Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 185–199 | Cite as

Maple Syrup Producers of the Lake States, USA: Attitudes Towards and Adaptation to Social, Ecological, and Climate Conditions

  • Stephanie A. SnyderEmail author
  • Michael A. Kilgore
  • Marla R. Emery
  • Marissa Schmitz
Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Maple syrup is an important non-timber forest product derived from the sap of the sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marshall). However, maple syrup producers are facing a diversity of challenges, including: potential range shifts in the maple resource; increasing variability in the timing, duration and yield of sap flow and syrup operations; invasive species, pests and diseases; and intergenerational land and business transfer challenges. Members of Maple Syrup Producer Associations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan were surveyed to learn about their operations, adaptation strategies, concerns, and information needs. While many respondents indicated they have undertaken or plan to undertake adaptation activities, only 11% had done so out of specific concern over changing climate conditions. Climate-motivated activities included: being prepared to tap earlier and utilizing newer technology such as vacuum tubing or reverse osmosis to enhance sap collection and processing efficiency. Respondents were generally unlikely to consider planting climate-resilient maple cultivars or tapping trees other than sugar maple. They expressed the greatest concerns over tree health and forest pests, as well as their physical ability and family member interest to continue their operations. Boil season variability and weather issues were viewed with less concern. Respondents were generally optimistic that they can adapt to future conditions, likely in large measure through the adoption of new technologies, and they expect their syrup production levels to slightly increase in the future. If future climate scenarios play out, however, additional planning and adaptation strategies may be called for, particularly as they relate to forest health and productivity issues.

