I collected a couple of Subalpine fires last fall up high in the mountains (7500') outside of town here. The first set of pictures here are of one of those trees and I just took the pictures yesterday. The tree stands about 34" tall from base to top of the tree. As you can see, the tree is healthy and has lots of buds present and ready for next spring. The next set of pictures are of a fir that I collected in the exact same location just last week. It is 24" tall from the base to the top of the tree. I could not find any that looked like last years tree with the darker green foliage etc. The most recently collected one seems to have the same structure, needle type etc, but is a lighter green in overall color. I have tried to show structure, needles top and bottom of both trees for your viewing. It seems like there are a lot of the lighter green trees up there, and very few of the darker green ones. Does it look to you like both are Subalpine firs or what do you see. If both are, why the difference in color.
SUBALPINE ID HELP
- Thread starter August44
- Start date
Tycoss
Chumono
The subalpine firs I've seen near me vary a lot in colour, I think depending mostly on lighting and soil type. They both look like subalpine firs to me. Nice healthy material! I've planned on adding some to my collection for years now, but keep coming down from the mountains with spruce or lodgepoles
PiñonJ
Omono
Any chance the second one is a Silver Fir?
Cruiser
Omono
They both look like sub alpine but it’s hard to say for sure without being there. The best thing is to give you the clues to run through..
Check the newest growth on the second tree. Do the needles have white on both sides? That is a strong indicator for subalpine fir.
Silver fir needles tend to be darker. The needles growing on the top side of the twig appear flattened against it and are angled towards the branch tips. Like skis pointing down a slope. They also tend to have the glaucous white stripes only on the undersides of the needles.
Smell wise, silver fir is more citrusy. Subalpine, while pleasant can have a slightly more chemical smell.
I was up at hurricane ridge this weekend and took a boat load of photos of subalpine. I’ll post photos in a bit to demonstrate key features.
Noble fir is a possibility. Check for needles that are shaped like hockey sticks. What I mean by this is that the needle is angled acutely where it attaches to the twig. Noble fir smells pleasant as well but with a slight turpentine odor mixed in.
Check the newest growth on the second tree. Do the needles have white on both sides? That is a strong indicator for subalpine fir.
Silver fir needles tend to be darker. The needles growing on the top side of the twig appear flattened against it and are angled towards the branch tips. Like skis pointing down a slope. They also tend to have the glaucous white stripes only on the undersides of the needles.
Smell wise, silver fir is more citrusy. Subalpine, while pleasant can have a slightly more chemical smell.
I was up at hurricane ridge this weekend and took a boat load of photos of subalpine. I’ll post photos in a bit to demonstrate key features.
Noble fir is a possibility. Check for needles that are shaped like hockey sticks. What I mean by this is that the needle is angled acutely where it attaches to the twig. Noble fir smells pleasant as well but with a slight turpentine odor mixed in.
Last edited:
Cruiser
Omono
Subalpine Fir
-White bands on the top and bottom sides of newer needles. Usually the top band is singular and wide. The needle bottom typically has two narrower bands. The whites bands are a waxey coating that helps to retain moisture. It rubs off over time so on older needles the bands appear faded or non existent.
-Needles that mostly grow radiating around the twig or upwards and that have a slight upward curve. Needle color naturally varies from tree to tree.
3) In younger trees, smooth gray bark with resin blisters. With time, the blisters sort of “dry out” and don’t appear as bulbous as what you’d see in other true firs.
As the tree continues to age it begins to shed the blistered bark giving it a scaley appearance. Eventually the bark thickens and hardens into a blocky texture.
4) Dark brown/blue-purplish cones. In the photo below they are covered in a reddish-brown fuzz but zoomed in the purple color is visible underneath.
5) Small globular orange-brown buds at the twig ends.
Attachments
-
BC1D49BE-969B-4D51-B99A-B6E3E1CC4FA1.jpeg -
0D2E71FF-8575-46A0-A39B-85839627283E.jpeg -
AF81F4DD-61B6-450E-9352-F1CAA8E41B63.jpeg -
7C109D28-6AFB-4ABB-9EFA-7319CDA10817.jpeg -
56D0066E-6AB5-467D-AB82-1E41194ABB46.jpeg -
7F5E1EE2-0917-4B9D-AF80-1E232E86AAD9.jpeg -
AA00779F-3DAD-4A5D-8721-F315CCD2F3F3.jpeg -
CFCBF6D0-33F6-4228-A3C0-91679BE6964A.jpeg -
90E5A67B-31B6-4314-A74C-F3A8FA577846.jpeg
Cruiser
Omono
Unfortunately I don’t have any id photos of noble or silver fir so I had to grab some from google images.
Note the top middle needles in pic 1 which is silver fir. They angle towards the twig tip and are somewhat flattened against the twig instead of sticking up.
In pic two you have noble fir. Note where the needle attaches to the twig. There’s a bend giving it a hockey stick appearance. It should be said that noble fir needles sometimes have white bands on both sides, but that they tend to be thinner and differently shaped from subalpine.
Note the top middle needles in pic 1 which is silver fir. They angle towards the twig tip and are somewhat flattened against the twig instead of sticking up.
In pic two you have noble fir. Note where the needle attaches to the twig. There’s a bend giving it a hockey stick appearance. It should be said that noble fir needles sometimes have white bands on both sides, but that they tend to be thinner and differently shaped from subalpine.
Attachments
Mike Westervelt
Chumono
Nope, the only "silver" fir in Washington state is Abies amablis, which only occurs west of the Cascade range, same with Noble fir.
Definitely Subalpine fir.
ghues
Omono
Noble fir?
I need to update this...I had a pretty knowledgeable guy who has been with the Forest Service in this part of the country for 30+ years come over and look at these trees yesterday. He knows his stuff and I was amazed at how simple he made it...he said we have a small selection of firs to choose from in this part of the country, we have Grand firs, white firs, the Grand Fir/White Fir cross (that looks like a grand Fir), Douglas fir, and the Subalpine fir. Even though the two firs in question look a little different here and there, because of structure, coloration, etc, they can only Subalpine firs. I am a bit of a skeptic and always have been. I look at the pictures of the two trees as below and can't get settled or agree with his answer. The first two pictures look like the Subalpine that "Cruiser" posted. The second two pictures don't. If someone can tell me that they have seen a difference like this in other species in the exact location, then I will come a lot closer to believing what he said. The pictures of the #2 tree are very representative of all the #2 trees on the mountain, and there are a lot of them. I have only seen two of the #1 trees.
Attachments
Deep Sea Diver
Imperial Masterpiece
Here’s my opinion based upon your new photos. Sub Alpine Fir.
Its decidedly not Grand Fir, White Fir, morph of the two, or Douglas Fir…. Nor Silver fir, who’s upper needles are appressed and pointed forward.
Tree populations of most species will have subtle variations depending on the myriad environmental and genetic factors at work in a particular area, short of being named subspecies. Specific photos will never convey the gestalt you will get over time in the field to recognize and account for these variations.
imho this is the case in your situation.
Cheers
DSD sends
Its decidedly not Grand Fir, White Fir, morph of the two, or Douglas Fir…. Nor Silver fir, who’s upper needles are appressed and pointed forward.
Tree populations of most species will have subtle variations depending on the myriad environmental and genetic factors at work in a particular area, short of being named subspecies. Specific photos will never convey the gestalt you will get over time in the field to recognize and account for these variations.
imho this is the case in your situation.
Cheers
DSD sends
Cruiser
Omono
True firs can have a lot of variation in needle arrangement, color, and size; even on one tree. You can see this when comparing needles on the leader to those down below. Many things affect this including: age of the needles, light exposure, needle proximity to cones, disease, etc etc.
I saw markedly different looking subalpine firs in close proximity to one another when I took those photos. I tended to photograph the juicy vigorous trees, but there were stunted trees around that had much whispier appearances.
All that being said, it is possible that you have two different species.
If anything, your #2 tree looks more like sub alpine to me. It has rounded darker orange brown buds and visible bloom on both sides of the needles.
Do the crushed needles from each tree smell the same?
