identifying environmental stressors impacting sugarbush ...€¦ · identifying environmental...
Post on 16-Aug-2020
7 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Brooke Bartlett
Shannon Healy
Melanie Rausch*
Li-Wei Lin
Identifying Environmental Stressors Impacting Sugarbush Longevity and Maple Syrup Agroforestry in Vermont
Background Information4 Native Americans invented maple syrup, with the
first written record dating back to 1557 4 In the 1850s, maple syrup rose in popularity
among European settlers as an inexpensive cane sugar substitute
4 Maple syrup production began by inserting a tap into the trunk of the tree and hanging buckets to collect sap during February through April
4 The most common maple tree to tap for sap is the sugar maple tree (Acer saccharum)
4 Sugar maples are a keystone species in hardwood forests and occur from Tennessee to Canada
Credit: diapicard
United StatesStudy area – Vermont
20 400 MilesN
Study Area
4 Vermont, United States
4 Study Period4 January 1987 to June 2019
4 Elevation range 4 100 to 4,395 feet
Community Concerns
4 Extensive maturation period; sugar maples must be 40 years old before being tapped
4 Sensitive to environmental stressors such as drastic changes in temperature, degradation of soil, and defoliation
4 Decline in sugar maple population
4 Negative impacts to maple syrup quality
Credit: Olivia Hutcherson
Objectives
4 Utilize Earth observations to quantify the health of Vermont Vegetation through NDVI and EVI Time Series Analysis Maps from January 1987 to June 2019
4 Produce an EVI and Temperature Trend graph to display trends in vegetation health and temperature fluctuations from January 1987 to June 2019
4 Identify areas that are optimal for sugarbush and maple syrup production through a Sugarbush Habitat Suitability Map
4 Provide guidance for maple syrup producers in identifying viable maple forest stands through a PDF document
Credit: Mike Petrucci
Project PartnersUniversity of Vermont Extension Maple Program
4 End User – Mr. Mark Isselhardt, Extension Maple Specialist
University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory 4 Collaborator – Dr. Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne,
Director
Proctor Maple Research Center 4 Collaborator – Dr. Abby van den Berg,
Associate Professor
Credit: Maria Michelle
Landsat 5 TMLandsat 8 OLI
Terra ASTERCredit: Greg Shirah (NASA/GSFC)
Methodology
2007
Sugarbush Habitat
Suitability Map
2019
EVI Change MapsNDVI Change Maps
NDVI Time Series
EVINDVI
Landsat 5 TM
Landsat 8 OLI
1987 1996 2016
Google Earth Engine
EVI
Land Cover Data
Soil Data
Terra ASTER
EVI Time Series
2016 2018 2019
Habitat Suitability
Model
EVI and Temperature Trend Graph
EVI
Extreme Min & Max Temperature Values
Min & Max Temperature Values
1987 through 2019
R & RStudio
Average Temperature Values
Results
Credit: Michelle Maria
4 NDVI and EVI of Vermont4 Time Series 4 Change maps
4 Vegetation Health and Temperature Trends 4 Relationships and interrelationships
4 Habitat Suitability Analysis 4 Habitat suitability model 4 Suitable areas of sugar bush
NDVI Time Series Maps1987 1996
20192016
2007
High: 1
0 Miles20 40Low : - 1
N
EVI Time Series Maps1987 1996
20192016
2007
High: 1
Low: -1 0 Miles20 40
N
NDVI and EVI Change Maps
Increased NDVI: 1
Decreased NDVI: -1
0 20 40 Miles
Increased EVI: 1
Decreased EVI: -1
NDVI EVI
N
Average EVI Values (1987 – 2019)
0.400.41
0.470.46
0.51
0.45
0.48
0.44
0.420.43
0.49
0.52
0.50
0.530.540.55
1987 1996 2006 2016 2019
NorthSouth
Year
EVI V
alu
es
Average Temperature for Sugaring Season (1987 – 2019)
15.0
30.0
27.5
40.0
25.0
32.5
22.5
17.5
20.0
35.0
37.5
1990 1995 2000 2015 20202005 2010Year
Tem
pera
ture
(F)
NorthSouth
Habitat Suitability Model
Land Use & Land Cover
Elevation Slope
Drainage EVI Soil
Sugar Bush Habitat Suitability Map
0 20 40 Miles
Most suitable
Not suitableN
Moderately suitable
2007
Urban Areas
Sugar Bush Habitat Suitability Map
0 20 40 Miles
Most suitable
Not suitableN
Moderately suitable
2019
Urban Areas
Conclusions
Credit: Marie Bouffard
4 NDVI decreased in the study area from 1987 to 2019
4 EVI decreased in the study area from 1987 to 2019
4 Between 2016 and 2019, EVI and temperature trends observed a similar downward pattern in both North and South focus areas
4 The suitability analysis conducted for 2019 found that 59% of Vermont was most suitable for sugarbush growth requirements
Planning Implications
Credit: Marie Bouffard
4 Land use – by identifying optimal sugar maple forests we can plan land use around these valuable forest stands
4 Natural resource conservation – protecting these forests from uses other than agroforestry allows for their preservation
4 Economic stability – identifying optimal maple stands provides the maple industry stability
Credit: Viktor Paris
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by NASA through contract NNL16AA05C. Any mention of a commercial product, service, or activity in this material does not constitute NASA endorsement. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and partner organizations.
AdvisorsUniversity of Georgia4 Dr. Marguerite Madden – Director of
Center for Geospatial Research 4 Dr. Sergio Bernardes – Assistant
Director of Center for Geospatial Research
PartnersUniversity of Vermont (UVM)4 Mr. Mark Isselhardt – Extension Maple
Specialist4 Dr. Abby van den Berg – Proctor
Maple Research Center, Research Associate Professor
4 Dr. Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne – Director of the UVM Spatial Analysis LaboratoryDEVELOP
4 Shelby Ingram – Acting Center Lead4 Sam Furey – Talamanca-Osa Ecological Forecasting II Project Lead4 Marie Bouffard – Former Center Lead4 Samantha Trust – Talamanca-Osa Ecological Forecasting II Participant
top related