limber Pine (Pinus flexilis)
Similar Systems
Range
In Montana, this group occurs east of the Continental Divide at montane and subalpine elevations primarily on limestone-derived soils. It can be found from the foothills of the Rocky Mountain Front, south to the mountains of extreme southwest Montana (Italian Peaks) and east to the island ranges including the Snowy Mtns and the Pryor Mtns.
In Montana, G101 occurs in Level III Ecoregions: 17 (Middle Rockies) and 41 (Canadian Rockies).
In Montana, G101 occurs within these Major Land Resource Areas: 43B - Central Rocky Mountains, and higher elevations of 46 - Northern and Central Rocky Mountain Foothills.
Density and Distribution
Based on 2025 land cover layer. Grid on map is based on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map boundaries.
Mapped Distribution by County
Beaverhead, Big Horn, Broadwater, Carbon, Deer Lodge, Fergus, Gallatin, Golden Valley, Granite, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Madison, Meagher, Park, Powell, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass
Based on 2025 land cover layer.
Spatial Pattern
Large Patch
Environment
Communities in this group occur intermittently from the lower montane zone to upper timberline. They occur east of the Continental Divide primarily on limestone-derived soils and can be found from the foothills of the Rocky Mountain Front, south to the mountains of extreme southwest Montana (Italian Peaks) and east to the island ranges including the Snowy Mtns and the Pryor Mtns. Elevations range from about 4,500ft in central Montana to over 8,500ft in the southwest. Sites are xeric and occur on exposed, windswept slopes and ridges to gentle slopes such as along the Rocky Mountain Front. They occur on all aspects but are most common on dry south- and west-facing slopes. Soils are typically calcareous, shallow, skeletal and coarse-textured, ranging from sandy loams to silts. Exposed rock, gravel and soil are common with only a minor or patchy layer of duff and litter. This group occurs in a semiarid, cold temperate climate. Annual precipitation amounts and patterns are variable as stands occur at wide range of elevations.
Vegetation
These communities are dominated by an open canopy of relatively short-statured Limber Pine (Pinus flexilis) up to a maximum height of about 50ft, though are mostly much shorter. Rocky Mountain Juniper and Utah Juniper are absent or of minor importance in these mostly higher elevation Limber Pine communities. Other tree species that may be present or codominant on some sites include Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis), Engelmann Spruce (Picea engelmannii), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The understory vegetation is typically sparse as the sites are dry with shallow, rocky soils.
A sparse, short, shrub layer may be present that typically includes Common Juniper (Juniperus communis), Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), Creeping Oregon-grape (Berberis repens) and Mountain Snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus), and stands along the Rocky Mountain Front may also have Creeping Juniper (Juniperus horizontalis). The herbaceous layer is composed primarily of graminoids such as Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), Rough Fescue (Festuca campestris), and Spike Fescue (Leucopoa kingii). Perennial forbs have sparse cover. In the Pryor Mountains, Achillea millefolium, Agoseris glauca, Allium cernuum, Arnica cordifolia, Eurybia conspicua, Galium boreale, and Senecio streptanthifolius are common components (DeVelice and Lesica 1993, Pfister et al. 1977). Annual forbs and grasses may be seasonally present.
In Montana, this group is represented by 1 Alliance with 7 Associations, which likely covers the range of vegetation types found within this group in the state.
National Vegetation Classification
Download the complete NVC hierarchy for Montana
TT2 B02 Temperate-Boreal Forest and Woodland
TT2.b S92 Cool Temperate Forest and Woodland
TT2.b3 F112 Temperate Continental Conifer Forest and Woodland
TT2.b3.Nd D336 Western Cordilleran Subalpine-High Montane Forest and Woodland
TT2.b3.Nd.2 M020 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Upper Montane Forest and Woodland
TT2.b3.Nd.2.e G101 Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Limber Pine Woodland
A0540 Pinus flexilis Rocky Mountain Montane Woodland Alliance
CEGL000802 Pinus flexilis / Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Woodland
CEGL000805 Pinus flexilis / Festuca idahoensis Woodland
CEGL000806 Pinus flexilis / Festuca campestris Woodland
CEGL000807 Pinus flexilis / Juniperus communis Woodland
CEGL000810 Pinus flexilis / Leucopoa kingii Woodland
CEGL000815 Pinus flexilis Scree Woodland
CEGL008661 Pinus flexilis / Cercocarpus ledifolius Rocky Mountain Woodland
*Disclaimer: Some Alliances and Associations are considered provisional. Some require further documentation to verify their occurrence in the state
and some may be modified or deleted in future revisions after collection of additional data and information.
Dynamic Processes
Although some of the conifers that are present or codominant in Limber Pine stands are late-successional species, they are unlikely to displace it as most of these stands occur on harsh sites where Limber Pine is more competitive than the other conifer species. These stands are generally considered to be topographic or edaphic "climax" stands (Cooper 1975; Eyre 1980). Because Limber Pine occurs over a broad range of elevations, it can also be important as a post-fire seral species on drier sites in the Rocky Mountains (Cooper 1975; Peet 1988). Birds and small mammals often eat and cache the large, wingless pine seeds. Most important is the Clark's nutcracker, which can transport the seeds long distances and cache them on exposed windswept sites (Lanner and Vander Wall 1980). This results in the regeneration of pines in clumps from forgotten caches (Eyre 1980; Steele et al. 1983). Fires are generally of low frequency and low severity in these communities due to low fuel loads and the patchiness of the fuels. However, some of these woodlands often originate with and are likely maintained by fire. Regeneration on burns within Limber Pine stands is largely from germination of seedlings from Clark's nutcracker seed caches. Clark's nutcrackers are the primary harvester and disperser of its seeds. Fire can easily kill young Limber Pine and Rocky Mountain Juniper because of their thin bark (Fischer and Clayton 1983), however, fuel loads in this group are generally light due to open rocky terrain, and fires do not generate severe damage or considerably alter vegetation composition. In comparison with upper treeline Limber Pine communities, foothill populations are thought to experience greater disturbance frequency (Schuster et al. 1995), and fire return intervals vary between 50 and 400 years (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2012). Over time Limber Pine woodlands have shifted both up- and down-slope in response to changing climate and drought, and they are considered to be particularly sensitive to future change (Means 2010).
Limber Pine occurs on dry, rocky sites that are typified by extreme winter weather and droughty summer conditions that offer marginal conditions for tree growth. Consequently, mortality from abiotic and biotic stressors is high in some areas. Limber pine is highly susceptible to white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola), the pine needle pathogen (Dothistroma septospora), and mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae). It can also be heavily infected or killed by limber pine dwarf-mistletoe (Arceuthobium cyanocarpum), particularly in south-central and southwestern Montana (Jackson et al., 2010), and is susceptible to infestation by cone beetles (Conophthorus contortae), the ponderosa pine cone worm (Dioryctria auranticella), and the western conifer seed bug (Leptoglossus occidentalis). Resistance to blister rust and mountain pine beetle is lower for Limber Pine than for other North American pines affected by these biotic agents (Hoff and McDonald 1993; Means 2010), and drought can exacerbate vulnerability to pine beetle attack (Jackson et al. 2010). The most significant damage due to biotic factors appears to occur at locations on the Lewis and Clark National Forest along the northern Rocky Mountain Front, the Gravelly range and sections of the Yellowstone ecosystem in southwestern Montana. Large numbers of trees have very thin crowns and poor terminal growth, and severe mortality is occurring in some areas.
Management
In the absence of natural fire, periodic low to moderate intensity prescribed burns can be implemented during late summer and fall months to maintain and enhance Limber Pine regeneration, although results may be variable due to insufficient ground fuels and rocky terrain typical of these communities. Fire may kill younger Limber Pine because of their thin bark. Thinning may also be used in particularly dense stands to reduce spread of mountain pine beetles (Bureau of Land Management 2011). In light of blister rust prevalence, stands can be managed to maintain Limber Pine forest composition, and to diversify age structure to include regeneration, thereby encouraging natural selection of rust resistant individuals (Jackson et al. 2010). Prolonged drought and white pine blister rust (Cronartium rubicola) have decimated limber pine along the Rocky Mountain Front and elsewhere, resulting in a skeleton woodland.
Restoration Considerations
Reintroduction of prescribed fire fosters Limber Pine regeneration because it provides open sites and exposed mineral soils that are suitable for Clark's nutcracker to cache seeds, and for seedlings to establish. Augmenting natural Limber Pine regeneration with seed sources that exhibit some resistance to blister rust or, in some cases, with nursery stock, will be necessary in areas where seed sources are absent or greatly reduced. Blister rust-resistant or tolerant trees can be identified in previously infected stands, or by screening for an identified resistance gene (Schoettle and Sniezko 2007; Schoettle et al. 2014). Direct seeding may be the most practical restoration method on most sites, however seed-transfer guidelines should be considered when the seed source is a considerable distance from the seeding site (Schoettle and Sniezko 2007). Germination will take place during the first growing season after fall caching or direct seeding.
Because this group is characterized by shallow soils, outplanting of nursery stock may be limited to microsites with deeper soil pockets. Out-planted seedling survival has been shown to be higher when seedlings are planted on microsites with some cover, when seedlings are planted in clumps rather than singly, and when competition from surrounding vegetation is minimized (Asebrook et al. 2011). Seedling health was marginally improved in burned areas compared to unburned areas within an experimental area in Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta (Asebrook et al. 2006).
Species Associated with this Community
- How Lists Were Created and Suggested Uses and Limitations
Animal Species Associations
Please note that while all vertebrate species have been systematically associated with vegetation communities, only a handful of invertebrate species have been associated with vegetation communities and invertebrates lists for each vegetation community should be regarded as incomplete. Animal species associations with natural vegetation communities that they regularly breed or overwinter in or migrate through were made by:
- Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Werner et al. 2004, Adams 2003, and Foresman 2012);
- Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each vegetation community relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
- Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each vegetation community;
- Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each vegetation community relative to the percent of Montana covered by each vegetation community to get a measure of "observations versus availability of habitat".
Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use. Species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use. Species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use. In general, species are listed as associated with a vegetation community if it contains structural characteristics known to be used by the species. However, species are not listed as associated with a vegetation community if we found no support in the literature for the species’ use of structural characteristics of the community even if point observations were associated with it. If you have any questions or comments on animal species associations with vegetation communities, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.
Plant Species Associations
Please note that while diagnostic, dominant, or codominant vascular plant species for a vegetation community have been systematically assigned to those communities and vascular plant Species of Concern were systematically evaluated for their associations with vegetation communities, the majority of Montana’s vascular plant species have not been evaluated for their associations with vegetation communities and no attempt has been made to associate non-vascular plants, fungi, or lichens with vegetation communities. Plant species associations with natural vegetation communities were made in a manner similar to that described above for animals, but with review of Lesica et al. (2022) and specimen collection data from the Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. If you have any questions or comments on plant species associations with vegetation communities, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Program Botanist.
Suggested Uses and Limitations
Species associations with vegetation communities should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning. These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species or predicted habitat suitability models (this information can be requested at: https://mtnhp.mt.gov/requests/), or systematic surveys for species and onsite evaluations of habitat by trained biologists. Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on satellite imagery from 2016 and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales. Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the vegetation communities occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade. Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections). Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular vegetation community within its known geographic range, portions of that vegetation community may occur outside of the species' known geographic range.
Literature Cited
- Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 289 p.
- Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. https://www.pnwherbaria.org/ Last accessed May 30, 2025.
- Dobkin, D. S. 1992. Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34. Missoula, MT.
- Foresman, K.R. 2012. Mammals of Montana. Second edition. Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana. 429 pp.
- Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998. Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 1302 p.
- Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32. 72 p.