Can you get a clear zoomed in shot of the buds on #1?
I saw markedly different looking subalpine firs in close proximity to one another when I took those photos. I tended to photograph the juicy vigorous trees, but there were stunted trees around that had much whispier appearances.
All that being said, it is possible that you have two different species.
If anything, your #2 tree looks more like sub alpine to me. It has rounded darker orange brown buds and visible bloom on both sides of the needles.
Do the crushed needles from each tree smell the same?
Can you get a clear zoomed in shot of the buds on #1?
Cruiser
Omono
It’s possible you have standard subalpine (Abies lasiocarpa) and Rocky Mountain Alpine (Abies bifolia). Subalpine has a reddish inner bark. Rocky Mountain inner bark is yellow-light brown.
I will try to get pictures of the bud on #1 ASAP. Thanks all for the help!
Cruiser
Omono
Happy to help. I get a lot of joy out of identifying trees!
What does "inner bark" mean?
Cruiser
Omono
Deep Sea Diver
Imperial Masterpiece
Ok, absolutely not sure about either bark nor needle crush tests. These are very subjective imho.
There are two reported sub species in Western North America and the possibly of a Abies Lasiocarpa x Abies Procera cross… plus a scientific recognition of innumerable variations of Abies lasiocarpa in the field in different areas and different elevations… mot interlacing. In other words these variations occurred within their own local population. However, an Abies lasiocarpa/Abies Amabilis cross has never been found att.
Perhaps this excerpt below will help shed some more light on your situation August.
Cheers
DSD sends
Taxonomic notes
There are three distinct types of Abies lasiocarpa, which are here described as varieties:
A. lasiocarpa var. lasiocarpa, the northern subalpine fir, described from Mount Hood, Oregon.
A. lasiocarpa var. arizonica (Merriam) Lemmon, the corkbark fir, native to the southern Rocky Mountains.
A. lasiocarpa var. bifolia Eckenwalder 2009, the western subalpine fir, native to much of the interior of western North America.
Although it is so named in the Flora of North America, most conifer biologists have chosen not to recognize var. bifolia as a separate species, because only very minor characters distinguish it from typical A. lasiocarpa. The variety is said to be distinct from var. lasiocarpa in chemical tests on wood, lack of crystals in the ray parenchyma, lack of lasiocarpenonol, and distinct terpene patterns. Var. bifolia also tends to have slightly shorter and fewer prominently notched leaves than var. lasiocarpa. The two are separated by the color of their periderm and by the shape of their basal bud scales (Hunt 1993). My experience, however, is that these characters are continuously varying and they can be found throughout the range in which I have encountered the species, which extends from southern British Columbia into Oregon and east to Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. Adams et al. (2011) examined essential oils and DNA sequences in populations presumably representing the three varieties (Olympia Mountains of Washington, eastern Rocky Mountain Front in Montana, Wasatch Mountains in Utah, San Francisco Peaks in Arizona) and found only very small DNA differences but consistent essential oil differences, consistent with the notion that varietal distinctions are a function of adaptation to different climates. I doubt that even an expert can consistently distinguish vars. lasiocarpa and bifolia based solely on morphological characters. Distinguishing between var. bifolia and var. arizonica is also ambiguous, and is primarily based on the thickened, 'corky' bark of var. arizonica that may also be dark grey and deeply furrowed.
In north central Alberta, var. bifolia introgresses with A. balsamea (Hunt and von Rudloff 1974, Moss 1953, both cited by Hunt 1993). At the southern end of its range, var. lasiocarpa possibly hybridizes with A. procera, but the taxa are normally separated by habitat and elevation. Var. lasiocarpa shares with A. procera a red periderm, crystals in the ray parenchyma, and reflexed tips of the bracts, features not shared with var. bifolia (Hunt 1993). A. lasiocarpa (var. lasiocarpa and var. bifolia) and A. amabilis, although sympatric over a wide area, are separated by many morphologic features, and no hybrids have been found (Hunt 1993).
Unique populations of var. lasiocarpa from coastal Alaska are found at lower elevations (0-900 m) and appear to be isolated with no reported introgression between them and the coastal mountain populations (Heusser 1954, Harris 1965). The population on the Prince of Wales Island has distinct terpene patterns and warrants further study to clarify its separation from neighboring populations (Hunt 1993).
Synonymy:
For var. lasiocarpa, Pinus lasiocarpa Hooker 1838.
For var. bifolia, Abies bifolia A. Murray, Abies subalpina Engelmann, and A. lasiocarpa subsp. bifolia (A. Murray) Silba 2008.
Citation: https://www.conifers.org/pi/Abies_lasiocarpa.php
There are two reported sub species in Western North America and the possibly of a Abies Lasiocarpa x Abies Procera cross… plus a scientific recognition of innumerable variations of Abies lasiocarpa in the field in different areas and different elevations… mot interlacing. In other words these variations occurred within their own local population. However, an Abies lasiocarpa/Abies Amabilis cross has never been found att.
Perhaps this excerpt below will help shed some more light on your situation August.
Cheers
DSD sends
Taxonomic notes
There are three distinct types of Abies lasiocarpa, which are here described as varieties:
A. lasiocarpa var. lasiocarpa, the northern subalpine fir, described from Mount Hood, Oregon.
A. lasiocarpa var. arizonica (Merriam) Lemmon, the corkbark fir, native to the southern Rocky Mountains.
A. lasiocarpa var. bifolia Eckenwalder 2009, the western subalpine fir, native to much of the interior of western North America.
Although it is so named in the Flora of North America, most conifer biologists have chosen not to recognize var. bifolia as a separate species, because only very minor characters distinguish it from typical A. lasiocarpa. The variety is said to be distinct from var. lasiocarpa in chemical tests on wood, lack of crystals in the ray parenchyma, lack of lasiocarpenonol, and distinct terpene patterns. Var. bifolia also tends to have slightly shorter and fewer prominently notched leaves than var. lasiocarpa. The two are separated by the color of their periderm and by the shape of their basal bud scales (Hunt 1993). My experience, however, is that these characters are continuously varying and they can be found throughout the range in which I have encountered the species, which extends from southern British Columbia into Oregon and east to Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. Adams et al. (2011) examined essential oils and DNA sequences in populations presumably representing the three varieties (Olympia Mountains of Washington, eastern Rocky Mountain Front in Montana, Wasatch Mountains in Utah, San Francisco Peaks in Arizona) and found only very small DNA differences but consistent essential oil differences, consistent with the notion that varietal distinctions are a function of adaptation to different climates. I doubt that even an expert can consistently distinguish vars. lasiocarpa and bifolia based solely on morphological characters. Distinguishing between var. bifolia and var. arizonica is also ambiguous, and is primarily based on the thickened, 'corky' bark of var. arizonica that may also be dark grey and deeply furrowed.
In north central Alberta, var. bifolia introgresses with A. balsamea (Hunt and von Rudloff 1974, Moss 1953, both cited by Hunt 1993). At the southern end of its range, var. lasiocarpa possibly hybridizes with A. procera, but the taxa are normally separated by habitat and elevation. Var. lasiocarpa shares with A. procera a red periderm, crystals in the ray parenchyma, and reflexed tips of the bracts, features not shared with var. bifolia (Hunt 1993). A. lasiocarpa (var. lasiocarpa and var. bifolia) and A. amabilis, although sympatric over a wide area, are separated by many morphologic features, and no hybrids have been found (Hunt 1993).
Unique populations of var. lasiocarpa from coastal Alaska are found at lower elevations (0-900 m) and appear to be isolated with no reported introgression between them and the coastal mountain populations (Heusser 1954, Harris 1965). The population on the Prince of Wales Island has distinct terpene patterns and warrants further study to clarify its separation from neighboring populations (Hunt 1993).
Synonymy:
For var. lasiocarpa, Pinus lasiocarpa Hooker 1838.
For var. bifolia, Abies bifolia A. Murray, Abies subalpina Engelmann, and A. lasiocarpa subsp. bifolia (A. Murray) Silba 2008.
Citation: https://www.conifers.org/pi/Abies_lasiocarpa.php
