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