- Lesica P., M. Lavin, and P.F. Stickney. 2022. Manual of vascular plants, 2nd Edition. Brit Press. 779 p.
- Maxell, B.A. 2000. Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species. Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1. Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana. 161 p.
- Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.
- Species of Concern Associated with this Community
Vascular Plants
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
- Diagnostic, Dominant, or Codominant Plant Species for this Community
Vascular Plants
- Other Native Species Commonly Associated with this Community
Vascular Plants
Original Concept Authors
K. Schulz
Montana Version Authors
S. Mincemoyer
Version Date
12/4/2024
References
- Literature Cited AboveLegend:
View Online Publication
Asebrook, J.M. 2006. Revegetation Monitoring Reports: Glacier National Park. West Glacier, MT: Research Reports, Glacier National Park.- Asebrook, J.M., J. Lapp, and T. Carolin. 2011. Whitebark and limber pine restoration and monitoring in Glacier National Park. Pp. 335-337 In: Proceedings of the high five symposium on the future of high-elevation, five-needle white pines in western North America, Keane, R.E., Tomback, D.F., Murray, M.P., and Smith, C.M. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-P-63.
- Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2011 Whitebark and Limber Pine (Five Needle Pine) Management Guidelines for Wyoming BLM. In: FY 2011 Memorandums. Wyoming: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
- Cooper, S. V. 1975. Forest habitat types of northwestern Wyoming and contiguous portion of Montana and Idaho. Unpublished dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. 190 pp.
- DeVelice, R.L. and P. Lesica. 1993. Plant community classification for vegetation on BLM lands, Pryor Mountains, Carbon County, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 78 pp.
- Eyre, F.H. (ed). 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
- Fischer, W.C. and B.D. Clayton. 1983. Fire ecology of Montana. Forest habitat types east of the continental divide. USDA, Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-141.
- Hoff, R.J. and G.I. McDonald. 1993. Variation of virulence of white pine blister rust. European journal of forest pathology 23(2):103-109.
- Jackson, M., A. Gannon, H. Kearns, K. Kendall. 2010. Current Status of Limber Pine in Montana. Report 10-06. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 14 p.
- Lanner, R. M., and S. B. Vander Wall. 1980. Dispersal of limber pine seed by Clark's nutcracker. Journal of Forestry 78(10):637-639.
- Means, R.E. 2010. Synthesis of lower treeline limber pine (Pinus flexilis) woodland knowledge, research needs, and management considerations. Pp. 29-36 In: Proceedings of the high five symposium on the future of high-elevation, five-needle white pines in western North America, Keane, R.E., Tomback, D.F., Murray, M.P., and Smith, C.M. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-P-63.
- Peet, R. K. 1988. Forests of the Rocky Mountains. Pages 64-101 in: M. G. Barbour and W. D. Billings, editors. North American Terrestrial Vegetation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
- Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. F. Arno, and R. C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-34. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 174 pp.
- Schoettle, A.W. and R.A. Sniezko. 2007. Proactive intervention to sustain high-elevation pine ecosystems threatened by white pine blister rust. Journal of Forest Research 12(5):327-336.
- Schoettle, A.W., R.A. Sniezko, R.A., A. Kegley, and K.S. Burns. 2014. White pine blister rust resistance in limber pine: evidence for a major gene. Phytopathology 104(2):163-173.
- Schuster, W.S., J.B. Mitton, D.K. Yamaguchi, and C.A. Woodhouse. 1995. A comparison of limber pine (Pinus flexilis) ages at lower and upper treeline sites east of the Continental Divide in Colorado. American Midland Naturalist 133(1):101-111.
- Steele, R.W., S.V. Cooper, D.M. Ondov, D.W. Roberts, and R.D. Pfister. 1983. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho - western Wyoming. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-144. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 122 pp.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory. 2012. Information from LANDFIRE on Fire Regimes of Limber Pine Communities. In: Fire Effects Information System. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
- Web Search Engines for Articles on "Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Limber Pine Woodland"