Keywords

Family forest landowner Non-timber forest product (NTFP) Sugar maple Climate adaptation Sugaring Non-industrial private forest landowner (NIPF) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the USDA Forest Service Research Joint Venture Agreement 14-JV-11242309-047 as well as the University of Minnesota’s Department of Forest Resources Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Projects MIN-42-54 and MIN-42-65. We gratefully acknowledge the time and contribution by all of the maple syrup producers who participated in our research as well as the maple syrup producer association members who assisted us with contact information.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Armstrong JS, Overton T (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14(3):396–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bal TL, Richter DL, Storer AJ, Jurgensen MF (2013) The relationship of the Sapstreak Fungus, Ceratocystis virescens, to Sugar Maple dieback and decay in northern Michigan. Am J Plant Sci 4(2A):436–443.  https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2013.42A056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler BJ, Catanzaro PF, Greene JL, Hewes JH, Kilgore MA, Kittredge DB, Zhao M, Tyrrell ML (2012) Taxing family forest owners: implications of federal and state policies in the United States. J For 110(7):371–380Google Scholar
  4. Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016) USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owner Survey: national, regional, and state statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+acres, 2011-2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, p 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chamberlain JL, Emery MR, Patel-Weynand T (2018) Assessment of nontimber forest products in the United States under changing conditions. General Technical Report SRS-GTR-232. USDA ForestGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark K, McLeman RA (2012) Maple sugar bush management and forest biodiversity conservation in eastern Ontario, Canada. Small-Scale For 11:263–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Demchik MC, Finley JC, Davenport AL, Adams RD (2000) Assessing the characteristics of the Maple Syrup Industry in the PA to aid in the development of extension programs. North J Appl For 17(1):20–24Google Scholar
  8. Dillman DA (2000) Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  9. Dodds KJ, Orwig DA (2011) An invasive urban forest pest invades natural environments – Asian longhorned beetle in northeastern US hardwood forests. Can J For Res 41:1729–1742.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X11-097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duchesne L, Houle D, Côté MA, Logan T (2009) Modelling the effect of climate on maple syrup production in Québec, Canada. For Ecol Manag 258(12):2683–2689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrell M (2009) Assessing the growth potential and future outlook for the U.S. Maple Syrup Industry. In: Gold MA., Hall MM (eds) Agroforestry Comes of age: putting science into practice. Proceedings of the 1th North American Agroforestry Conference, Columbia, MO., May 31 – June 2, 2009, pp. 99–106Google Scholar
  12. Farrell M (2013) Estimating the maple syrup production potential of American forests: an enhanced estimate that accounts for density and accessibility of tappable maple trees. Agroforest Syst 87:631–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrell ML, Stedman RC (2013) Landowner attitudes toward maple syrup production in the Northern Forest: a survey of forest owners with≥100 acres in Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. North J Appl For 30(4):184–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foster NW, Morrison IK, Yin XY, Arp PA (1992) Impact of soil water deficits in a mature sugar maple forest: stand biogeochemistry. Can J For Res 22:1753–1760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham GW, Goebel PC, Heiligmann RB, Bumgardner MS (2006) Maple syrup production in Ohio and the Impact of Ohio State University (OSU) Extension Programming. J For 104(2):94–101Google Scholar
  16. Graham GW, Goebel PC, Heiligmann RB, Bumgardner MS (2007) Influence of demographic characteristics on production practices within the Ohio Maple Syrup industry. North J Appl For 24(4):290–295Google Scholar
  17. Hinrichs C (1998) Sideline and lifeline: The cultural economy of maple syrup production. Rural Sociol 63:507–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Houston DR, Allen DC, Lachance D (1990) Sugarbush management: a guide to maintaining tree health. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, NE-129, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. 55Google Scholar
  19. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iverson L, Matthews S (2018) Appendix 2: Assessment of risk due to climate change: Sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marshall). In: Chamberlain J, Emery MR, Patel-Waynand T (eds) 2018 Assessment of nontimber forest products in the United States under changing conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-232. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 249–251. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/56484Google Scholar
  21. Iverson LR, Prasad AM (2002) Potential redistribution of tree species habitat under five climate change scenarios in the eastern US. For Ecol Manag 155:205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iverson LR, Prasad AM, Matthews SN, Peters M (2008) Estimating potential habitat for 134 eastern US tree species under six climate scenarios. For Ecol Manag 254:390–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuehn D, Chase L, Sharkey T, Powers S (2016) Perceptions of maple producers towards climate change. SUNY ESF, Syracuse, NY, p 38, http://www.esf.edu/for/kuehn/documents/mapleproducersreportfinal_001.pdf
  24. Kuehn D, Chase LC, Sharkey T (2017) Adapting to climate change: perceptions of maple producers in New York and Vermont. J Agric, Food Syst Community Dev 7(3):43–65Google Scholar
  25. Landscape Change Research Group (2014) Climate change atlas. Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Delaware, OH. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas.
  26. MacIver DC, Karsh M, Comer N, Klaassen J, Auld H, Fenech A (2006) Atmospheric influences on the sugar maple industry in North America. Adaptation and Impacts Research Division (AIRID): Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 23Google Scholar
  27. Mathews SN, Iverson LR (2017) Managing for delicious ecosystem service under climate change: can United States maple (Acer saccharum) syrup production be maintained in a warming climate? Int J Biodivers Sci, Ecosyst Serv, Manag 13(2):40–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mehmood SR, Zhang D (2001) Forest parcelization in the United States: a study of contributing factors. J For 99(4):30–34Google Scholar
  29. Murphy BL, Chretien AR, Brown LJ (2012) Non-timber forest products, maple syrup and climate change. J Rural Community Dev 7(3):42–64Google Scholar
  30. Prasad AM, Iverson LR, Matthews S, Peters M (2007) A Climate Change Atlas for 134 Forest Tree Species of the Eastern United States [database]. Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Delaware, Ohio, https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/tree Google Scholar
  31. QSR International (2012) NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software, Version 10. QSR International Pty Ltd, Doncaster, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  32. Skinner CB, DeGaetano AT, Chabot BF (2010) Implications of twenty-first century climate change on Northeastern United States maple syrup production: impacts and adaptations. Clim Change 100:685–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smithers J, Blay-Palmer A (2001) Technology innovation as a strategy for climate adaptation in agriculture. Appl Geogr 21:175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snyder SA, Kilgore MA, Emery MR, Schmitz M (2018) A profile of Lake States maple syrup producers and their attitudes and responses to economic, social, ecological and climate challenges. University of Minnesota, Dept. of Forest Resources, Staff Paper Series No. 248. 70 p. https://www.forestry.umn.edu/sites/forestry.umn.edu/files/staff_paper_248.pdf
  35. Stein SM, McRoberts RE, Alig RJ, Nelson MD, Theobald DM, Eley M, Dechter M, Carr M (2005) Forests on the edge: housing development on America’s private forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-636. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, p 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. USDA NASS (2016) Northeast Maple Syrup Production. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 4. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/Current_News_Release/2016/Maple.pdf
  37. USDA NASS (2017) Crop Production Statistics. (June 2017). USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, ISSN: 1936-3737, 30 p. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProd//2010s/2017/CropProd-06-09-2017.pdf
  38. van den Berg AK, Perkins TD, Isselhardt ML, Wilmot TR (2016) Growth rates of sugar maple trees tapped for maple syrup production using high-yield sap collection practices. For Sci 62(1):107–114Google Scholar
  39. Whitney GG, Upmeyer MM (2004) Sweet trees, sour circumstances: the long search for sustainability in the North American maple products industry. For Ecol Manag 200:313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Withrow-Robinson B, Allred SB, Landgren C, Sisock M (2013) Planning across generations: Helping family landowners maintain their ties to the land. J Ext 51(5):Article # 5FEA6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie A. Snyder
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael A. Kilgore
    • 2
  • Marla R. Emery
    • 3
  • Marissa Schmitz
    • 2
  1. 1.Operations Research Analyst, USDA Forest ServiceNorthern Research StationSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  3. 3.USDA Forest ServiceNorthern Research StationBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations