The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

School of Forest Resources

“CONSERVATION THROUGH CULTIVATION:” ECONOMIC, SOCIO-

POLITICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE

ADOPTION OF GINSENG FOREST FARMING IN PENNSYLVANIA

A Dissertation in

Forest Resources

by

Eric Paul Burkhart

 2011 Eric Paul Burkhart

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2011

The dissertation of Eric P. Burkhart was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Michael G. Jacobson Associate Professor of Forest Resources Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee

James C. Finley Professor of Forest Resources

William J. Lamont Jr. Professor of Vegetable Crops

Lee A. Newsom Associate Professor of Archeological Anthropology

Richard C. Stedman Associate Professor Special Signatory

Michael G. Messina Director, School of Forest Resources

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

iii

ABSTRACT

―Conservation through cultivation‖ is an approach to wild plant conservation where individuals are encouraged and/or facilitated to transition from a purely extractive- based exploitation (e.g., wild-harvesting) to a more intentional, and sustainable, plant husbandry (c.f., Alcorn 1995). This approach can be most successful when there is contextual understanding of how such transitions can be successfully made and what constraints exist. American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L., Araliaceae) is a slow growing herbaceous perennial forest plant collected from Pennsylvania forestlands for more than 250 years. Little is known about the wild ginseng industry in the state and concerns exist regarding the sustainability of continued wild extraction. ―Conservation through cultivation‖ holds promise as a conservation pathway for this species, especially as a component of agroforestry land-use systems, yet there are many basic questions to answer to help facilitate this transition. Accordingly, this study simultaneously investigated economic, socio-political, and ecological questions relating to forest-based production of ginseng in Pennsylvania. An interdisciplinary approach involving a survey instrument, key informant interviews, facilitated discussions, field habitat studies and financial modeling was used between 2002 and 2009 to gather and develop information pertinent to managing, sustaining and/or expanding this industry through agroforestry cultivation. Collectively, results from these data collection efforts indicate excellent potential for a ―conservation through cultivation‖ approach to help conserve ginseng in

Pennsylvania, while providing economic opportunities. However, key challenges exist with regard to socio-political aspects of this transition. Specifically, results suggest that a

iv variety of husbandry activities are already used to produce ―wild‖ ginseng, ranging from intensive ―forest farming‖ to casual ―seed stocking‖ in select forested areas. This scenario presents a dilemma regarding interpretation of ―wild‖ harvest data because current industry reporting mechanisms are insufficient to accommodate the complex range of husbandry practices used, and which often result in ―wild‖ appearing roots. In addition, this investigation found that many stakeholders, including those already growing ginseng on their forestlands, were concerned about ―government management efforts‖ to date. Specifically, there is demand for more emphasis on proactive government conservation efforts including greater support for planting on forestlands and less emphasis on reactive tactics such as additional regulations and paperwork. These and other related findings suggest government agencies such as the Pennsylvania

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) should work to develop mechanisms and processes for improved (i.e., more accurate, less cumbersome) industry tracking and enforcement but that these efforts should be informed by stakeholders on a continuous basis through annual point-of-sale and industry contact to evaluate efficacy and elucidate any sources of discord that undermine public and industry compliance with management goals and programs. The development of producer certification mechanisms could benefit all stakeholders if it successfully addresses the many existing

―transparency‖ issues surrounding the wild ginseng trade. Finally, results from field studies of ginseng habitat in Pennsylvania indicate that a specific assemblage of floristic

―indicators‖ can be used to help guide adoption on forestlands in the state, and that certain assemblages can provide additional forest products (e.g., maple syrup, timber)

v that can encourage ginseng husbandry on forestlands as part of an integrated forest stewardship opportunity emphasizing both economic and ecological diversity.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii

LIST OF TABLES ...... xiv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... xvii

Chapter 1 Introduction and justification ...... 1

Research questions ...... 5 References ...... 6

Chapter 2 Transitioning from wild collection to forest cultivation of indigenous medicinal forest plants in eastern North America is constrained by lack of profitability ...... 9

Abstract ...... 9 1.0 Introduction ...... 9 2.0 Materials and methods ...... 13 2.1 Species selection ...... 14 2.2 Approaches to forest cultivation ...... 16 2.3 Price information ...... 16 2.4 Planting stocking requirements and costs ...... 17 2.4.1 Seed stock ...... 19 2.4.2 Root stock ...... 19 2.4.3 Planting stock price sources and cost estimates ...... 20 2.5 Crop production parameters and yield estimates ...... 21 2.5.1 Plant spacing and numbers ...... 21 2.5.2 Years to harvest ...... 21 2.5.3 Yield estimates ...... 22 2.6 Labor and material costs ...... 24 2.7 Choice of discount rate ...... 27 2.8 Calculation of break-even prices and yields ...... 28 3.0 Results...... 28 3.1 Discount rate ...... 28 3.2 Price received ...... 30 3.3 Propagation method ...... 30 3.4 Time to harvest ...... 33 3.3 Production costs ...... 33 3.3 Yields ...... 33 4.0 Discussion ...... 37 4.1 Implications for adoption of forest cultivation ...... 37 4.2 Implications for wild collection ...... 41

vii 5.0 Conclusion ...... 42 References ...... 44

Chapter 3 Stakeholder perspective and experience with wild American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) conservation efforts in Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: limitations to a CITES driven, top-down regulatory approach ...... 52

Abstract ...... 52 1.0 Introduction ...... 53 2.0 Background ...... 57 2.1 CITES implementation for American ginseng in the United States ...... 57 2.2 CITES implementation for American ginseng in Pennsylvania ...... 58 3.0 Research methods ...... 62 3.1 Sample frame identification ...... 62 3.2 Key informant interviews ...... 63 3.3 Facilitated group discussions ...... 65 3.4 Survey development and delivery ...... 66 3.5 Data analysis and internal validation ...... 67 4.0 Results and discussion ...... 68 4.1 Sample characteristics ...... 69 4.2 Attitudes towards ginseng harvest restrictions ...... 75 4.2.1 Berry ripening requirement ...... 78 4.2.2 Ginseng collection season ...... 79 4.2.3 Ginseng harvest stage requirement ...... 81 4.2.4 Planting location requirement ...... 82 4.3 Stakeholder experience with enforcement ...... 83 4.4 Stakeholder suggestions for improving enforcement ...... 86 4.5 Stakeholder perspectives regarding ginseng conservation in general...... 89 5.0 Synthesis and implications ...... 94 References ...... 97

Chapter 4 ―Stocking the hunting ground:‖ insights into the supply of ―wild‖ ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) from Pennsylvania, U.S.A., and implications regarding the lexicon surrounding an important internationally traded non-timber forest product ...... 103

1.0 Introduction ...... 104 2.0 Research methods ...... 110 2.1 Sample frame identification ...... 110 2.2 Key informant interviews ...... 111 2.3 Survey development and delivery ...... 112 2.4 Data analysis and validation ...... 113 3.0 Results and discussion ...... 115 3.1 Survey response rates ...... 115

viii 3.2 Ginseng husbandry in Pennsylvania ...... 117 3.3 Sources of ginseng planting stock and attitudes regarding genetic provenance ...... 123 3.4 Shortcomings of the existing ginseng trade lexicon: improving supply transparency ...... 125 5.0 Conclusions...... 133 References ...... 135

Chapter 5 American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) floristic associations in Pennsylvania: guidance for adoption of ―wild-simulated‖ agroforestry ...... 142

Abstract ...... 142 1.0 Introduction ...... 143 2.0 Methods and materials ...... 145 2.1 Study area...... 145 2.2 Solicitation of research sites and inclusion criteria...... 147 2.3 Vegetation sampling methods ...... 152 2.4 Soil sampling methods and analysis ...... 153 2.5 Survey sampling methods ...... 154 2.6 Data analysis ...... 155 3.0 Results...... 158 3.1 Over-story associates (i.e., dominant and co-dominant canopy trees) ...... 160 3.2 Mid- and under-story woody associates (i.e., shrubs, understory trees and vines) ...... 163 3.3 Under-story herbaceous associates (i.e., flowering plants and ferns) ...... 165 3.4 Non-native, exotic associates (i.e., ―invasive plants‖) ...... 168 3.5 Survey results ...... 170 3.6 Soil results ...... 173 4.0 Discussion ...... 177 4.1 Limitations regarding the use of associations for site selection ...... 177 4.2 Top PA ginseng associates and comparisons with other states (and regions) ...... 178 4.2.1 Over-story associates (i.e., dominant and co-domenant canopy trees) ...... 179 4.2.2 Mid- and under-story associates (i.e., trees, shrubs and vines) ...... 181 4.2.3 Under-story associates (i.e., herbs and ferns) ...... 183 4.3 ―Invasive‖ plants as ginseng associates ...... 185 4.4 PA floristic association comparisons with collector/planter experience ... 187 4.5 Associated soil conditions ...... 189 5.0 Conclusions...... 190 References ...... 192

Chapter 6 Conclusion: Recommendations regarding the ―conservation through cultivation‖ approach to ginseng conservation in Pennsylvania ...... 201

ix Appendix A Key informant probe questions: collectors and planters ...... 206

Appendix B Key informant probe questions: buyers and traders ...... 208

Appendix C Facilitated group discussion probe questions: enforcement community ...... 209

Appendix D Facilitated group discussion probe questions: planters and growers ..... 210

Appendix E Initial letter sent by DCNR to survey sample frame addresses (2004)... 211

Appendix F Cover letter included with each survey instrument (2004-2006) ...... 212

Appendix G Return postcard included with each survey instrument, used to solicit additional survey participants, key informants, and/or field habitat studies sites (2004-2006) ...... 213

Appendix H Reminder postcard sent to survey addresses (2004-2006) ...... 214

Appendix I Final reminder letter sent to non-response survey addresses (2004- 2006) ...... 215

Appendix J Survey instrument used in this dissertation research (begins on the next page)(2004-2006) ...... 216

Appendix J-1 Survey instrument results (Question #1) ...... 229

Appendix J-2 Survey instrument results (Question #2) ...... 230

Appendix J-3 Survey instrument results (Question #3) ...... 231

Appendix J-4 Survey instrument results (Question #4, part 1) ...... 232

Appendix J-4 Survey instrument results (Question #4, part 2) ...... 235

Appendix J-4 Survey instrument results (Question #4, part 3) ...... 237

Appendix J-4 Survey instrument results (Question #4, part 4) ...... 239

Appendix J-5 Survey instrument results (Question #5) ...... 243

Appendix J-6 Survey instrument results (Question #6) ...... 249

Appendix J-7 Survey instrument results (Question #7) ...... 252

Appendix J-8 Survey instrument results (Question #8) ...... 254

x Appendix J-9 Survey instrument results (Question #9, plants) ...... 255

Appendix J-9 Survey instrument results (Question #9, shrubs) ...... 258

Appendix J-9 Survey instrument results (Question #9, trees) ...... 260

Appendix J-10 Survey instrument results (Question #10) ...... 262

Appendix J-11 Survey instrument results (Question #11) ...... 263

Appendix J-12 Survey instrument results (Question #12) ...... 264

Appendix J-13 Survey instrument results (Question #13) ...... 267

Appendix J-14 Survey instrument results (Questions #14 and 15)...... 268

Appendix J-15 Survey instrument results (Question #16) ...... 269

Appendix J-16 Survey instrument results (Question #17) ...... 270

Appendix J-17 Survey instrument results (Question #18) ...... 271

Appendix J-18 Survey instrument results (Question #19) ...... 272

Appendix J-19 Survey instrument results (Question #20) ...... 273

Appendix J-20 Survey instrument results (Questions #21 and 23)...... 274

Appendix J-21 Survey instrument results (Question #22, part A) ...... 275

Appendix J-22 Survey instrument results (Question #22, part B) ...... 276

Appendix J-23 Survey instrument results (Question #24) ...... 277

Appendix J-24 Survey instrument results (Question #5) ...... 278

Appendix J-25 Survey instrument results (Question #26) ...... 279

Appendix J-26 Survey instrument results (Question #27) ...... 281

Appendix J-27 Survey instrument results (Question #28) ...... 282

Appendix J-28 Survey instrument results (Question #29) ...... 285

Appendix J-29 Survey instrument results (Question #30) ...... 286

Appendix J-30 Survey instrument results (Question #31) ...... 287

xi Appendix J-31 Survey instrument results (Question #32) ...... 288

Appendix J-32 Survey instrument results (Question #33) ...... 289

Appendix J-33 Survey instrument results (Question #34) ...... 290

Appendix J-34 Survey instrument results (Question #35) ...... 291

Appendix J-35 Survey instrument results (Question #36) ...... 292

Appendix J-36 Survey instrument results (Questions #37 and 38)...... 295

Appendix J-37 Survey instrument results (Question #39) ...... 296

Appendix J-38 Survey instrument results (Question #40) ...... 298

Appendix K-1 Habitat field studies results: frequency of associated overstory trees (n = 54 sites, 270 plots) ...... 299

Appendix K-2 Habitat field studies results: frequency of associated mid and understory trees, shrubs and vines (n = 54 sites, 270 plots) ...... 301

Appendix K-3 Habitat field studies results: frequency of associated understory herbs (n = 54 sites, 270 plots) ...... 302

Appendix L-1 Habitat field studies results: average (and standard deviation) pH, fertility levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in northwest Pennsylvania (n = 14 sites) ...... 309

Appendix L-2 Habitat field studies results: average (and standard deviation) pH, fertility levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in northeast Pennsylvania (n = 10 sites) ...... 310

Appendix L-3 Habitat field studies results: average (and standard deviation) pH, fertility levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in southwest Pennsylvania (n = 17 sites) ...... 311

Appendix L-4 Habitat field studies results: average (and standard deviation) pH, fertility levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in southeast Pennsylvania (n = 13 sites) ...... 312

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Reported pounds and estimated number of wild ginseng plants harvested in Pennsylvania: 1989-2009 (data source: PA DCNR 2010)...... 5

Figure 3.2: The number of survey respondents from each county (n = 359). An additional 10 respondents did not give their county of residence (n = 6) or were a non-resident of Pennsylvania (n = 4). The top 12 ginseng export counties (1991-2009) are indicated in shading...... 72

Figure 3.3: The age distribution of survey respondents (n = 365)...... 74

Figure 3.4: The percentages of survey respondents agreeing/disagreeing with each existing ginseng harvest restriction in Pennsylvania (n = 366)...... 76

Figure 4.1: County ranks according to the total quantity of ginseng (dry lbs) reported between 1991 and 2009. Shading indicates counties with a cumulative recorded harvest of more than 1,000 pounds (dry weight). Cumulative harvest weights per county range from none recorded (#67, Philadelphia) to 4,744 pounds (#1, Fayette)...... 109

Figure 4.2: The length of time survey participants had been planting ginseng in Pennsylvania (n = 288)...... 118

Figure 4.3: The number of times each county was reported by survey respondents as a place where he/she has planted ginseng (n = 548). Respondents were asked: ―In which county/counties of Pennsylvania have you planted ginseng?‖ The top 13 Pennsylvania export counties are indicated (shaded) for comparison...... 119

Figure 4.4: The percentage of ginseng planters in each county who reported (via survey responses) having harvested and sold ―wild‖ ginseng from their ginseng plantings (n = 288). The top 13 Pennsylvania export counties (1991- 2009) are indicated by shading for comparison (refer to Figure 4.1 for further explanation)...... 128

Figure 4.5: (Top) Pounds (dry) of ―wild‖ ginseng root harvested from Lehigh County, Pennsylvania between 1991 and 2009 revealing a ―spike‖ in exports between 1998 and 2002. (Bottom) Lehigh County KI supplied photograph showing a portion of his ―wild‖ harvest gathered from forest plantings between 1998 and 2002, which contributed to this ―spike.‖...... 129

xiii Figure 4.6: Examples of early advertisements by Pennsylvania growing stock suppliers (Source: Special Crops 1903, 1904, 1930)...... 132

Figure 5.1: American ginseng population sizes (top) and the total area distribution per population (bottom) for ginseng habitat association study sites in Pennsylvania ...... 149

Figure 5.2: Counties where ginseng associations were studied in Pennsylvania (shaded). Open circles (white) represent ―wild simulated‖ ginseng study sites. Closed circles (black) were presumed ―wild‖ study populations. For analyses by region, the latitude of 40° 45´ was used to divide Pennsylvania into northern and southern halves, while the longitude 77° 45´ was used to divide the state into eastern and western halves...... 151

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Plants included in this analysis, their medicinal uses, and known trade volumes in the United States ...... 15

Table 2.2: Planting stock needs and associated costs for establishing commercial North American medicinal forest plantings (1/10 hectare)...... 18

Table 2.3: Cropping requirements and yield estimates for commercial forest production of North American medicinal plants (1/10 hectare) ...... 23

Table 2.4: Labor needs and estimated costs for establishing, maintaining, and harvesting commercial forest plantings (1/10 hectare) ...... 25

Table 2.5: Production supply needs and associated costs for establishing, maintaining and post-harvest handling of commercial North American medicinal forest plantings (1/10 hectare) ...... 26

Table 2.6: Net present value (NPV, US$, 1/10 hectare) of North American medicinal forest crop candidates at three discount rates and three price levels (mean, minimum, maximum prices, 1990-2005). NPV given is for the most profitable propagation method ...... 29

Table 2.7: Comparison of three actual price levels (US$, mean, minimum, maximum prices, 1990-2005, adjusted for inflation) with model break even prices (4% discount rate) for commercial forest production of North American medicinal crop candidates ...... 32

Table 2.8: Modeled break even yields for commercial production of North American medicinal forest plants, as determined by price received (mean, minimum, maximum prices, 1990-2005)...... 35

Table 2.8 contd.: Modeled break even yields for commercial production of North American medicinal forest plants, as determined by price received (mean, minimum, maximum prices, 1990-2005)...... 36

Table 3.1: American ginseng wild harvest restrictions in Pennsylvania and the intent of each restriction...... 61

Table 3.2: Survey return rates by delivery method for total survey period, 2004- 2006 ...... 71

xv Table 3.3: Interrelationship between survey respondent age, years collecting or planting, and agreement with existing Pennsylvania ginseng harvest restrictions. Numbers and percentages are for those agreeing with each restriction...... 77

Table 3.4: Survey respondent (i.e., collectors, planters and buyers) observations regarding the reasons for loss of wild ginseng in Pennsylvania (n = 349). Respondents were asked to respond to an activity only if they had personally observed that an activity had caused losses or extirpation of ginseng from an area...... 93

Table 4.1: Total wild American ginseng root exports from Pennsylvania (PA), 1989-2009, estimated plants harvested, and comparison with total exports from the United States of America (U.S.A)...... 107

Table 5.1: Floristic similarity index results for American ginseng habitat study sites in Pennsylvania ...... 159

Table 5.2: Over-story trees associated with American ginseng in PA along with indicator species analysis (ISA) results for geographic region, physiographic province and soil characteristics. Only associates occurring on twenty percent or more of research sites are given (n = 54 sites/270 plots)...... 161

Table 5.3: Relative abundances and importance values (IV) for the top ten ranked overstory tree species (stems greater than 3 in. dbh) associated with wild and ―wild simulated‖ populations of ginseng in Pennsylvania (all study plots combined)...... 162

Table 5.4: Mid- and under-story trees, shrubs and vines associated with American ginseng in PA along with indicator species analysis (ISA) results for geographic region, physiographic province and soil characteristics. Only associates occurring on twenty percent or more of research sites are given (n = 54 sites/270 plots)...... 164

Table 5.5: Under-story herbs (flowering plants and ferns) associated with American ginseng in PA along with indicator species analysis (ISA) results for geographic region, physiographic province and soil characteristics. Only associates occurring on thirty percent or more of research sites are given (n = 54 sites/270 plots)...... 166

Table 5.5 contd.: ...... 167

Table 5.6: Exotic flora associated with American ginseng in PA along with indicator species analysis (ISA) results for geographic region, physiographic

xvi province and soil characteristics. Only associates occurring on five percent or more of research sites are given (n = 54 sites/270 plots)...... 169

Table 5.7: The top five tree, shrub and herb habitat associates for ginseng in PA as reported by survey respondents and compared alongside field study plot results...... 172

Table 5.8: Average pH, fertility levels, and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in Pennsylvania in relation to region, forest type and/or physiographic province* ...... 175

Table 5.9: pH, fertility and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in PA in relation to physiographic province...... 176

xvii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation benefited greatly from the constructive feedback and suggestions of my Dissertation committee comprised of Mike Jacobson, Jim Finley, Rich Stedman,

Lee Newsom and Bill Lamont. It also benefited greatly from guidance provided by Marc

McDill and Jeri Peck.

My sincere thanks are owed to all Pennsylvanians who participated in this study.

In addition to sharing perspective and experience, many opened their homes and

―patches‖ to me for sake of improving conservation of this culturally and economically important forest resource. Special thanks are owed to: Stephen Turchak, Joel Messner,

David Thompson, K. Derek Pritts, Larry Harding, Jim Kirsch, Wayne Weigle, Barry

Wolfe, John Steiner, Randy Yenzi, Dennis Colwell, Edward Fletcher, Floyd Huggins and

Dennis Millin.

Individuals at various Pennsylvania resource agencies were instrumental in providing resources, research assistance, and investigative support through the course of this research. Although too numerous to name all of these individuals, the following were especially helpful: Christine Firestone, Deborah Fisler and Roy Brubaker (all with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). This research was supported by a Wild Resources Conservation Program research grant administered by the

Pennsylvania DCNR.

xviii And last, but certainly not least, my deepest thanks go to my wife Lisa who has been endlessly patient and supportive through this entire scholastic process.

1

Chapter 1

Introduction and justification

American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L., Araliaceae) is a native perennial forest plant whose distribution has been documented in nearly every Pennsylvania

County (Rhoads and Klein 1993). The collection of American ginseng for market from

Pennsylvania forestlands has been practiced for over two centuries (Schöpf 1783), and various forms of cultivation for nearly as long (Butz 1897). Both today and in the past, humans have undoubtedly directly impacted wild populations throughout the state through exploitation of the species, and indirectly by manipulating forest ecosystems. In

2009 alone it is estimated that nearly a third of-a-million plants (~313,000) were sold into the state‘s wild trade markets, presumably all ―gathered‖ from forestlands, at an income value of about a half-million dollars to sellers (PA DCNR 2010). It is unknown to what extent such annual harvest statistics relate to species status in the wild, and what factors might influence these data.

The lack of contextual (e.g., economic, social, ecological) information surrounding ginseng in Pennsylvania is problematic for wild plant management in the state since commerce in the species is presently regulated and monitored under the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) agreement. Under this 1975 International accord, states where ginseng occurs in the wild, including Pennsylvania, must monitor species commerce and submit annual reports

2 to the Office of Scientific Authority of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service for status review. Monitoring harvest levels allows for the discernment of gross trends, but the usefulness of these data for regulatory purposes requires an understanding of regional human activities such as husbandry and planting.

The economic value of American ginseng coupled with its questionable wild status makes it a pressing topic for study. In concept, ginseng collection from forestlands in Pennsylvania is an example of ―common property resource management‖ in which preservation of the common resource is complicated by the individual behaviors of collectors (Brown and Harris 1992). In such ―commons‖ scenarios, individuals, acting independently, and consulting their own self-interest, can ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen (i.e., ―tragedy of the commons‖ c.f., Hardin 1968). The high market value, lack of broad public awareness/concern, and ease by which individuals can discretely gather wild ginseng on forestlands all contribute to the potential for overexploitation of this wild plant resource. Additionally, the secretive nature of ginseng collection creates a high potential for overlap in collecting grounds in which case even good-intentioned collectors can decimate ginseng populations through unintentional actions. As such, ginseng collection poses challenges for resource managers who must balance the long tradition of public access to the resource with the very real concern of over-exploitation.

Any regulatory decisions intended to conserve ginseng must be considered in light of any unique significance the plant has within the cultural and socio-economic fabric of

Pennsylvania (Uphoff and Langholz 1998). A failure to address these connections by prohibiting collection and/or sale could backfire and serve only to stimulate illegal

3 extraction and trade in the species, a scenario that has been exemplified in many

―protected areas‖ (e.g., State and National Parks) in eastern North America where collection has been prohibited (Bilger 2002).

Those factors that have led to the tenuous wild status of ginseng in Pennsylvania

(i.e., high market value and demand) might also lead to its preservation. As was perhaps first pointed out by Alcorn (1995), the economic value of a species is a principle feature that can be used as a vehicle for encouraging conservation, especially if policies regarding conservation, husbandry and market access can be strategically aligned. A

―conservation through cultivation‖ model has been investigated and/or adopted as an element of plant conservation efforts in many parts of the world for a variety of medicinal plant taxa (c.f., Cunningham et al., 2002, Nadeem et al., 2000, Sunderland et al. 2003).

A principle challenge to the approach is providing adequate returns to producers in order to justify adoption of any new, and more intensive, husbandry practices (Alexander et. al.

2002). In the case of American ginseng, the relatively stable high economic value of wild-appearing ginseng root (between $500 to $1,000 per dry pound has been paid in recent years in Pennsylvania) and the existence of well-developed market networks (there were more than two-dozen registered buyers in Pennsylvania in 2010, for example) favors adoption of agroforestry-based husbandry as substitute for wild collection.

Ginseng husbandry or cultivation on Pennsylvania forestlands could effectively reduce harvest pressure on wild populations by offering an alternative that is both more reliable, responsible and manageable than wild collection. In situ cultivation using agroforestry practices such as ―wild-simulated forest farming‖ are especially attractive

(Hill and Buck 2000). To successfully implement this approach, however, information is

4 needed about where and how ginseng grows in Pennsylvania so that accurate husbandry guidelines can be developed. In addition, a better understanding of ginseng collector and planter practices through stakeholder engagement would help to shed light on the ―wild‖ trade and identify any broader issues associated with managing existing wild populations and facilitating the transition to private enterprise. It may be that husbandry practices such as forest farming are already behind much of the wild supply originating from

Pennsylvania and that current tracking mechanisms are inadequate to account for this supply.

The principle aim of this dissertation research undertaking was to generate information that could benefit development, management, and monitoring of forest-based husbandry or cultivation of American ginseng in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, a multi- faceted approach to information gathering was followed to increase the likelihood that any steps taken to strengthen wild ginseng stewardship efforts in Pennsylvania are based upon an improved contextual understanding of ginseng and those involved in the industry. By incorporating a ―conservation through cultivation‖ approach as a central vehicle for lessening collection pressure on wild ginseng populations, this research sought to address a number of interrelated and complex issues that include ensuring species protection and conservation, providing economic opportunity to forest landowners, and encouraging sustainable development through utilization and stewardship of regional resources.

This dissertation contains results from individual studies examining economic, socio-political, and ecological aspects of ginseng husbandry and management in

Pennsylvania, all of which are pertinent to the central question of whether a

5 ―conservation trough cultivation‖ approach can be used to help conserve ginseng in

Pennsylvania and by extension eastern North America. The following questions were specifically investigated in this regard:

Economic questions (Chapter 2):

. Is ginseng husbandry economically viable in Pennsylvania?

. How does ginseng husbandry financially compare to other commercial native

medicinal plants grown for profit and/or conservation?

. Are there market constraints to the adoption of ginseng agroforestry and/or

cultivation?

. Are there market conditions that help or hinder any transition to agroforestry-

based husbandry or cultivation?

Socio-political questions (Chapters 3 and 4):

. What are Pennsylvania stakeholder attitudes towards existing state and federal

harvest and trade restrictions?

. What are stakeholder experiences with actual restriction enforcement?

. What are stakeholder suggestions for improving enforcement?

. What are stakeholder attitudes towards ginseng conservation in general?

6 . How much of the wild ginseng exported from Pennsylvania is produced through

intentional plant husbandry versus gathered from spontaneously (i.e., ―wild‖)

occurring populations?

. What are the origins of husbandry stock and what are stakeholder attitudes

towards the genetic provenance or origin of planting stock?

. Are ginseng trade reporting mechanisms appropriate and, if not, how might they

be improved (especially to accommodate agroforestry production)?

Ecological questions (Chapter 5):

. What flora is associated with viable, reproducing ginseng populations in

Pennsylvania?

. What soil conditions are associated with these populations?

. Do the more common/reliable floristic associates differ according to region,

physiographic province, and/or soil conditions?

. How do results from field studies in Pennsylvania compare with ―folk‖ indicators

reported by collectors and planters operating in the state?

References

Alcorn, J.B. 1995. Economic Botany, Conservation, and Development: What‘s the

Connection? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 82: 34-46.

Alexander, S.J., J. Weigand and K.A. Blatner. 2002. Nontimber Forest Product

7 Commerce. In E.T. Jones, R.J. Mclain, and J.Weigand (eds), Nontimber Forest

Products in the United States. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS.

Bilger, B. 2002. Wild Sang: Rangers, Poachers, and Roots that Cost a thousand Dollars

a Pound. The New Yorker, July 15: 38+

Brown, G. and C.C. Harris, Jr. 1992. National Forest Management and the ―Tragedy of

the Commons‖: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Society and Natural Resources

5: 67-83.

Butz, G.C. 1897. The Cultivation of American Ginseng in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania

Department of Agriculture, Bulletin No. 27. State Printer. Harrisburg, PA.

Cunningham, A.B., E. Ayuk, S. Franzel, B. Duguma and C. Asanga. 2002. An

Economic Evaluation of Medicinal Tree Cultivation: Prunus africana in

Cameroon. People and Plants Working Paper 10. UNESCO, Paris.

Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162 (3859): 1243-1248.

Hill, D.B. and L.E. Buck. 2000. Forest Farming Practices. In: Garrett, H.E., W.J.

Rietveld and R.F. Fisher (eds), North American Agroforestry: an Integrated

Science and Practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

Nadeem, M., L.M.S. Palni, A.N. Purohit, H. Pandey and S.K. Nandi. 2000. Propagation

and Conservation of Podophyllum hexandrum Royle: an Important Medicinal

Herb. Biological Conservation 92 (1): 121-129.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR). 2010.

Pennsylvania Ginseng Export Program Data for 2009. Obtained by request from

the Ecological Services Section, Harrisburg, PA.

Rhoads, A.F. and W.M. Klein, Jr. 1993. The Vascular Flora of Pennsylvania Annotated

8 Checklist and Atlas. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA.

Schöpf, J.D. 1783. Travels. Reprinted (1911) in Bulletin of the Lloyd Library 16 (2).

Sunderland, T., P. Blackmore, N. Ndam and J.P. Nkefor. 2003. Conservation through

Cultivation: the Work of the Limbe Botanic Garden, Cameroon. In: Maunder, M.,

C. Blubbe, C. Hankamer, C. and M. Groves (eds), Plant Conservation in the

Tropics: Perspectives and Practice. Royal Botanic Gardens. Kew, London.

Uphoff, N. and J. Langholz. 1998. Incentives for Avoiding the Tragedy of the

Commons. Environmental Conservation 25 (3): 251-261.

9 Chapter 2

Transitioning from wild collection to forest cultivation of indigenous medicinal forest plants in eastern North America is constrained by lack of profitability.

Abstract

The forest flora of eastern North America includes many herbaceous plant species traded in domestic and international medicinal markets. Conservation concerns surrounding wild-collection exist and transitioning to cultivation in agroforestry systems has potential economic and ecological benefits. Costs and revenues associated with adopting forest cultivation were modeled for eight North American medicinal forest plants. Sensitivity analysis examined profit potential in relation to (1) discount rates; (2) propagation methods; (3) prices; (4) growing period; (5) production costs; and (6) yields. Results indicate that intensive husbandry of six of eight species would be unprofitable at recent (1990-2005) price levels. Exceptions are American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.), and under certain circumstances (e.g., maximum historic prices, low production costs) goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.). Direct marketing to consumers and retailers might improve grower profits, but is undermined by the availability of cheaper, wild- collected product. It is suggested that the North American medicinal plant industry could play a key role in facilitating any transition from wild to cultivated product, perhaps through development of a certification and labeling program that brands ―forest cultivated‖ products. This could generate price premiums, to be passed along to growers, but must be accompanied by aggressive consumer education. A ―forest cultivated‖ certification and labeling program has potential to benefit industry and consumers if assurances regarding product identity and quality are a central feature. Plant species that are not viable candidates for commercial cultivation due to limited consumer demand (i.e., species with ―shallow,‖ erratic markets) are best addressed through proactive government and industry initiatives involving targeted harvester education programs.

1.0 Introduction

As many as fifty plant species indigenous to eastern North American forestlands annually find their way into domestic and international medicinal trade networks

(American Botanicals 2010, Robbins 1999, Strategic Sourcing 2010). Commerce in a

10 particular species fluctuates in response to consumer and industry demand, and frequently changes within and between years (American Herbal Products Association (AHPA)

1999, 2003, 2006, 2007). Sudden increases in consumer demand for a particular medicinal plant, due to ―fads‖ or positive media, initiates wholesale price increases which, in turn, drives interest in collecting and/or growing. Such price increases, however, are often short-lived and price decreases follow as inventory is replenished or consumer demand abates. This pattern of alternating ―boom and bust‖ market cycles is a key feature of the North American medicinal plant trade (Craker et al. 2003).

Most botanical trade items originate through wild collection (AHPA 1999, 2003,

2006, 2007). Some of the most prominent North American trade species are gathered from forestlands (Bailey 1999, Emery et al. 2003, McClain and Jones 2005) and represent important non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Among these, collection pressure is widely acknowledged for American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) and goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.); however, there is also significant commerce in other species including black cohosh (Actaea racemosa L.), blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides L.), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis L.), false unicorn root

(Chamaelirium luteum L.) and wild yam (Dioscorea villosa L.) (AHPA 1999, 2003,

2006, 2007).

Collection from wild populations is a concern since many species are slow- growing perennials with low fecundity and/or juvenile recruitment rates (Bierzychudek

1982, Charron and Gagnon 1991, Meagher and Antonovics 1982, Sinclair et al. 2005).

Harvest of these species removes all or a significant portion of the root or rhizome, resulting in high mortality. Harvesting that does not allow for plant reproduction and/or

11 sufficient propagules (i.e., seeds, root pieces) to remain in an area may result in local extinctions (Albrecht and McCarthy 2006, Farrington 2006, Sanders and McGraw 2005,

Van Der Voort et al. 2003). Presently, two North American medicinal forest plants---

American ginseng and goldenseal---are included in Appendix 2 of the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) due to concerns over sustainability of wild harvests, and additional species have been suggested as suitable candidates for listing.

Rather than collect from wild populations, cultivation of indigenous North

American medicinal forest plants is an alternative (Bannerman 1997, Gladstar and Hirsch

2000, Robbins 1998a, 1999, United Plant Savers (UPS) 2010). In situ cultivation using agroforestry practices such as forest cultivation are especially attractive (Hill and Buck

2000, Rao et al. 2004), as there are potential advantages or benefits compared with field- based cultivation. One advantage is production cost savings, since many forest plants are shade obligate. Significant investment in artificial shade is necessary when plants are grown in open field settings; materials and associated labor costs in American ginseng field-based production, for example, average $30-50,000 (US$) per hectare (Schooley

2003).

Another advantage of forest cultivation is final product characteristics or qualities.

American ginseng, for example, has a unique international market in which ―wild‖ characteristics are preferred (Persons and Davis 2005, Roy et al. 2003). For this species, differences in final product appearance can translate into substantial price disparities, with $20-60 (US$/dry/kg) paid for root that appears ―cultivated‖ versus $500-1,300

(US$/dry/kg) for roots with ―wild‖ attributes. ―Wild‖ characteristics are difficult to

12 produce using conventional, field-based cultivation techniques but are much more easily achieved through judicious selection and utilization of forested habitats. American ginseng is the only species currently valued on the basis of ―wild‖ appearance. However, product quality for other species could benefit from possible reductions in crop disease and pestilence if grown in appropriate forest habitats. Causative links have been made between choice of growing site and disease incidence and severity in black cohosh

(Thomas et al. 2006), American ginseng, and goldenseal (OMAFRA 2005). Cultivating forest plants in their native habitats may eliminate or reduce disease problems and, in turn, the need for pesticide use and facilitate access to ―organic‖ and other niche markets.

There may also be differences in chemical constituent levels associated with where and how plants are cultured (Bennett et al. 1990, Lim et al. 2005, Salmore and Hunter 2001).

Finally, forest cultivation offers multiple economic and ecological benefits to landowner and society, since the practice has the potential to increase income while maintaining forest integrity (Dix et al. 1997, Hill and Buck 2000). Income derived from forest cultivation is received at shorter intervals than timber, giving private forest landowners more revenue options, enabling them to pay annual taxes and other carrying costs. Facilitating private landowner interest in adopting forest cultivation can therefore drive interest in forest stewardship, raise awareness about indigenous forest plants, and positively influence silvicultural decisions.

Transitioning from wild-collection to forest cultivation of indigenous North

American medicinal forest plants is an economic opportunity with concomitant conservation and ecological merits. However, there has been limited financial evaluation of agroforestry crop candidates in relation to recent market price trends. While cash flow

13 budgets are available for American ginseng (e.g., Beyfuss 1999b, Persons and Davis

2005, Schooley 2003) and to a lesser extent goldenseal, black cohosh and bloodroot (e.g.,

Davis 1999, Persons and Davis 2005), none incorporate sensitivity analysis for key variables such as length of cropping period, material and labor costs, and final yield variation nor do they account for the impact of inflation and discounting on prices, costs, and revenues. Since nearly all indigenous crop candidates require multiple years to yield a product, it is necessary to consider these factors in developing realistic budgets and technical guidance for growers.

This paper presents financial analyses (i.e., cost and revenue models) for agroforestry cultivation of eight North American medicinal forest plants, using sensitivity analysis to examine profit potential relative to costs, revenues, discount rates, production length, propagation methods, and yields. Market price data were compiled for the period

1990 through 2005 and were adjusted for inflation. Results identify market and production factors requiring careful consideration by those interested in agroforestry cultivation of indigenous North American medicinal forest plants, and highlight constraints to transitioning from wild collection to forest cultivation.

2.0 Materials and methods

All analyses were conducted utilizing a spreadsheet template (= basic model) which was modified (= adjusted model) for sensitivity analyses (e.g., discount rate, time to harvest, no stock costs, no annual costs). The term ―basic model‖ as used in this paper

14 refers to the original template whereas ―adjusted model‖ indicates modified templates where key variables were altered.

2.1 Species selection

Eight herbaceous plant species were selected for analysis (Table 2.1). All are indigenous to eastern North American forestlands and have commercially harvested roots or rhizomes. Additionally, these species were used because they met one or more of the following criteria: (1) significant volume is traded, as indicated by recent industry data

(AHPA 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007) and government harvest/collection statistics (USFWS

2008); (2) strong consumer demand in recent years with potential for additional market growth (e.g., black cohosh); and/or (3) continued collection from the wild is of particular conservation concern.

One exception, poke (Phytolacca americana L.), was included in the analysis for comparative purposes. This species grows rapidly (harvest can occur after one or two years) and is considered ―weedy‖ from biological and ecological perspectives. The other species, by contrast, require multiple (three or more) years of growth before harvest is possible and have much more demanding cultural and husbandry requirements.

15

Table 2.1 Plants included in this analysis, their medicinal uses, and known trade volumes in the United States.

Reported trade Abbreviation in Trade Medical applications Scientific name volume range this paper name @ and uses # (kg/yr/dry) Treatment of menopause Actaea racemosa Black ~259,600- ACRA and post-menopausal L. cohosh 1,675,100 ^ symptoms Caulophyllum Promotion of thalictroides CATH Blue cohosh menstruation; uterine ~10,000-18,000 ^ Michx. stimulant Chamaelirium False luteum (L.) A. CHLU Diuretic; uterine tonic ~9,800-14,300 ^ unicorn Gray Source of steroidal Dioscorea villosa hormones; DIVI Wild yam ~69,600-149,200 ^ L. contraceptive; anti- inflammatory Antibiotic; haemostatic; Hydrastis HYCA Goldenseal stomachic, laxative; ~94,300-583,600 ^ canadensis L. mucus membrane tonic Panax American ~132,500-350,200 PAQU Adaptogenic; tonic quinquefolius L. ginseng & Anti-inflammatory; Phytolacca PHAM Poke hypotensive; diuretic; ~2,200-26,400 § americana L. emetic; anti-rheumatic Antibiotic; anti-plaque Sanguinaria SACA Bloodroot (in toothpastes); animal ~58,300-107,100 ^ canadensis L. feed additive

@ Accepted trade names are from McGuffin, Leung and Tucker 2000. # Includes both traditional/folk and modern/clinical uses. Sources: Lewis and Elvin-Lewis 2003; Van Wyk and Wink 2004; Foster and Duke 2000. ^ Includes both wild collected and cultivated materials, though the cultivated fraction is insignificant for all species except goldenseal. Trade period: 1997-2005 (except CATH, CHLU, SACA: 2000-2005). Sources: AHPA 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007. Fresh product is also traded, but is not included in these figures. & Includes only the recorded wild harvest. However, this figure likely includes at least some ―wild simulated‖ and ―woods cultivated‖ product sold and marketed as ―wild.‖ Trade period: 1989-2005. Source: FWS 2008. § No published trade data available. Edward Fletcher of Strategic Sourcing, Inc. (Banner Elk, NC) provided this estimate based on his long-term buyer experience.

16 2.2 Approaches to forest cultivation

The agroforestry practice of forest cultivation, or forest farming as it is frequently known and promoted in the United States (Dix et al. 1997, Hill and Buck 2000), involves two general approaches. The first is more intensive, often using raised beds, and is referred to as woods-cultivated. The second is less intensive, attempting to replicate

―wild‖ growing conditions, and is referred to as wild-simulated (Beyfuss 1999a, 2000,

Persons 1986, Persons and Davis 2005).

The woods-cultivated method involves greater investment of time, labor, and equipment since it generally incorporates forest understory manipulation (e.g., thinning), soil tillage and amendments (e.g., fertilizer, crushed limestone), preparing and maintaining beds, and pest management. These site modifications are intended to hasten and improve yields as well as facilitate convenient management. The wild-simulated approach, conversely, follows a less-intensive strategy that may involve nothing more than the planting of seed or root in existing forest habitat.

Basic model parameters use the woods-cultivated approach to forest cultivation premised upon the idea that more intensive methods would tend to increase yields by increasing survival, growth, and root weight. However, adjusted models in which annual costs are removed are included and could be considered similar to the less intensive wild- simulated cultivation approach.

2.3 Price information

17 Price data for developing this analysis came from contacts with ―local buyers/country dealers‖ and ―regional consolidators‖ and covers the period 1990-2005.

In any given year, there were at least two sources of price information available although as many as four price sources were available for half of the years. Price sources included price lists, buyer circulars, and consultations with buyers made between 2002 and 2006.

Companies and buyers providing price information were American Botanicals Inc. (MO),

Strategic Sourcing Inc. (NC), Millin‘s Hides, Furs, Roots, and Seeds (PA), Hawk

Mountain Trading Company (WV), Gruver‘s Trading Post (PA), Ohio River Ginseng and

Fur (OH), Wilcox Natural Products (NC, MO, KY), Potter Fur and Hide Inc. (OH),

Duncan‘s Fur, Hide and Root Co. (IN), Owens Roots and Herbs (IL), and Tuckasegee

Valley Ginseng (NC).

Before conducting any analyses, all prices were adjusted for inflation using consumer price index (CPI) data available from the United States Bureau of Labor

Statistics (United States Department of Labor 2007). This standardized prices for the fifteen year sample period. The price data therefore represents ‗real‘ rather than

‗nominal‘ prices, adjusted to 2005 (US$) equivalents.

2.4 Planting stocking requirements and costs

The basic model includes two propagation methods: seed and juvenile rootstock transplants sourced from a commercial nursery (see Table 2.2 for stocking requirements and estimated costs).

18

Table 2.2 Planting stock needs and associated costs for establishing commercial North American medicinal forest plantings (1/10 hectare).

Propagation from seed Propagation using transplants Quantity Cost per Total Cost per Seeds Quantity Total cost needed gram cost root per gram needed (US$) (grams) (US$) (US$) (US$)

ACRA § 300 17 10.00 170 5,000 0.50 2,500

CATH 5 1,000 1.00 1,000 5,000 0.50 2,500

CHLU 1,800 11 50.00 550 20,000 0.50 10,000

DIVI 80 63 10.00 630 5,000 0.50 2,500

HYCA 50 400 5.00 2,000 20,000 0.50 10,000

PAQU 15 667 0.25 167 10,000 0.50 5,000

PHAM 150 33 4.00 132 5,000 0.50 2,500

SACA 80 250 5.00 1,250 20,000 0.50 10,000 § Abbreviations: ACRA= Actaea racemosa; CATH= Caulophyllum thalictroides; CHLU= Chamaelirium luteum; DIVI= Dioscorea villosa; HYCA= Hydrastis canadensis; PAQU= Panax quinquefolius; PHAM= Phytolacca americana; SACA= Sanguinaria canadensis.

19 2.4.1 Seed stock

The number of seeds per gram was compiled using collected seed counts, published data, and personal contact with researchers working with particular species.

Direct, first-hand counts, were made with mature seed collected from wild and cultivated plants during 2004-06. For increased reliability, seed count values were compared with, and found to be consistent with published (Cech 2002, 2008, Persons and Davis 2005,

Richters 2008) and unpublished counts (M. Albrecht, personal comm., 2006).

Seed for some species included in this analysis must remain partially moist to retain viability or for best germination success (Baskin and Baskin 2001, Cech 2002,

Cullina 2000, Person and Davis 2005). Therefore, about half of the values are moist weight (i.e., ACRA, CATH, HYCA, PAQU, SACA) while the remaining are dry weight

(i.e., CHLU, DIVI, PHAM) (refer to Table 2.1 for species abbreviations).

2.4.2 Root stock

All species included in the analysis may be propagated by transplanting young plant roots or by parental rootstock divisions (Cech 2002, Cullina 2000, Persons and

Davis 2005, McCoy et al. 2007, Van Der Voort et al. 2003). The number of propagules possible from parental stock varies by species, age, and individual root size; a conservative model assumed one transplant or parent rootstock was needed for each crop plant established. Thus, root transplants (i.e., small juvenile roots) and nursery stock

(i.e., larger roots) are treated the same. This probably inflates actual planting stock needs

20 (and thus costs) for those species that are readily propagated by vegetative division of rootstock (e.g., goldenseal, wild yam).

2.4.3 Planting stock price sources and cost estimates

Planting stock cost estimates for nursery sourced seed and rootstock were compiled by surveying existing commercial vendors. Vendors consulted were Horizon

Herbs (Williams, OR), Sleepy Hollow Farm (Dalton, GA), Richters (Ontario, Canada),

Sylvan Botanicals (Cooperstown, NY), and Tuckasegee Valley Ginseng (Tuckasegee,

NC). The most important price variable for nursery sourced seed and rootstock was quantity purchased, and this lead to the need for several assumptions.

Seed is commercially available for all species included, and costs per gram were either quoted directly or averaged when two or more prices were noted. In some cases, seed costs were probably overestimated slightly because economy of scale price data was not available and cost was then calculated using price per gram. In other cases, prices were slightly underestimated because costs were calculated on a per gram basis from prices based on a larger quantity (e.g., pound, kilogram).

Costs varied more for transplant stock than for seed. For lesser quantities (100 or less plants), a range of $0.75-5.00 per transplant were observed; conversely, stock purchased in greater quantities (e.g., 1,000 or more plants) ranged from $0.25-1.75 per transplant. To simplify observed price variability, and to account for likely additional economy of scale price discounts for 5,000 or more transplants, a standard price of $0.50 per transplant for all species was selected for the basic model.

21 The adjusted ―no stock costs‖ model excludes all stock costs in order to examine the influence of this cost on profitability. In practice, this model represents growers collecting their own seed or transplants or established growers generating their own planting stock.

2.5 Crop production parameters and yield estimates

All crop production parameters (i.e., stocking needs, labor and material costs) and yield calculations were modeled for ten raised beds consisting of 100 m2 planting area per bed, or 1,000 m2 (1/10 hectare) total planted area (Table 2.3). The use of a relatively small area in modeling was for purposes of examining the economics of small-scale adoption. Additionally, growers consulted for estimating crop production requirements were able to more accurately gauge model parameters (such as time spent in an activity) when presented with a smaller scale (e.g., per bed) scenario.

2.5.1 Plant spacing and numbers

Plant stocking levels were informed by several growers and root buyers, and existing literature (Cech 2002, Person and Davis 2005). This parameter remained consistent across models (i.e., there was no adjusted model).

2.5.2 Years to harvest

22 Two values for cropping period were incorporated into this analysis (Table 2.3).

The average number of years required before harvest can occur (= basic model), and the minimum number of years (= adjusted model). This latter ―early harvest‖ model was included in order to examine the sensitivity of the basic results to production time, discount rates, and associated costs (supply and labor).

2.5.3 Yield estimates

Root weight data were obtained over a three year period (2003-06) by sampling forest grown (both wild and cultivated) roots. Each sample consisted of 50 roots per species. For increased reliability, the mean root sample weight values were compared with, and found to be consistent with, root weight data from sources including growing trial results (Brush 2006, McCoy et al. 2007, Renaud 2004), grower experience, and published samples and projections (Cech 2002, Persons and Davis 2005).

One seed or transplant was assumed to yield each root. This is likely to be an overestimate of establishment success in many cases since some seeds will not germinate and some plants will be lost to various adversities (e.g., disease, pests). Rather than attempt to account for any differences in establishment between species due to seed germination and/or transplant success rates, we assumed a 1:1 ratio. While simplistic, this allows for model results to reflect best possible scenarios for each species. Model results can be adjusted to reflect less ideal circumstances, for example, 50 percent establishment success, by halving yields or doubling NPV and break even prices.

23

Table 2.3 Cropping requirements and yield estimates for commercial forest production of North American medicinal plants (1/10 hectare). Final Years to harvest Yield weights Plant spacing and numbers yields @ (dry) (dry/kg) Per From Per Per Plants/100 Plants/1,000 From 100 Plants/m2 division or root Roots/kg 1,000 m2 bed m2 seed m2 transplant (g) m2 bed ACRA 5 500 5,000 6 (4) 4 (3) 20 50 10 100 § CATH 5 500 5,000 8 (6) 6 (4) 10 100 5 50

CHLU 10 1,000 10,000 8 (6) 6 (4) 5 200 5 50

DIVI # 5 500 5,000 6 (4) 4 (3) 10 100 5 50

HYCA 20 2,000 20,000 6 (4) 4 (3) 5 200 10 100

PAQU 10 1,000 10,000 8 (6) 6 (4) 5 200 5 50

PHAM 5 500 5,000 2 (1) 1 (1) 20 50 10 100

SACA 20 2,000 20,000 6 (4) 4 (3) 5 200 10 100

§ Abbreviations: ACRA= Actaea racemosa; CATH= Caulophyllum thalictroides; CHLU= Chamaelirium luteum; DIVI= Dioscorea villosa; HYCA= Hydrastis canadensis; PAQU= Panax quinquefolius; PHAM= Phytolacca americana; SACA= Sanguinaria canadensis. @ The first value is the average number of years until harvest. The parenthetical value is the minimum number of years until harvest. # This plant species has a markedly rhizomatous growth habit. Yield assumptions were based on 15-cm (long) x 1-cm (wide) section of dried rhizome.

24 2.6 Labor and material costs

In the basic model, labor costs were derived by first developing a list of the major labor activities associated with forest cultivation using raised beds, and then estimating the hours required for each (Table 2.4). This list of activities and estimated labor needs were assembled from grower consultation and using published labor estimates for

American ginseng (Persons and Davis 2005, Schooley 2003). General commercial guidelines by Whitten (1999) were also consulted.

While the labor activities included in Table 4 may not be done with hired labor, an hourly wage was included as an opportunity cost to highlight the trade-off of adopting forest cultivation for income generation rather than alternative income opportunities. An hourly wage of $13.00 was selected for the model; an average of 2005 U.S. average hourly wages for ―blue collar‖ professions (= $15.87) and ―nursery workers‖ (= $10.26)

(United States Department of Labor 2007).

Estimated material costs for the basic model are provided in Table 2.5. Only variable costs were included. Fixed costs such as machinery (e.g., roto-tiller, small tractor) were not included nor are land rental or purchase costs. It is assumed that production occurs without significant farming machinery (or with machinery already owned or borrowed), and on forestland that is under grower tenure or available without cost (e.g., family owned property).

25

Table 2.4 Labor needs and estimated costs for establishing, maintaining, and harvesting commercial forest plantings (1/10 hectare).

Time spent (hours)

Activity Planting Years 1-8 Harvest

Planting site preparation

Forest understory preparation (pruning, clearing) 25

Bed preparation (5 hrs/100m2 bed) 50

Planting (5 hrs/100m2 bed) 50

Mulching (1 hr/100m2 bed) 10

Annual maintenance

Fallen limb removal, debris clean-up 5

Bed shaping, edging 5

Re-mulching 10

Miscellaneous 5

Pest scouting, management and control

Weeding (3 hrs/100m2 bed) 30

Disease: e.g., fungi (1.5 hrs/100m2 bed) 15

Insects: e.g., slugs (1 hr/100m2 bed) 10

Animals: e.g., deer, vole (1 hr/100m2 bed) 10

Harvest and post-harvest

Digging (10 hrs/100m2 bed) 100

Washing and drying 50

Hour totals 135 90 150 Labor costs (US$ @ $13/hr) $1,755.00 $1,170.00 § $1,950.00 § This is an annual cost and is multiplied by the number of cropping years for each crop to derive a total cost .

26

Table 2.5 Production supply needs and associated costs for establishing, maintaining and post-harvest handling of commercial North American medicinal forest plantings (1/10 hectare).

Cost (US$)

Item Planting Years 1-8 Harvest

Soil/bed related

Straw mulch (50 bales @ $2 each) $100.00 $100.00

Compost or fertilizer (for 1,000 m2) $100.00 $100.00

Limestone (for 1,000 m2) $50.00

Pest management and control

Fungicides $100.00

Pesticides (including slug poison) $100.00

Rodenticide or rodent repellent (for voles) $100.00

Miscellaneous

Tools, drying supplies, packing $250.00 $50.00 $500.00

Totals (US$) $500.00 $550.00 § $500.00 § This is an annual cost and is multiplied by the number of cropping years for each crop to derive a total cost .

27 An adjusted ―no annual costs‖ model was also developed without annual labor and material costs to examine their effect on profitability. Labor and material costs from the first year (planting) and from the final year (harvest) were the only costs included in this adjusted model, since growers are still required to invest in establishing and harvesting their crop despite the possibility of reducing labor and material costs during the cropping period.

2.7 Choice of discount rate

Discounting is a financial procedure that takes an expected future return in a given time period and discounts it (using a given interest rate) back to the present

(today‘s) value to find Net Present Value (NPV). The following formula was used for discounting in our models:

n n Ry Cy NPV  y  y  (1 r)  (1 r) y0 y0 where:

R = revenues C = costs r = real discount rate y = number of years

The basic model incorporated a four percent discount rate. Two slightly higher rates, six and eight percent, were used in adjusted models to examine net present value (NPV)

28 sensitivity. Because both basic and adjusted models utilized real prices, future revenues were treated the same by removing inflation from discount rates (Klemperer 1996).

2.8 Calculation of break-even prices and yields

Break even prices were calculated by dividing production costs by the projected yields. Break even yields were calculated by dividing production costs by minimum, maximum, and mean prices. In both calculations, only variable costs were used, in keeping with the variable versus fixed cost assumptions presented under ―labor and material costs.‖

3.0 Results

3.1 Discount rate

NPV results for both basic and adjusted models are given in Table 2.6. Only the most favorable production method (most profitable/least unprofitable) results are given for each selected discount rate. As expected, as discount rate increased, profitability decreased for all species. However, there were no changes from profitable to unprofitable with any species in response to increasing discount rates.

29 Table 2.6 Net present value (NPV, US$, 1/10 hectare) of North American medicinal forest crop candidates at three discount rates and three price levels (mean, minimum, maximum prices, 1990-2005). NPV given is for the most profitable propagation method. @ NPV (4% discount rate, NPV (6% discount rate, NPV (8% discount rate, US$) US$) US$) Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max price price price price price price price price price ACRA -12,731T -12,888T -12,485T -12,312S -12,441S -12,092T -11,654S -11,770S -11,472S #

CATH -15,609T -15,662T -15,495T -14,851T -14,899T -14,750T -14,171T -14,214T -14,081T

CHLU -14,137S -15,454S -12,720S -13,272S -14,403S -12,056S -12,505S -13,479S -11,458S

DIVI -12,971T -13,044T -12,810T -12,543T -12,610T -12,394T -12,148T -12,210T -12,010T

HYCA -10,518S -12,084S -8,423S -10,257S -12,084S -8,388S -10,011S -11,259S -8,340S

PAQU 15,261T 4,610S 32,030T 12,414T 2,879S 27,372T 9,937T 1,455S 23,307T

PHAM -7,782S -7,816S -7,707S -7,611S -7,643S -7,538S -7,448S -7,480S -7,379S

SACA -13,441S -14,234S -12,632S -12,783S -13,490S -12,061S -12,190S -12,822S -11,545S

@ Method of propagation: S = seed, T = transplant. # Abbreviations: ACRA= Actaea racemosa; CATH= Caulophyllum thalictroides; CHLU= Chamaelirium luteum; DIVI= Dioscorea villosa; HYCA= Hydrastis canadensis; PAQU= Panax quinquefolius; PHAM= Phytolacca americana; SACA= Sanguinaria canadensis.

30 In general, the NPV results for all models suggest adoption of forest cultivation for all species except American ginseng would be unprofitable at even the lowest discount rate. This is true regardless of propagation method, although for most species propagation from seed is apparently less costly despite the generally longer cropping period. The results did not differ with price level.

3.2 Price received

To examine whether recent industry pricing will support forest cultivation, break even prices (i.e., the cost of production divided by the yield) were calculated for each species and compared with 1990-2005 prices (Table 2.7). With only one exception,

American ginseng, both basic and adjusted model break-even price results were much higher than historic prices. This suggests that, barring significant future price increases, forest cultivation would not be profitable for seven of eight species included in this analysis. The exception, American ginseng, had break-even prices well below historic price levels in all model scenarios.

These findings did not change even when parsimonious adjusted models were created (i.e., early harvest + no stock costs + no annual costs), and did not differ with propagation method. Only goldenseal showed profit earning potential in adjusted models, if cropping period (early harvest) and production costs were reduced (no stock + no annual costs) and mean or maximum prices were obtained.

3.3 Propagation method

31

When break-even prices were examined by propagation method (Table 2.7), the calculated break-even price from seed was lower than transplants for more than half of the plant species (i.e., CHLU, HYCA, PAQU, PHAM, SACA), despite the fact that a shorter cropping period is generally required using transplants (in turn reducing labor and material costs). This resulted from the fact that seed is usually less expensive than rootstock in the nursery trade. Scenarios in which cultivation using transplants had a lower break-even price (i.e., ACRA, CATH, DIVI) resulted from relatively higher seed costs, coupled with added labor and material costs necessitated by the longer cropping period when grown from seed.

Even when all stock costs were removed from models (no stock costs), calculated break-even prices for all species except American ginseng remained well above recent historic prices. Moreover, removing stock costs from models affected break-even prices to a lesser extent than shortening the cropping period (early harvest) or eliminating annual production costs (no annual costs). These results suggest that while planting stock costs are an important determinant of profit potential, they are less important than other production costs such as cropping period, annual labor, and materials.

32

Table 2.7 Comparison of three actual price levels (US$, mean, minimum, maximum prices, 1990-2005, adjusted for inflation) with model break even prices (4% discount rate) for commercial forest production of North American medicinal crop candidates. ACRA @ CATH CHLU DIVI HYCA PAQU PHAM SACA

1990-2005 prices (US$/kg/dry): Mean price 4.23 2.51 55.81 2.84 59.34 846.98 1.24 12.86 Minimum price 2.39 1.15 19.76 1.15 39.53 558.43 0.87 2.83 Maximum price 7.11 5.38 94.59 6.61 85.85 1271.33 2.05 23.10 Break-even prices (US$/kg/dry) according to method of propagation # Basic model S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T 169.27 153.17 455.06 397.51 442.75 587.30 350.18 306.33 192.43 240.91 432.26 460.77 85.41 91.15 182.94 240.91 Adjusted models Early harvest 125.91 131.68 359.55 306.33 348.16 481.81 262.58 263.36 147.32 216.04 338.46 364.82 66.52 N/A 138.54 216.04 (EH) No stock costs 167.12 123.92 427.69 334.24 427.69 334.24 334.24 247.84 167.12 123.92 427.69 334.24 83.98 65.15 167.12 123.92 (NSC) No annual costs 60.68 85.63 149.09 180.33 136.78 370.13 133.01 171.25 83.84 173.37 126.29 243.60 55.82 79.45 74.35 173.37 (NAC)

EH & NSC 123.92 103.56 334.24 247.84 334.24 247.84 247.84 207.11 123.92 103.56 334.24 247.84 65.15 N/A 123.92 103.56

EH & NAC 58.37 83.49 142.37 171.25 130.98 346.73 127.50 166.97 79.78 167.85 121.29 229.75 54.82 N/A 71.00 167.85

NSC & NAC 58.53 56.38 121.72 117.07 121.72 117.07 117.07 112.76 58.53 56.38 121.72 117.07 54.39 53.45 58.53 56.38 EH, NSC, & 56.38 55.37 117.07 112.76 117.07 112.76 112.76 110.73 56.38 55.37 117.07 112.76 53.45 N/A 56.38 55.37 NAC @ Abbreviations: ACRA= Actaea racemosa; CATH= Caulophyllum thalictroides; CHLU= Chamaelirium luteum; DIVI= Dioscorea villosa; HYCA= Hydrastis canadensis; PAQU= Panax quinquefolius; PHAM= Phytolacca americana; SACA= Sanguinaria canadensis. # Method of propagation: S = seed, T = transplant

33

3.4 Time to harvest

The influence of crop period on profitability was examined using an adjusted model to consider the shortest possible rotation (early harvest). The break-even prices calculated from these results (Table 2.7) indicate that hastening harvests can improve the economics of forest cultivation, but this alone is not enough to change the general findings that recent historic prices are well below break-even. Shortening the cropping period did have more influence on determining break-even prices than did eliminating planting stock costs.

3.5 Production costs

Adjusted models in which annual production costs such as labor and materials were excluded (no annual costs) had the most significant impact on break-even prices

(Table 2.7). In all cases, the exclusion of annual costs produced break-even prices that were at most half those calculated in basic models.

3.6 Yields

Yields are an important model parameter affecting profitability, but will vary depending on many production factors. Rather than creating a series of adjusted models to examine the impact of yield variation, break-even yield values (i.e., total costs of production divided by the average price received per kg) were calculated for all species,

34 for both crops grown from seed and transplant. Basic model production costs were used for these calculations (i.e., no adjusted model assumptions were incorporated).

Calculated break-even yield values are presented in Table 2.8. In general, results indicate that yields for all species except American ginseng would need to greatly increase to recover investment costs. Half of the species (ACRA, CATH, DIVI, PHAM) would require unrealistic yield increases for cost recovery and profit potential. Of the remaining, three (CHLU, HYCA, SACA) would require modest yield increases and favorable market prices (e.g., mean, maximum prices). Only American ginseng would require no yield increases to recover production costs and provide profit; according to model results, yields for this species could be reduced and cost recovery and profit potential would likely remain.

35

Table 2.8 Modeled break even yields for commercial production of North American medicinal forest plants, as determined by price received (mean, minimum, maximum prices, 1990-2005). Yield increase Break even (kg/1000 Break even (g/per needed (multipliers) m2) root) @ S T S T S T

ACRA # mean price 4,002 3,621 800 724 40 × 36 × maximum price 2,381 2,154 476 431 24 × 22 × minimum price 7,082 2,930 1,416 1,282 71 × 64 × CATH mean price 9,065 7,918 1,813 1,584 181 × 158 × maximum price 4,229 3,694 846 739 85 × 74 × minimum price 19,785 17,283 3,957 3,457 396 × 346 × CHLU mean price 397 526 40 53 8 × 11 × maximum price 234 310 23 31 5 × 6 × minimum price 1,120 1,486 112 149 22 × 30 × DIVI mean price 6,165 5,393 1,233 1,079 123 × 108 × maximum price 2,649 2,317 530 463 53 × 46 × minimum price 15,225 13,319 3,045 2,664 305 × 266 × @ Relative to model assumptions (refer to Table 2.3 for values). # Abbreviations: ACRA= Actaea racemosa; CATH= Caulophyllum thalictroides; CHLU= Chamaelirium luteum; DIVI= Dioscorea villosa.

36

Table 2.8 continued. Modeled break even yields for commercial production of North American medicinal forest plants, as determined by price received (mean, minimum, maximum prices, 1990-2005). Yield increase Break even (kg/1000 Break even (g/per needed (multipliers) m2) root) @ S T S T S T

HYCA # mean price 324 406 16 20 3 × 4 × maximum price 224 281 11 14 2 × 3 × minimum price 487 609 24 31 5 × 6 × PAQU mean price 26 27 3 3 None None maximum price 17 18 2 2 None None minimum price 39 41 4 4 None None PHAM mean price 6,888 7,351 1,378 1,470 69 × 74 × maximum price 4,166 4,446 833 889 42 × 45 × minimum price 9,817 10,477 1,963 2,095 98 × 105 × SACA mean price 1,423 1,873 71 94 14 × 19 × maximum price 792 1,043 40 52 8 × 10 × minimum price 6,464 8,513 323 426 65 × 85 × @ Relative to model assumptions (refer to Table 2.3 for values). # Abbreviations: HYCA= Hydrastis canadensis; PAQU= Panax quinquefolius; PHAM= Phytolacca americana; SACA= Sanguinaria canadensis.

37 4.0 Discussion

4.1 Implications for adoption of forest cultivation

Individuals may choose to adopt forest cultivation for other than purely financial reasons such as personal interest, household consumption, and/or conservation intentions; however, any broad transition from wild collection to forest cultivation of the plants considered in this study is likely to require financial justification or rewards for adopters.

This is especially true since many species require multiple years before harvesting, and the investment tied-up in each forest crop can be significant during intervening years.

Net present value (NPV) results revealed that, with one exception (e.g., American ginseng), adopting forest cultivation for the plants considered in these models would be unprofitable, assuming wholesale product prices continue at recent historic levels.

Adjusted models (i.e., sensitivity analyses) were used to examine the relative influence of key variables in determining break-even prices and yields. Of the variables examined, annual production costs (i.e., labor and supply costs) most affected break-even prices, because the majority of the species considered require multiple years until harvest, and annual production costs accrue during this period. From a practical standpoint, this suggests that husbandry approaches using minimal husbandry practices, i.e., ―wild- simulated‖ approach, may best reduce production costs and thereby improve revenue potential. However, there are likely trade-offs to adopting a minimal husbandry approach, including reduced plant survival and yields. It must be emphasized that even when annual production costs (i.e., all costs except planting and harvesting costs) were

38 removed from adjusted models, calculated break-even prices were still much greater than recent prices. Thus, reducing production costs is likely to be only part of any solution to improving the economics of forest cultivation.

Shortening the time between planting and harvest (i.e., cropping period) was the second most influential factor in determining break-even prices. Accordingly, propagation methods and production practices that reduce the cropping period are likely to benefit producers. Such practices might include using transplants rather than seed as planting stock. While transplant costs are generally greater than seed costs, annual production costs represented the greatest single investment expense in these models; thus, careful deliberation must be given to potential cost savings accrued by using transplants.

The time to harvest is perhaps best shortened by selecting cropping sites most favorable to optimal growth for each species. Manipulation of soil conditions, via tillage or amendments, may encourage rapid growth and higher yields, but these will also increase production costs.

The economics associated with forest cultivation might also be improved by responsible gathering of local planting stock, since stock from nursery suppliers is presently very expensive for most species. One potentially less expensive alternative to buying nursery stock (although there will still be time and labor costs) is to use local germplasm through seed, seedling, or rootstock collection and replanting, which can concomitantly help to retain genetic diversity in the species. The erosion or loss of local and regional genetic characteristics has become a concern in recent years with the planting of American ginseng on forestlands using ―commercial‖ propagules (FWS

2008). Similar concerns could arise with other plant species should broad adoption of

39 forest cultivation occur. In cases where crop candidates (and sufficient propagules) are already present on grower forestlands, propagation using existing local stock could be practiced with potentially little adverse consequence. In scenarios where candidate crop species are not already present, the transfer of plant materials across ownership or tenure boundaries could occur, but must be carefully advocated and/or practiced to prevent legal and ethical problems.

Manipulating production practices through fertilization, irrigation, and/or increasing sunlight levels to improve yields may favorably alter forest cultivation economics. However, modeled break-even yield estimates indicate that significant yield increases would need to occur for nearly all species to recover costs, much less earn profits. Of the plants considered here, the economics associated with forest cultivation are most likely to improve for CHLU, HYCA, SACA through increased yields. It is likely that yield increases necessary to support cultivation of ACRA, CATH, DIVI,

PHAM are unattainable, regardless of adjustments to production practices. Several species in this analysis show dramatically higher yields when grown under artificial shade, as compared with yields from plants grown in beds within forested habitats

(McCoy et al. 2007, Renaud 2004). Thus, the future of cultivation for many species may be beyond agroforestry cropping systems (e.g., under artificial shade), particularly if there is no ―premium‖ paid for forest grown product, such as presently occurs with

―wild‖ American ginseng. Even where field cultivation appears to hold promise, artificial shade is a significant production cost to include in economic projections.

The profitability of American ginseng as a forest crop is driven exclusively by

Asian consumer preferences for whole, intact ―wild,‖ wild-appearing, and forest-raised

40 product. In recent years, roughly 80 to 90 percent of the annual United States ―wild‖ ginseng harvest was exported with 98 percent of exports destined for Asian markets and consumers (Robbins 1998b). In ―western‖ cultural traditions, conversely, little or no attention is afforded to product origins and appearance, and most of the ginseng consumed by Euro-American consumers is field-cultivated, under artificial shade, ending up as processed powders, extracts, and teas. Thus, Asian markets currently provide a critical price support that makes forest production of this species profitable. If this unique relationship changes in coming years, with Asian demand and consumption decreasing due to trade issues or shifts in consumer preferences, the economic feasibility of forest cultivation for American ginseng is likely to decline as well.

One solution for increasing grower profits, and thus forest cultivation, might be the development of industry certification and labeling programs for forest cultivated product. Such programs could be used to generate economic ―premiums‖ and raise wholesale market prices to levels that support cultivation. Without price ―premiums‖ generated through certification and labeling programs, transitioning from wild to forest cultivated sources for many plants is not likely to be profitable unless there are significant, demand driven increases in wholesale prices (in which case collection pressure would also increase) or unless alternative market opportunities develop.

Growers are not likely to find widespread direct marketing opportunities if retailers are able to obtain cheaper plant materials from wild collected wholesale sources and consumers have little or no regard for product origins. Educational efforts and promotional campaigns must therefore be a component of any efforts to develop product certification and labeling programs, and encourage consumer attention to product origins.

41 Such efforts must articulate the benefits to consumer and society from purchasing certified forest cultivated materials, and should include assurances regarding identity, source, sanitation, and quality (i.e., appearance, chemical or otherwise).

4.2 Implications for wild collection

The willingness of some individuals to collect indigenous forest plants despite low prices facilitates low prices in the wholesale market. Collectors may engage in collection regardless of pricing because wild plant products serve as a secondary or tertiary income source, or a ―safety net‖ during difficult financial times (Bailey 1999,

Cozzo 1999, Emery et al. 2003). Accordingly, there may be little desire or ability to adopt intensive husbandry practices requiring significant investment and costs. Many collectors choose to collect wild plant products for enjoyment (Bailey 1999, Emery et al.

2003). Additionally, markets for many plants are easily satiated and annual consumer demand unpredictable. Although the outlook at the time of establishment can be favorable, one cannot predict future market conditions, and ―bust‖ cycles can erode any projected profits (Craker et al. 2003). Buyers frequently require contractual agreements before purchasing larger quantities (e.g., 100 lbs or more), and growers may consequently have a difficult time selling product even if market conditions are ―good‖ at the time of planting. In this context, wild-collection is considered by many in the North American industry as perhaps the only practical means for obtaining plant materials when consumer demand for a particular botanical suddenly increases (American Botanicals 2008).

42 Because of these constraints, wild collection is likely to continue for many indigenous forest plants. Concern for trade species that do not garner a high enough price to support cultivation must be addressed through alternative programs including wild management and collector education programming, rather than through initiatives encouraging cultivation. In such efforts, the development of certification programs for non-timber forest products or harvesters may provide a mechanism for addressing stewardship concerns for wild-collected species (Shanley et al. 2005). While these could be state or federal government programs, programs would likely be more effective and self-sustaining if industry initiated, in consultation with botanists, horticulturalists, collectors and others who can provide guidance and grounded perspective. Basic guidelines and standards for North American species could be regionally tailored, using published international standards for wild collection (e.g., Medicinal Plant Specialist

Group 2007, WHO 2003) as a foundation. Product certification and labeling accompanied by consumer education could provide assurances to consumers, and generate price ―premiums‖ to support harvester outreach and other program components.

5.0 Conclusion

The model results obtained suggest that forest farming of many native medicinal plants in eastern North America would not be not profitable at recent historic prices.

Wholesale market prices are far below production costs for many species, and pricing is not equitable among species with similar production requirements. Significant price differences exist between species with approximately the same production requirements

43 and yield potentials (e.g., American ginseng versus blue cohosh). While this difference can be attributed to market factors (e.g., differences in consumer demand, scarcity of supplies), there is nevertheless little incentive for adoption of intensive husbandry given such realities. Even the most parsimonious crop production models (e.g., early harvest + no stock costs + no annual costs) failed to generate break-even prices commensurate with recent historic wholesale prices; rather, with all species except American ginseng and goldenseal, calculated break-even prices far exceeded recent industry prices. Yield increases alone are not likely to resolve financial shortcomings since many species would need dramatic, and largely unrealistic, yield gains to even recover production costs, much less earn a profit.

Although this analysis only included eight plant species, these conclusions are equally applicable to other indigenous forest plants including bethroot (Trillium erectum

L.), cranesbill (Geranium maculatum L.), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum L.), stoneroot (Collinsonia canadensis L.), and Virginia snakeroot (Aristolochia serpentaria

L.). For all of these species, the wholesale prices paid between 1990 and 2005 for raw materials was well below agroforestry production costs (data and model results not included in this paper). Wild collection is likely to continue for these species because investment in cultivation is simply not profitable, and because collection is amenable to the industry‘s need to respond to intermittent demand in an often highly volatile marketplace (i.e., ―boom and bust‖ cycles). Accordingly, there is need for both technical support for agroforestry production of species with profit potential and significant demand (e.g., American ginseng and goldenseal) as well as for collector guidance for species that are likely to continue to be collected because prices do not support intensive

44 husbandry and/or demand is sporadic. While there may be conservation benefits associated with forest cultivation of indigenous plant species, guidance provided to those interested in transitioning from lesser to more intensive forms of forest plant husbandry must include consideration of inflation, discount rates, and other time-related economic factors that will inevitably impact the profitability of crops requiring multiple years to attain harvestable maturity. Species that are not economically feasible for cultivation, particularly due to limited market demand, are best served through development of proactive government and industry initiatives involving targeted harvester education and possibly NTFP certification programs.

References

Albrecht, M.A. and B.C. McCarthy. 2006. Comparative Analysis of Goldenseal

(Hydrastis canadensis L.) Population Re-growth Following Human Harvest:

Implications for Conservation. American Midland Naturalist 156 (2): 229-236.

American Botanicals. 2010. Product List. [online] URL:

http://www.americanbotanicals.com/product_list.asp. Cited 1 September 2010.

American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). 1999. 1997-1999 Tonnage Survey

Results. American Herbal Products Association, Silver Spring, MD.

American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). 2003. Tonnage Survey of North

American Wild-harvested Plants, 2000-2001. American Herbal Products

Association, Silver Spring, MD.

45 American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). 2006. Tonnage Survey of Select North

American Wild-harvested Plants, 2002-2003. American Herbal Products

Association, Silver Spring, MD.

American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). 2007. Tonnage Survey of Select North

American Wild-harvested Plants, 2004-2005. American Herbal Products

Association, Silver Spring, MD.

Bailey, B. 1999. Social and Economic Impacts of Wild Harvested Products. PhD

Dissertation. Forest Resource Science. West Virginia University, Morgantown,

WV.

Bannerman, J.E. 1997. Goldenseal in World Trade: Pressures and Potentials.

HerbalGram 41: 51-52.

Baskin, C.C. and J.M. Baskin. 2001. Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution of

Dormancy and Germination. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Bennett, B.C., C.R. Bell and R.T. Boulware. 1990. Geographic Variation in Alkaloid

Content of Sanguinaria canadensis (Papaveraceae). Rhodora 92 (870): 57-69.

Beyfuss, R.L. 1999a. American Ginseng Production in Woodlots. Agoroforestry Notes

14 (July). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Agroforestry

Center, Lincoln, NE.

Beyfuss, R.L. 1999. Economics and Marketing of Ginseng. Agroforestry Notes 15

(July). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Agroforestry

Center, Lincoln, NE.

Beyfuss, R.L. 2000. The Practical Guide to Growing Ginseng. Cornell Cooperative

Extension of Greene County, Cairo, NY.

46 Bierzychudek, P. 1982. Life Histories and Demography of Shade-tolerant Temperate

Forest Herbs: a Review. New Phytologist 90: 757-776.

Brush, A. 2006. False-unicorn (Chamaelirium luteum) Root Weights Gathered From

Growing Trials in Meigs County, Southern Ohio. Unpublished data. Received

March 28, 2006.

Cech, R. 2002. Growing At-risk Medicinal Herbs: Cultivation, Conservation and

Ecology. Horizon Herbs, Williams, OR.

Cech, R. 2008. Planting Stock Price Lists and Seed Counts. Horizon Herbs. Williams,

OR. [online] URL: http://www.horizonherbs.com. Cited 1 September 2008.

Charron, D. and D. Gagnon. 1991. The Demography of Northern Populations of Panax

quinquefolius (American Ginseng). Journal of Ecology 79: 431-445.

Cozzo, D.N. 1999. Herb Gatherers and Root Diggers of Northwestern North Carolina.

MA Thesis, Appalachian Studies, Appalachian State University.

Craker, L.E., Z. Gardner and S.C. Etter. 2003. Herbs in American Fields: a Horticultural

Perspective of Herb and Medicinal Plant Production in the United States, 1903 to

2003. HortScience 38 (5): 977-983.

Cullina, W. 2000. The New England Wildflower Society Guide to Growing and

Propagating Wildflowers of the United States and Canada. Houghton-Mifflin,

New York, NY.

Davis, J.M. 1999. Forest Production of Goldenseal. Agroforestry Notes 16 (July). U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Agroforestry Center,

Lincoln, NE.

47 Dix, M.E., D.B. Hill, L.E. Buck and W.J. Rietveld. 1997. Forest Farming: an

Agroforestry Practice. Agroforestry Notes 7 (Nov). U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE.

Emery, M.R., C. Ginger, S. Newman, and M.R.B. Giammusso. 2003. Special Forest

Products in Context: Gatherers and Gathering in the Eastern United States.

General Technical Report NE-306. Newtown Square, PA. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.

Farrington, S.J. 2006. An Ecological Study of American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius

L.) in the Missouri Ozark Highlands: Effects of Herbivory and Harvest,

Ecological Characterization and Wild Simulated Cultivation. Master of Science

Thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. US Scientific Authority Findings for American

ginseng 2000-2006 [online] URL:

http://www.fws.gov/international/animals/ginindx.html Cited 1 September 2008.

Foster, S. and J.A. Duke. 2000. A Field Guide to Medicinal Plants and Herbs of Eastern

and Central North America, 2nd ed. Peterson Field Guides. Houghton-Mifflin,

New York, NY.

Gladstar, R. and P. Hirsch (eds). 2000. Planting the Future: Saving Our Medicinal

Herbs. Healing Arts Press, Rochester, VT.

Hill, D.B. and L.E. Buck. 2000. Forest Farming Practices. In: Garrett, H.E., W.J.

Rietveld and R.F. Fisher (eds), North American Agroforestry: an Integrated

Science and Practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

48 Klemperer, W.D. 1996. Forest Resource Economics and Finance. McGraw-Hill, New

York, NY.

Lewis, W.H. and M.P.F. Elvin-Lewis. 2003. Medical Botany: Plants Affecting Human

Health, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Lim, W., K.W. Mudge, and F. Vermeylen. 2005. Effects of Population, Age, and

Cultivation Methods on Ginsenoside Content of Wild American Ginseng (Panax

quinquefolium). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53: 8498-8505.

McCoy, J., J.M. Davis, J.D. Camper, I. Khan and A. Bharathi. 2007. Influence of

Rhizome Propagule Size on Yields and Triterpene Glycoside Concentrations of

Black Cohosh (Actaea racemosa L. syn Cimicifuga racemosa (L.) Nuttal).

HortScience 42 (1): 61-64.

McGuffin, M., A.Y. Leung and A.O. Tucker. 2000. Herbs of Commerce, 2nd ed.

American Herbal Products Association, Silver Spring, MD.

McLain, R.J and E.T. Jones. 2005. Nontimber Forest Products Management on National

Forests in the United States. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-655. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station.

Meagher, T.R. and J. Antonovics. 1982. The Population Biology of Chamaelirium

luteum, a Dioecious Member of the Lily Family: Life History Studies. Ecology

63 (6): 1690-1700.

Medicinal Plant Specialist Group. 2007. International Standard for Sustainable Wild

Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP). Version 1.0.

49 Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), MPSG/SSC/IUCN, WWF Germany, and

TRAFFIC, Bonn, Gland, Frankfurt, and Cambridge (BfN-Skripten, 195).

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). 2005. Production

Recommendations For Ginseng. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Publication No. 610, Toronto, Canada.

Persons, W.S. 1986. American Ginseng: Green Gold. Bright Mountain Books,

Asheville, NC.

Persons, W.S. and J.M. Davis. 2005. Growing and Marketing Ginseng, Goldenseal and

Other Woodland Medicinals. Bright Mountain Books, Fairview, NC.

Rao, M.R., M.C. Palada and B.N. Becker. 2004. Medicinal and Aromatic Plants in

Agroforestry Systems. Agroforestry Systems 61: 107-122.

Renaud, E. 2004. National Center for the Preservation of Medicinal Herbs (NCMPH)

Draft Research Report: Five Year Trial Report on Black Cohosh, Blue Cohosh,

Goldenseal, Stoneroot and Wild Yam 1998-2003. Unpublished report. Received

2005.

Richters. 2008. Planting Stock price Lists and Seed Counts. Richters Herbs.

Goodwood, Ontario. [online] URL: http://www.herbs.com/. Cited 1 September

2008.

Robbins, C.S. 1998a. Medicinal Plant Conservation: a Priority at TRAFFIC.

HerbalGram 44: 52-54.

Robbins, C.S. 1998b. American Ginseng: the Root of North America‘s Medicinal Herb

Trade. TRAFFIC North America, Washington, D.C.

50 Robbins, C.S. 1999. Medicine from U.S. Wildlands: an Assessment of Native Plant

Species Harvested in the United States for Medicinal Use and Trade and

Evaluation of the Conservation and Management Implications. TRAFFIC North

America. [online] URL: http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal/pubs/traffic.htm.

Cited 1 September 2008.

Roy, R.C., R. Grohs and R.D. Reeleder. 2003. A Method for the Classification by Shape

of Dried Roots of Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.). Canadian Journal of Plant

Science 83: 955-958.

Salmore, A.K. and M.D. Hunter. 2001. Environmental and Genotypic Influences on

Isoquinoline Alkaloid Content in Sanguinaria canadensis. Journal of Chemical

Ecology 27 (9): 1729-1747.

Sanders, S., and J.B. McGraw. 2005. Harvest Recovery of Goldenseal, Hydrastis

canadensis L.. American Midland Naturalist 153: 87-94.

Schooley, J. 2003. Cost of Production of One Acre of Ginseng in Ontario. Ontario

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) Ginseng Series.

[online] URL: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/gincop.htm Cited

1 September 2008.

Shanley, P., A.R. Pierce and S.A. Laird. 2005. Beyond Timber: Certification of Non-

timber Forest Products. Forest Trends, Washington, D.C. [online] URL:

http://www.forest-trends.org/resources/publications/publications.php Cited 1

September 2008.

51 Sinclair, A., P. Nantel and P. Catling. 2005. Dynamics of Threatened Goldenseal

Populations and Implications for Recovery. Biological Conservation 123: 355-

360.

Strategic Sourcing. 2010. Product List. [online] URL:

http://www.strategicsourcinginc.net/products/ Cited 1 September 2010.

Thomas, A.L., R.J. Crawford, L.J. Havermann, W.L. Applequist, B.E. Schweitzer, S.F.

Woodbury and J.S. Miller. 2006. Effect of Planting Depth, Planting Season, and

Fungicide Treatment on Establishment of Black Cohosh in a Poorly Drained Soil.

HortScience 41 (2): 374-376.

United Plant Savers (UPS). 2010. UpS ―At-risk‖ List. [online] URL:

http://www.unitedplantsavers.org/UpS_At_Risk_List.html. Cited 1 September

2008.

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2007. Consumer

Price Indexes. [online] URL: http://www.bls.gov Cited 1 September 2008.

Van Der Voort, M.E., B. Bailey, D. Samuel and J.B. McGraw. 2003. Recovery of

Populations of Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.) and American Ginseng

(Panax quinquefolius L.) Following Harvest. American Midland Naturalist 149:

282-293.

Van Wyk, B.E. and M. Wink. 2004. Medicinal Plants of the World. Timber Press,

Portland, OR.

Whitten, G. 1999. Herbal Harvest: Commercial Organic Production of Quality Dried

Herbs, 2nd ed. Bloomings Books, Victoria, Australia.

52 Chapter 3

Stakeholder perspective and experience with wild American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) conservation efforts in Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: limitations to a CITES driven, top-down regulatory approach.

Abstract

Following its inclusion in Appendix II of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the harvest, sale and trade of wild ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) for international commerce has been restricted by law in Pennsylvania since the late 1980s. Since then, exports from the state have declined driving the need to better understand the impact of CITES listing and related state and federal laws. Between 2004 and 2009, I conducted a mixed-methods study in Pennsylvania of stakeholder (e.g., collector, planter-grower, trader-buyer, enforcement) perspectives on state and federal government conservation efforts and experiences relating to enforcement of harvest and trade restrictions. Results from a survey, key informant interviews, and facilitated group discussions indicate widespread support for ginseng conservation efforts but, not with the CITES driven, top-down regulatory approach. It was widely asserted that ginseng stewardship has been, and will continue to be, governed by personal experience, family teachings, and industry norms (especially buyer/trader purchasing behaviors) and not CITES driven restrictions per se. Moreover, study participants were unable to cite instances where prosecution for ginseng-related ―crimes‖ had occurred within their networks and most believed laws are an ineffective deterrent to ―bad behavior.‖ This emic is externally validated by the fact that agency (e.g., PA DCNR) enforcement is constrained by limited personnel and jurisdictional boundaries, not least of which is an inability to enforce on private lands in the state. These findings suggest that a CITES driven regulatory approach has limited impact in actually conserving wild ginseng in Pennsylvania, and suggests that this approach should be re-considered or at least complemented by stakeholder supported ―bottom-up‖ partnerships involving government-sponsored or supported ginseng planting programs (e.g., ―conservation through cultivation‖) to counter over-exploitation by collectors and/or extirpation resulting from habitat loss.

53 1.0 Introduction

American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) is an herbaceous perennial plant indigenous to eastern North America that has been traded internationally for nearly 300 years. Continued demand by Asian consumers, in particular, for roots exhibiting ―wild‖ traits, as determined by taste, shape, color and texture (Guo, Bailey and van Dalfson

1995, Hu 1976, Roy, Grohs and Reeleder 2003), coupled with a limited geographic wild distribution continue to drive a wild ginseng industry centered in eastern North America.

Estimates are that as much as 90 percent of the annual wild ginseng harvest in the United

States is exported and 98 percent of these exports destined for East Asia (Robbins 1998).

This demand persists even though there appears to be no difference in overall ginsenoside levels (a widely used ―marker‖ constituent) reliably ascribed to ―wild‖ versus

―cultivated‖ roots (Assinewe et al. 2003, Lim, Mudge, and Vermeylen 2005). The market price for wild-appearing ginseng roots originating from eastern North America forestlands nevertheless continues to be as much as 100 times greater than for cultivated roots (Burkhart and Jacobson 2009). Such price disparities continue to stimulate interest in wild collection as well as various forms of plant husbandry.

Since 1975, American ginseng has been included in Appendix II of the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES). In the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has both Scientific and Management Authority for CITES and thus is responsible for implementation requirements (Walsh 2005). FWS in turn requires that all export states track commerce through point-of-sale reporting mechanisms and urges export states to enact laws and

54 state level trade restrictions in accordance with current scientific understandings. The information gathered through such programs is used by each respective state and FWS to examine trends in the wild ginseng supply.

Between 45,000 to 159,000 pounds of wild roots, originating from nineteen eastern states, were certified annually for export between 1990 and 2008 (FWS 2009).

An examination of available ginseng trade data (PA DCNR 2010, FWS 2009) indicates that reported wild exports from Pennsylvania (and many other states) have declined overall since 1990 (Figure 3.1) and consequently the impact of existing CITES-driven conservation regulations is unclear. A better understanding of this response is needed since case studies of other CITES-listed species have highlighted a variety of shortcomings associated with program implementation (i.e., timber (c.f., Blundell 2007,

Stewart 2009), plants (c.f., Walsh 2005) and animals (c.f., Aspenpurg-Traun 2009,

Shepherd and Nijman 2008)). Moreover, an understanding of any limitations associated with this ―top-down‖ approach could help identify ―bottom-up‖ conservation mechanisms more likely to be followed voluntarily and promulgated by stakeholders.

The purpose of this study was to examine the central question of whether a

CITES-driven top-down regulatory approach to wild American ginseng conservation is having intended positive impacts on industry and stakeholder behaviors for Pennsylvania exports. To answer this question, I conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study

(Cresswell 2009) incorporating a survey instrument, key informant interviews, and facilitated group discussions to gather stakeholder (i.e., collector, planter-grower, buyer- trader, enforcement) perspective and experience regarding ginseng conservation efforts in the state. Specifically, I wanted to determine: (1) What are stakeholder attitudes towards

55 existing state and federal harvest and trade restrictions? (2) What are stakeholder experiences with actual enforcement of these restrictions? (3) What are stakeholder suggestions for improving enforcement; and (4) What are stakeholder attitudes towards ginseng conservation in general?

56

Figure 3.1 Reported pounds and estimated number of wild ginseng plants harvested in Pennsylvania: 1989-2009 (data source: PA DCNR 2010).

57 2.0 Background

2.1 CITES implementation for American ginseng in the United States (U.S.)

In the U.S., the American ginseng trade is monitored by both state and federal governments (Robbins 1998, 2000) following its 1975 listing in Appendix II of the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES). Appendix II status is reserved for ―species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival‖ (CITES 2010). The FWS is responsible for CITES implementation in the United States. The FWS has the Division of Management

Authority to address policy and permitting issues, and the Division of Scientific

Authority (DSA) to deal with scientific issues relating to CITES implementation. Under

CITES, ginseng exports must be legal and not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild. The FWS has approved export of wild ginseng from the United States on a state-by-state basis since 1978. By making its ―non-detriment‖ determination, a responsibility of the DSA, the FWS relies upon state harvest data as well as research findings.

Because collector husbandry practices that encourage sexual reproduction are essential to ensuring harvest sustainability (Farrington 2006, McGraw et al. 2005, Nantel,

Gagnon and Nault 1996, Van Der Voort et al. 2003), export states including

Pennsylvania have established harvest restrictions intended to facilitate wild reproduction and recruitment by limiting the time and stage of harvest. Most states also require seed

58 or berry planting from harvested plants at the location of harvest (Robbins 1998, 2000).

In an effort to dissuade juvenile plant harvesting and to allow plants to reach reproductive maturity and produce seeds before harvest, the FWS has since 1999 required roots to be at least five years old to be legally exported. This requirement was increased to ten years in August 2005, but reinstated to five years in June 2006. The federal government also prohibits interstate commerce in ginseng not certified by the state in which it was harvested.

2.2. CITES implementation for American ginseng in Pennsylvania

Of the nineteen states permitted to legally export ginseng from the United States under CITES, Pennsylvania has ranked eighth to fourteenth (1990-2009) in export volume (FWS 2010). Although Pennsylvania has exported ginseng for more than 250 years, trade data are only available from 1989 onwards at the state level and from 1991 onwards at the county level. The annual certified harvest between 1989 and 2009 was between 915 and 4,236 dry pounds. Pennsylvania export program data indicate that between 50 and 480 plants are required to yield one pound of dried wild roots, an average of 214 plants per dried pound (PA DCNR 2010). Several variables including plant age and stage at harvest, as well as growing conditions and post-harvest handling practices, influence the number of plants needed for one dry pound of product (Anderson 2003,

Lewis 1987).

The ginseng management program in Pennsylvania was initiated during the 1980s as a result of the 1982 Wild Resource Conservation Act, 32 P.S. §§ 5301-5314. The Act

59 directed the Department of Environmental Resources (predecessor of DCNR) to classify native wild plants and determine management directives necessary for sustained production (32 P.S. § 5307.). In 1987, pursuant to this mandate, the Department of

Environmental Resources, through the Environmental Quality Board, promulgated regulations establishing the native wild plant program (17 Pa. Code Chapter 45

(―Conservation of Pennsylvania native wild plants‖)). Section 45.2 establishes the

―vulnerable‖ classification for ―plant species which are in danger of population decline within this Commonwealth because of their beauty, economic value, use as a cultivar or other factors which indicate that persons may seek to remove these species from their native habitats.‖ Ginseng is one of three species classified as ―vulnerable‖ (17 Pa. Code §

45.15.).

Subchapter E of Chapter 45 regulates commerce involving vulnerable plants in general and ginseng in particular. It establishes restrictions on harvesting ginseng (i.e., limits harvest stage, time, and seed removal) to allow for reproduction and recruitment in wild populations (Table 3.1). Under the Wild Resource Conservation Act, restrictions on harvesting vulnerable plants do not apply to the owners of the land or to any person having a bona fide interest in the land (32 P.S. § 5311 (a).). In addition, Chapter 45 prohibits engaging in vulnerable plant commerce without a commercial vulnerable plant license; requires licensees to maintain records of their vulnerable plant activities; requires persons who export ginseng from Pennsylvania to obtain a ginseng certificate for each shipment; and requires licensees who engage in ginseng commerce to keep records of unsold ginseng. DCNR uses information collected through its ginseng management

60 program to track the quantity of wild ginseng collected for export from Pennsylvania forestlands. As required by CITES, DCNR provides this information on an annual basis to FWS DSA. Stakeholder honesty is critical to data accuracy since neither identification nor a license is required for buyer-seller transactions.

In addition to these regulations in the Wild Resource Conservation Act, DCNR has promulgated regulations specifically applicable to state parks and forests. Under state parks regulations, plant removal is prohibited except for certain edible plants, none of which are species classified in Chapter 45 (17 Pa. Code § 11.211., natural resources).

State forest regulations currently allow edible plant removal for personal or family consumption (17 Pa. Code § 21.31., prohibitions).

The Wild Resource Conservation Act authorizes ―any enforcement officer employed or designated by [DCNR] or any police officer of the Commonwealth or any municipality within the Commonwealth‖ to enforce the Act (32 P.S. § 5311 (c).).

Pursuant to the Conservation and Natural Resources Act, 71 P.S. §§ 1340.101-1340.1102,

DCNR authorizes its enforcement officers (State Forest Officers and DCNR Rangers) to exercise their enforcement authority only on lands administered by DCNR (i.e., state parks and forests). Therefore, DCNR enforcement personnel do not enforce provisions of the Wild Resource Conservation Act and regulations restricting harvesting and possession of ginseng where violation occurs on non-DCNR land.

61

Table 3.1 American ginseng wild harvest restrictions in Pennsylvania and the intent of each restriction.

Harvest restriction Intent of harvest restriction

A person may harvest ginseng plants To permit reproduction in wild plants since fruit only from August 1 through November mature in late summer and early fall. 30.

Only mature ginseng plants with at To permit plants to reach reproductive maturity and least three leaves of five leaflets each contribute to population viability. Establishes a may be harvested and only when the developmental stage class or minimum stage limit for seeds are red. harvest to take place.

Persons harvesting ginseng plants shall To ensure that local populations do not go extinct plant the seeds from the plants in the because collectors have removed seeds and sowed them immediate vicinity of the collection site elsewhere.

A person may not possess harvested, To limit collection to a season (August 1-November green ginseng roots between April 1 30). and August 1 of a calendar year.

Source: Pennsylvania Code, Subchapter E. Vulnerable Plants (§45.69. Vulnerable plant harvest seasons and conditions)

62 3.0 Research Methods

This study used a concurrent triangulated mixed methods approach (Cresswell

2009) to collect data through simultaneous use of a survey instrument, key informant interviews, and facilitated group discussions. Specifically, the survey instrument was used to quantify attitudes and behaviors pertinent to conservation efforts/regulations while key informant interviews and facilitated group discussions were concomitantly conducted to elucidate the values and beliefs underlying attitudes and behaviors

(Cresswell 2009, Vaske 2008). This combination of methods was used to gain an understanding of the cognitive underpinnings (Vaske 2008) that drive compliance (or non-compliance) with harvest and trade restrictions. This approach was also employed to explore the attitudes surrounding specific conservation mechanisms with the goal of determining which are more likely to be followed or adhered to voluntarily by stakeholders (i.e., ―bottom up‖ mechanisms). In this regard, it should be noted that attitudes are imperfect predictors of actual behavior, and the degree to which these are linked continues to be part of a long-running discourse in social psychology research

(c.f., Ajzen and Fishbein 2005, Ajzen and Cote 2008).

3.1 Sample frame identification

The main sample frame used for survey distribution was identified in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

(PA DCNR), which provided names and addresses gathered under their ―Vulnerable

63 Plant‖ licensing program between 1990 and 2006. In this program, transaction logs containing names and addresses of individuals who sold ginseng during the previous year are annually submitted to DCNR by licensed buyers-traders. Limitations to this sample frame were consequently: this sample does not include individuals involved with ginseng who did not buy or sell during this period; individuals involved with ginseng who did not have a commercial focus (and thus failed to show up in the log as ―sellers‖); and individuals producing/harvesting inside Pennsylvania but selling in another state (albeit technically unlawful). To help compensate for these limitations, a second sample frame was developed by combining targeted media and outreach activities. Between 2003 and

2007, this study was featured in numerous outdoor magazine and newspaper articles appealing for public participation (e.g., Blankenship 2005, Burkhart 2003, Burkhart and

Jacobson 2005, Mulhollem 2004). Key informants and facilitated group discussion participants were solicited using ―snowball sampling‖ through methods further described in the following sections. In snowball sampling, existing study subjects recruit future subjects from among their acquaintances. This sampling technique can often be helpful in accessing hidden ―populations‖ which are difficult for researchers to access (Weisburg 2005).

3.2 Key informant interviews

The key informant (KI) method is based on obtaining information from a community resident who is in a position to know the community as a whole, or a particular portion of interest (Cresswell 2009). Between 2004 and 2009, 25 KI interviews were conducted with individuals from three ―ginseng community‖ stakeholder

64 groups in Pennsylvania: collectors (n = 10), planters-growers (n = 10) and buyers-traders

(n = 5). Each KI was purposefully selected (Cresswell 2009) based upon the following criteria: (1) he/she must have had at least ten years of experience with ginseng or the ginseng trade; (2) he/she was considered to be a ―very knowledgeable‖ informant by others encountered during the course of this study (i.e., ―recommended‖ as someone to interview, i.e., ―snowball sampling‖); (3) he/she considered him/herself to be

―representative‖ or ―typical‖ of his/her regional ginseng network or community (with an effort made to include KIs from around the state); and (4) he/she was predominantly from one stakeholder category since it is common for roles to overlap (e.g., collectors might also be planters and/or buyers-traders and vice versa).

Interviews with KIs were semi-structured and occurred at private residences and/or on forestlands via ―forest walks‖ and/or ―ginseng hunts.‖ Each interview consisted of eight to twelve questions relating to ginseng conservation efforts. Some questions were open-ended probes (e.g., ―Do you think that having a ginseng collection season makes a difference?‖) while others were more targeted (e.g., ―Do you agree with the current ginseng collection season dates?‖)(Refer to Appendices A and B for the complete list of questions). Each KI was interviewed on at least two occasions between

2004 and 2009, with each interview lasting from one to three hours. Multiple interviews with KIs were conducted to develop a relationship with them to garner trust and honesty and also to allow for iterative exploration of important themes/findings. Notes were taken either concurrently or immediately subsequent to each interview. KIs were invited to submit perspective and experience (e.g., stories) using written comments. When included in the discussion that follows, these are identified through the use quotations or

65 blocked text with footnotes. Those included were included because they represent summative and broadly shared stakeholder perspectives.

3.3 Facilitated group discussions

A facilitated group discussion (FGD) is a type of focus group discussion but differing in this case due to the group size being larger than a conventional focus group

(e.g., 8-12 participants). As with a conventional focus group, the discussion was led by a moderator (the author) and the group was presented with open-ended questions so as to trigger discussion around ginseng related topics. Four FGDs were held during 2005 and

2006. Two FGDs (March 19, 2005 in State College, PA; January 30, 2006 in Pittsburgh,

PA) included only buyers and traders. A ―planter-grower‖ FGD included ginseng planters and growers from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and Ohio (October

15, 2005 at Cooper‘s Rock State Park, WV). A final ―enforcement‖ FGD drew upon a cross-section of individuals and agency personnel responsible for enforcing and prosecuting ginseng-related crimes in Pennsylvania (July 17, 2006 in State College, PA).

Participants in this FGD included DCNR rangers and legal counsel, Allegheny National

Forest rangers, Game Commission officers, Pennsylvania State Police and a retired Fish and Boat Commission officer with extensive experience with ginseng and ginseng enforcement. A total of 15, 20, 45 and 20 individuals participated in each FGD, respectively. During each, attendees were asked to discuss their views on topics relating to ginseng conservation and management efforts using probe questions (e.g., ―What do you feel is the best approach to conserving ginseng?‖)(Refer to Appendices C and D for

66 the complete list of questions). During these FGDs, opinions, quotations and/or statements that elicited broad consensus and/or passionate discussion amongst participants were immediately written down.

3.4 Survey development and delivery

Discussions with DCNR along with a literature review (both academic and popular) were used to guide survey topic, question, and language usage. A draft survey was pre-tested with 10 stakeholders (i.e., collectors, planters and dealers) who were solicited early in the study to help identify and address instrument ambiguities. The final survey consisted of 12 pages, containing 40 questions organized into four sections) (See

Appendix J for the full instrument). Question formats included 3-point Likert scales

(e.g., very important, important, not important), binary response (e.g., agree/disagree, yes/no), and requests for short explanations. A four-stage survey delivery method (i.e.,

―Tailored Design Method‖) was used to encourage a high return rate (Dillman 2000).

During the first stage, a letter was sent by Pennsylvania DCNR to households notifying individuals a survey was forthcoming along with an appeal for participation (See

Appendix E). During the second stage, a cover letter (Appendix F), survey (Appendix J), and return postcard (Appendix G) were mailed to individuals as a packet. Approximately three weeks after this packet was mailed, a reminder postcard (Appendix H) was sent to households, representing a third stage. In the fourth and final stage all households that had not returned a survey were sent a second survey packet with a final letter of appeal for participation (Appendix I). Surveys were annually distributed to new participants

67 over a three year period (2004-2006) representing a cross-sectional rather than a longitudinal sampling approach (Vaske 2008, Weisburg 2005).

The survey instrument, and associated letters and solicitation methods, were approved by the Pennsylvania State University Office for Research Protections (IRB project# 20703).

3.5 Data analysis and internal validation

Survey responses from each year were coded according to the year received (i.e.,

2004, 2005, 2006) and sampling frame (e.g., DCNR transaction logs, individual requests) when compiled to create a master data set. Responses to each survey question were analyzed using year and sampling frame as variables of interest to determine if any differences in question responses might be associated with these variables or if it would be reasonable to pool all respondents for greater analytical power. No significant differences were found for any survey questions according to year or sampling frame and thus data were pooled for analysis.

The continuous variables age and number of years collecting and/or planting were re-coded into three discrete categories for analysis. This was done because numerous KIs and FGD participants suggested different attitudes and/or behaviors are associated with these variables (discussed further in section 4.1). Category breaks were selected to permit examination of possible response differences based upon levels of experience (1-

10 years = inexperienced, 11-30 = experienced, 31+ = very experienced) and/or age group (18-40, 41-60, 61+ years of age), while providing for sufficient samples in each

68 partition. Chi-square Tests of Independence were used to test for relationships between categories and question response. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (v. 15,

SPSS Inc. 2007) was used for data analysis with the significance level set at 10% (i.e., P

≤ .10).

KI and FGD interview text transcripts were studied for attitudes, opinions, experiences, and recommendations regarding government conservation efforts and regulations. Once identified, these were numerically coded for basic statistical analysis to identify the most widespread and representative (Cresswell 2009). Results from this analysis are included in the results and discussion alongside survey results and the percentage of KIs who shared a particular attitude, view, or experience is given. I include direct quotations from KIs and FGD participants where these serve to highlight shared attitudes, ideas, or suggestions. These quotes are attributed via footnotes to indicate a survey comment, KI, or FGD contribution. To protect the confidentiality of study participants, KI or FGD participant names are not included.

In accordance with the concurrent triangulation approach (Cresswell 2009) adopted in this study, results from all KI and FGD research activities were compared after summarizing with each other, and with survey results, to cross-validate key findings, themes, attitudes, and experiences. Results from KI and FGD findings are presented alongside survey results in the following sections to provide both quantitative and qualitative understanding and insights into the major social phenomena uncovered by this mixed-methods research approach.

4.0 Results and Discussion

69

4.1 Sample characteristics

A principle methodological challenge inherent in all survey and social research is to minimize coverage error (Dillman 2000, Vaske 2008, Weisberg 2005). Since there were/are no comprehensive lists of those involved in ginseng related activities in

Pennsylvania, nor are there reliable data regarding the number of people involved, a stratified random sampling design could not be employed. Instead, sampling frames were comprised of availability or convenience samples, drawn from Pennsylvania DCNR ginseng buyer-seller transaction logs and through a targeted media solicitation. Possible biases resulting from the use of these availability samples include over-representation of commercially oriented individuals; self-selection or exclusion by those with strong beliefs (negative or positive) regarding government involvement in ginseng trade; and under-representation of certain demographic groups or regions. While it is acknowledged that there may be some biases contained in the findings presented here, due to these and other sampling frame limitations, the stakeholder perspective contained herein is nevertheless useful for better understanding the ginseng trade in Pennsylvania and attitudes and beliefs underlying this trade.

Of the 1,184 surveys mailed to postal addresses between 2004 and 2006, 383

(32%) were returned by the conclusion of the survey period (January 1, 2007). Most surveys were received during 2004 and 2005 (Table 3.2). Return rates include adjustments for surveys returned as ―non-deliverable‖ (12%) or ―not applicable‖ (1%).

―Non-deliverable‖ surveys occurred despite screening for obvious illegitimate, duplicate,

70 and insufficient names and addresses. Surveys considered ―not applicable‖ were received from relations of deceased individuals, no longer active, or considered (by their own judgment) not knowledgeable enough to participate. The highest return rate (81%) was associated with individuals who requested a survey after learning about the study in the media (―individual requests‖). However, most (71%) survey respondents were solicited using PA DCNR mailing lists.

Fourteen surveys were excluded from the sample due to only partial completion, or because the survey could not be matched using the visible and unique identification code on the outside of the survey return envelope (c.f., Dillman 2000) with a name and address contained in one of the sampling frames. This resulted in final n of 369. In the cover letter included with the survey (Appendix F), respondents were told they could freely choose to not answer any question. This, and the fact that not all survey sections and questions were applicable to a respondent, altered the sample size for each question.

Usable surveys were received from 52 (78%) counties, representing all geographic regions of Pennsylvania. Most survey participants were from counties where commerce data indicate harvesting for sale has been greatest (Figure 3.2). Four respondents were non-residents who collected or planted in Pennsylvania and six did not provide a county of residence. Survey respondents were overwhelmingly male (96%, n =

352/369).

71

Table 3.2 Survey return rates by delivery method for total survey period, 2004-2006a.

Response Response Not Not Not Returned b b Totals rate rate returned deliverable applicable (raw)c (adjusted)d PA DCNR dealer 243 575 125 11 954 25.5% 29.7% transaction logs Individual 120 40 1 0 161 79.8% 80.6% requests PA DCNR licensed dealers 20 33 11 5 69 29.0% 37.7% (current and former)

Totals 383 648 137 16 1,184 32.3% 37.1%

a Survey participation by year: 2004 = 150 individuals (40.7%); 2005 = 158 individuals (42.8%); 2006 = 61 individuals (16.5%). Final participation totaled 369 individuals; 14 returned surveys were excluded from the sample. b ―Not deliverable‖ surveys were returned due to inaccurate or outdated addresses; ―not applicable‖ surveys included deceased individuals, those no longer active, or those considering themselves not knowledgeable enough to complete a survey. c ―Raw‖ return rates include ―not deliverable‖ and ―not applicable‖ numbers in percentage calculations. d ―Adjusted‖ return rates exclude ―not deliverable‖ and ―not applicable‖ numbers from percentage calculations.

72

1 6 10 6 13 11 10 1 1 0 3 4 1 0 2 2 8 1 0 2 3 2 12 1 0 1 1 8 0 21 2 0 19 0 0 9 2 1 20 1 7 0 8 18 4 2 4 1 0 0 27 6 6 1 2 5 30 15 0 0 22 0 1 0 10 1 4

Figure 3.2 The number of survey respondents from each county (n = 359). An additional 10 respondents did not give their county of residence (n = 6) or were a non-resident of Pennsylvania (n = 4). The top 12 ginseng export counties (1991-2009) are indicated in shading.

73

Respondent age varied widely from 18 to 95 years although the mean, median, and mode were similar at 53 (σ = 14 years), 52, and 50 years, respectively (Figure 3.3).

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of survey participants were between 41 and 70 years old; more than half (53%) were 41 to 60 years of age. All of the KIs and FGD participants in this study were at least 30 years old (range 30-71, mean = 46). It is unclear to what degree the generally older ages associated with study represents sample bias, self- selection among older individuals, or whether it reflects true underlying trends in the socio-demographic context of ginseng harvesters and planters. For example, KIs and

FGD participants frequently suggested a ―generational gap‖ exists in the ginseng trade in which young people ―just aren‘t interested in the outdoors or ginseng anymore.‖

KIs suggested this was due to a ―lack of patience,‖ ―greater mobility of young people today,‖ and/or a ―fading interest in the out-of-doors.‖ Nearly one-quarter of the KIs

(24%, n = 6/25) attributed the general decline in reported ginseng exports from

Pennsylvania since 1990 to this fading interest among younger people.

74

100 97 97

90

80 71 70

60

50 45

40

30 27

20 17 Number of surveyNumberof participants 9 10 1 1 0 18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 90+ Age

Figure 3.3 The age distribution of survey respondents (n = 365).

75 4.2 Attitudes towards ginseng harvest restrictions

Survey results indicate that at least 7 of 10 respondents across stakeholder groups agreed with each existing Pennsylvania ginseng harvest restriction (Figure 3.4). The greatest agreement (91%, n = 336/366) was with the requirement that ―berries must be ripe‖ prior to harvesting plants, while the least (70%, n = 259/366) support was found for the restriction that ―berries must be planted in the immediate vicinity of the collection location.‖

Respondent age and number of years collecting or planting were significantly associated with agreement with the ―collection season,‖ ―stage,‖ and/or ―vicinity‖ restrictions (Table 3.3). Because this study employed a cross-sectional rather than longitudinal sampling design, it is not possible to determine from these data whether the observed pattern of declining support with age and/or experience reflects differences in attitudes associated with greater experience among older individuals or reflects generational changes in attitude. Some KIs (16%, n = 4/25), for example, suggested that since ginseng restrictions were only recently established, older individuals, having witnessed both regulated and unregulated eras, are reluctant to accept government involvement in the trade. A KI from south-central Pennsylvania offered the following observation: ―A [collection] season is just now becoming accepted practice among people in my area. Many people from my generation still dig whenever they see fit whereas the younger people are more accepting of the new laws.1‖

1 KI from Mifflin County, Pennsylvania (verbal communication)

76

Figure 3.4 The percentages of survey respondents agreeing/disagreeing with each existing ginseng harvest restriction in Pennsylvania (n = 366).

77 Table 3.3 Interrelationship between survey respondent age, years collecting or planting, and agreement with existing Pennsylvania ginseng harvest restrictions. Numbers and percentages are for those agreeing with each restriction.

Number of respondents (n) and percentage (%) who agreed with:

Collection Stage Berry ripening Vicinity

season requirement requirement requirement n % n % n % n %

Age

18-40 (n = 62) 43 69 55 89 58 93 49 79

41-60 (n = 192) 148 77 169 88 179 93 130 68

61+ (n = 107) 72 67 83 78 95 88 77 71 Years collecting 1-10 (n = 87) 67 77 82 94 81 93 75 86

11-30 (n = 144) 107 74 119 83 132 92 97 67 31+ (n = 74 65 104 91 113/114) 92 81 74 65 Years planting 1-10 (n = 111) 87 78 104 94 106 95 86 77

11-30 (n= 127) 88 69 98 77 112 88 79 62

31+ (n = 46/47) 29 63 35 76 40 85 27 57

Note: Bold-face indicates observed difference in agreement/disagreement between age/experience groups is significant at .10 level or higher, χ2 test

78 Another explanation offered by KIs, and perhaps one better supported by the survey results, was that as individuals gain more experience with ginseng collecting and planting, they witness more scenarios in which a particular harvest restriction does not correspond with harvester reality and consequently reject the restriction outright (one KI used the expression ―toss the baby out with the bath water‖ in this regard). The fact that there were significant differences among groups associated with years planting across all restrictions in survey results, and among years collecting for two of four restrictions, suggests experience may be more integral than age. A better longitudinal understanding of the connection between age, experience, and agreement with ginseng harvest restrictions would help answer an assertion frequently (48%, n = 12/25) made by KIs that

―younger ginseng diggers are less conservation-minded‖ compared with older ones.

Survey results from this study appear to contradict this assertion.

4.2.1 Berry ripening requirement

A Pennsylvania harvest restriction requiring that ginseng berries must be ripe (i.e., red) before plants are legally harvested was the most widely (91%) supported restriction among survey respondents. Those (including some KIs) who did not agree with this restriction claimed to have successfully germinated seed using green berries (e.g., ―I‘ve planted green berries at right stage that did grow‖ [sic]2) or asserted that green berries continue to ripen after plants are harvested (e.g. ―Put stock in ground with soil around it,

2 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument)

79 berries will ripen up‖ [sic]3). McGraw et al (2005) found that seed germination from green berries does occur, but germination is greatly (3×) improved if berries are allowed to ripen on the stalk before seeds are collected. Whether or not berries will continue to ripen after removing them from the stalk has not been studied.

A few who disagreed with the berry ripening requirement did so because they believed it shortens the collection season if they wait for berries to mature (e.g., ―Even in late Sept if berries are still present some are still green. I feel plants are ready to pick roots as early as mid-July as long as berries are full size, green or red‖ [sic]4). One survey respondent commented: ―berries often never ripen in PA [sic]5.‖ This and other similar perspectives (e.g., ―You shouldn‘t be able to hunt when berries are red because it makes it a lot easier to find. The season should be from June 1 to Aug. 1‖ [sic]6), if they are taken seriously, suggest a lack of understanding among some collectors about the reproductive requirements of ginseng and highlights a need for outreach and education.

4.2.2 Ginseng collection season

Despite widespread support for a berry ripening requirement, there was considerably less (72%) support for a collection season in Pennsylvania among survey respondents. However, opposition to the collection season was largely due to the current start and end dates of August 1 through November 30, rather than any collection season per se. Many respondents indicated August 1 is ―too early‖ and should be changed to

3 KI from Somerset County, Pennsylvania (verbal communication) 4 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 5 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 6 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument)

80 sometime between August 15 and September 15 (e.g., ―Start no sooner than Aug. 15.

Some seeds (pods) are still unripe‖ [sic]7). This sentiment was echoed by nearly all

(96%, n = 24/25) KIs as well. One KI expressed his long-standing disagreement with the

August 1 collection start date through the following anecdote:

―You must change the time for digging wild ginseng. If you dig Aug 1st you may as well dig anytime of the year. Any ginseng dug at this time is destroyed forever. I came from a family of father + 3 brothers and we all collected ginseng. If you dug a stalk in Aug and dad found out you got your backside paddled [sic]8.‖

It should be noted that this KI was speaking of a time prior to ginseng regulations in

Pennsylvania (i.e., pre-1989). Currently, Pennsylvania is the only export state with a harvest season beginning August 1; all other export states have collection seasons that open later (FWS 2010). These include New York (September 1), Ohio (September 1),

West Virginia (September 1), and Maryland (August 20). The only published field study

(McGraw et al. 2005) on berry ripening in eastern North America suggests August 1 is probably too early most years in Pennsylvania.

In addition to the season start date, respondents had other concerns pertaining to the Pennsylvania collection season. Many survey respondents indicated that the season should ―only apply to wild‖ rather than planted or cultivated sources (e.g., ―OK for wild only‖ [sic]9) a sentiment also shared by all KIs and many FGD participants. Some considered the current season ―too long‖ since the Pennsylvania season runs through

November 30 (e.g., ―Can‘t find plants in this area after Nov 1 anyway‖ [sic]10). There

7 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 8 KI from Somerset County, Pennsylvania (written communication) 9 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 10 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument)

81 were also concerns that a single season was not suitable for the entire state, and that

―zones‖ featuring different dates may be more appropriate (e.g., ―This should be zoned.

Bedford is ready. But Somerset County usually isn‘t ready till the 2nd or 3rd week of Aug‖

[sic]11).

4.2.3 Ginseng harvest stage requirement

A Pennsylvania requirement that harvested plants have ―at least three leaves of five leaflets‖ (or three ―prongs‖ or ―branches‖ as commonly referred to by stakeholders) was supported by 84 percent of survey respondents. Those who did not agree with this restriction indicated there was often inconsistency between the above and below ground appearance of a plant. That is, a plant could look immature based on the number of leaves or prongs present; but the root could nevertheless be of commercial age and size

(e.g., ―Occasionally, plants in a state of decline will have only small top but a large root and be very old. Usually found where the plants are being shaded out‖ [sic]12). The following comment from a KI was typical of many ginseng collectors:

―I have dug plants that have no stems while digging one that does and they didn't even have a new start on them so there is no telling how long it has sat dorment. But I have dug up smaller plants that only have 2 prongs to find out that it is a 30 to 40 year old plant. So you can't always go by the prongs [sic]13.‖

Other respondents disagreed not with the restriction itself, but with its wording, suggesting it was confusing and ―out-of-touch‖ with the language collector‘s use (e.g.,

11 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 12 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 13 KI from McKean County, Pennsylvania ( written communication)

82 ―Should be ―plants must have at least 3 branches‖‖ [sic]14). Still others said that stalk diameter is more useful than the number of leaves for gauging root size (e.g., ―I don‘t go by that, if the stem is not as big as a pencil, don‘t dig it‖ [sic]15).

4.2.4 Planting location requirement

Respondents indicated least support (70%) for a harvest requirement that ―seed must be sown in the vicinity of harvested plants.‖ Most of the disagreement with this requirement occurred because respondents believed that they should be able to plant at least some berries or seeds in other appropriate locations to begin ―patches‖ (e.g., ―I feel not all berries need to be planted at site. Planting some elsewhere expands range‖ [sic]16) or where others could not find them (e.g., ―Berries should be replanted but diggers should be able to plant them in areas they see suitable to scatter the species over an area rather than confining them to some areas which may fall prey to greedy harvesters‖ [sic]17).

Many survey respondents and KIs disagreed because collection areas were sometimes destined to be altered or destroyed (e.g., ―This is not always practical; you may know the area is to be surface mined or developed‖ [sic]18). Many study participants also indicated they were unsure about what ―immediate vicinity‖ implies (e.g., ―How is immediate vicinity defined?‖ [sic]19).

14 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 15 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 16 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 17 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 18 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 19 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument)

83 4.3 Stakeholder experience with enforcement

Enforcement of ginseng harvest and trade restrictions in North America is complicated by a variety of factors not least of which is the area that must be ―policed‖

(Bilger 2002, Bourne 2000, Corbin 2002). In Pennsylvania, for example, there are 16.6 million acres of forestland of which 3.8 (23%) are managed by PA DCNR (McWilliams et al. 2007). In relation, there are 33 DCNR Bureau of Forestry rangers responsible for enforcing regulations on state forestlands (J. Hall, pers. comm. 2010) and about 50 full- time and 100 seasonal rangers available to enforce regulations in State Parks (P. Ashford, pers. comm. 2010). To put these numbers into perspective, each DCNR ranger is therefore responsible for enforcing ginseng regulations on roughly 20,213 acres of public land.

An additional constraint to enforcing ginseng ―crimes‖ on Pennsylvania forestlands stems from land ownership and associated jurisdictional boundaries. In

Pennsylvania, DCNR does not have authority to enforce ginseng harvest restrictions on private lands, a caveat which is not generally acknowledged nor well understood outside of DCNR law enforcement. That DCNR does not have jurisdiction on private lands is critical to ginseng enforcement on 11.7 million acres (71%) of privately owned forestlands in Pennsylvania (McWilliams et al. 2007). Because of these complex jurisdictional boundaries, enforcing ginseng harvest restrictions on private forestlands depends on cooperation with other natural resource management agencies as well as state and local police. A private landowner must report theft or out-of-season harvesting, for

84 example, to local or state police who would then coordinate enforcement or evidence gathering activities with Pennsylvania DCNR (pers. comm., ―enforcement‖ FD).

In this study, KIs frequently (84%, n = 21/25) provided examples of situations where there were complete coordination failures between agencies enforcing ginseng harvest and/or trade restrictions. One widely heard complaint was that the harvest restrictions that ―make the most sense‖ (e.g., collection season) are not sufficiently enforced or, if they happen to be enforced, there are no resulting prosecutions. None of the KIs participating in this study knew of anyone actually prosecuted for violating ginseng harvest restrictions in Pennsylvania (e.g., ―No one cares and too hard to enforce‖

[sic]20), although all knew of instances where he/she or someone had violated a restriction

(e.g., ―Good but who can enforce this rule [referring to the ―stage‖ restriction]. I know people who pick every plant they find‖ [sic]21). A Bedford County KI summed it up this way: ―ginseng is an honor system; there is no enforcement.‖ A wildlife conservation officer with the Pennsylvania Game Commission shared the following related experience:

―Sang hunting is highly popular in Bedford County and much of it is done illegally. Several local people also cultivate it for sale. Some also plant and encourage it in their private woodlots. A few summers ago, I caught two men in a State Game Land with 219 roots, many from very small (immature) plants. This occurred in Late June. As a WCO for the PGC, I prosecuted them for one count of removing plants from the SGL and referred the case to DCNR. Nothing more was done. That is, no other action was taken by DCNR. This same thing has happened to me before when I reported a man for harvesting many large plants in early May. In actuality, there is no enforcement of the Pennsylvania laws protecting this important plant. That needs to change [sic]22.‖

20 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 21 Survey respondent (written comment from the instrument) 22 FGD ―enforcement,‖ Pennsylvania Game Commission (written communication)

85 Stakeholder experience is externally validated by DCNR reports submitted to FWS each year as part of CITES requirements; they confirm ―no violations have been recorded or prosecuted‖ since 2005 --- the year when the FWS began requesting information on ginseng-related violations on state export reporting forms (supplied by (PA DCNR 2005-

2010). These findings were also corroborated externally by recent multi-state monitoring efforts (which included wild ginseng populations in Pennsylvania) that found frequent harvest violations with no apparent enforcement (McGraw, Souther and Lubbers 2010).

Regarding enforcement of trade restrictions, 13 percent (n = 44/343) of survey respondents knew someone who is not a Pennsylvania resident but harvests ginseng in the state; of these, 48 percent (n = 21/44) indicated they did not know where these roots were sold. The remainder reported that roots were sold within Pennsylvania (32%, n =

14/44) or in another state (30%, n = 13/44) (Note: respondents could respond to more than one item and so percentages do not sum to 100%). Nearly half of KIs (48%, n =

12/25) and many FGD participants noted that the early (relative to surrounding states) season opening date in Pennsylvania facilitates and encourages illicit ginseng transport into the state ahead of the opening date in adjacent states. KIs living near state borders were especially familiar with interstate commerce and believed it was unavoidable. One

KI from the southern border region explained:

―Talked with 4 rooters [harvesters] today (July 30). They are not happy with [a licensed buyer] offering $250 lb. They all said they will sell in W. Va. These is po folk, they go where the money is, legal or otherwise, they have no choice [sic]23.‖

23 KI from Greene County, Pennsylvania (written communication)

86 Because interstate commerce without an accompanying license and certificate is prohibited by federal law, KIs revealed product is often recorded as originating from

Pennsylvania even when it is not. This obviously casts doubt upon the accuracy and reliability of existing trade data.

4.4 Stakeholder suggestions for improving enforcement

Ultimately, all of the stakeholders in this study believed that actual enforcement of ginseng restrictions and laws in Pennsylvania was lacking; however, while there was widespread sentiment among study participants that ginseng restrictions are not enforced, the ―patrolling‖ of private forestlands by DCNR or other government agencies was not generally supported. The principal reason for this was a widely shared belief in ―private property rights‖ and that private lands should be considered differently than public lands.

The following KI quote was representative of many study participant beliefs with respect to enforcement of a ―collection season,‖ for example, on private forestlands:

―Ginseng harvesters are like any other farmer in PA. They know the best time to harvest their crops. Noone tells my neighbor when to harvest his corn and beans. Why is that? We don‘t think the DCNR should tell us how or when to harvest the Ginseng we bought and planted on our own property! Do you honestly think we would harvest our Ginseng in June or July and waste all our seed stock and money? WILD GINSENG ON PUBLIC OR STATE LAND IS ONE THING. WILD ON OUR PROPERTIES IS ANOTHER. WE THINK THE RULES OF HARVEST SHOULD STATE THAT [sic]24!‖

KIs and FGD participants argued that state and local police should be better aware of and enabled to enforce violations upon landowner ―tips‖ or invitations. In these cases, DCNR

24 KI from Butler County, Pennsylvania (written communication)

87 would coordinate evidence gathering and cross-agency collaboration. This enforcement approach was supported by participants in the ―enforcement‖ FGD, who agreed that

―policing‖ private lands for ginseng ―crimes‖ is impractical. One participant offered the following advice:

―DCNR needs to distinguish between ―guidelines‖ versus ―regulations.‖ What is enforceable versus not enforceable (or unrealistic). A season is enforceable. Seed planting requirements and the ―three-prong rule‖ are questionable. DCNR needs to be confident that it knows what it is talking about. When public confidence waivers or regulations are perceived as unreasonable and/or unenforceable, widespread violations occur or are promoted [sic]25.‖

Another participant recommended: ―DCNR needs to determine whether a violation constitutes a ―way of life‖ or a criminal behavior. Criminal behaviors are more likely to be impacted by enforcement.‖ And, yet another FGD participant offered:

―DCNR needs to distinguish between ―infractions‖ versus ―crimes.‖ An example of an infraction would be harvesting plants while berries are green. A crime, on the other hand, would be theft from someone‘s property. The two are not the same and should warrant different punishment and enforcement efforts26.‖

There was a common consensus among all stakeholders that DCNR and government should first focus on building ―good will‖ with the ginseng industry by

―shifting from an enforcement mentality‖ toward an educational role. Buyer-traders suggested that DCNR work closely with them to distribute educational materials (e.g., annual newsletter with updates and stewardship guidelines) and improve information gathering about the industry. ―Take care of the dealers,‖ one buyer-trader KI offered,

―and the dealers will work for DCNR.‖ Another buyer-trader KI offered the following advice: ―Work with ginseng buyers as ―gate-keepers‖ to the local ginseng public…..Build

25 FGD ―enforcement,‖ Pennsylvania State Police (written communication) 26 FGD ―enforcement,‖ Pennsylvania State Police (verbal communication)

88 upon the buyer-collector relationship rather than try to invent a DCNR-collector relationship27.‖ Buyer-trader FGD participants proposed they should be recognized as an important link between government and public. ―Buyers,‖ one FGD participant noted,

―can serve as coaches and advise diggers‖ and added ―pressure from buyers can be important tool for changing behaviors28.‖ As an example, he explained that he reprimands collectors who bring in small or juvenile roots and suggested that by refusing to buy such roots, or plants collected out of season, he is able to dissuade collectors from engaging in these behaviors. Another FGD participant proposed: ―buyers can serve as communication liaisons much more effectively than DCNR since they are often more trusted by collectors29.‖

For this approach to be effective, participants from all FGDs warned that buyers must be ―vetted‖ and the unethical ones ―reined in‖ or they could undermine behavioral pressure created by ―ethical‖ buyers. When KIs and FGD participants were asked for suggestions on how to improve buyer-trader compliance, all suggested a combination of efforts was needed (e.g., ―carrot and stick‖ or ―double barreled‖ approach) with both benefits and penalties. The following advice was given by an ―enforcement‖ FGD participant:

―DCNR needs to better scrutinize dealers. If dealers are not complying with laws then the criminals will have a mechanism/impetus for violating as well. DCNR should take seriously any reports of dealer violations and investigate. Dealers who receive stolen ginseng, for example, should be prosecuted and the case should be ―high profile‖ in newspapers around the state. DCNR needs to cite dealers or revoke dealer licenses for those who do not complete paperwork properly and completely. PA Fish and

27 FGD ―buyer-trader‖ from Fayette County, Pennsylvania (verbal communication) 28 FGD ―buyer-trader‖ from Wisconsin (verbal communication) 29 FGD ―buyer-trader‖ from Somerset County, Pennsylvania (verbal communication)

89 Boat Commission, for example, will commonly cite fishing license vendors and buyers for not completely filling out required information. There is no slack given. If DCNR goes after the 10 percent of violators, then the remaining 90 percent will do it right30.‖

4.5 Stakeholder perspectives regarding ginseng conservation in general

An important finding from this study was that KIs unanimously shared a frustration that government agencies such as DCNR and FWS seemingly ―target‖ ginseng collectors/planters through a regulatory approach while ignoring the broader issues relating to ginseng habitat loss and degradation. DCNR and government policy was viewed as inconsistent, a view that one FGD member summed up by asking: ―Should vulnerable plants only be vulnerable because of collectors?31‖ For a few KIs (12%, n =

3/25), the ―targeting‖ of collectors was attributed to collusion between industry and government. One KI, for example, wrote the following:

―I have hunted ginseng since 1937. We hunted ginseng to buy hunting and fishing supplies. I have hunted since retiring in 1988 to stay in shape, and to locate turkey and deer hunting areas. I walk in the mountains 4 to 8 hours a day, fishing, hunting, berry picking, mountain biking and ginseng picking and just hiking. You are forty to fifty years too late to save the ginseng. You should concentrate on saving the forests in order to save the ginseng. The timber, coal, insurance, and politician lobyiests are in control of DCNR and Pa. Game Comission. Those who are to protect are ruining the forests [sic]32.‖

These and other similar comments received during this study highlight an important public confidence related challenge regarding ginseng conservation efforts --- one which emanates from a perceived failure of natural resource agencies such as DCNR to recognize and stop ginseng habitat loss. For many KIs (92%, n = 23/25), failure to

30 FGD ―enforcement,‖ Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (verbal communication) 31 FGD ―buyer-trader‖ from Fayette County, Pennsylvania (verbal communication) 32 KI from Blair County, Pennsylvania (written communication)

90 address habitat loss and degradation serves as justification to adopt critical attitudes toward any government involvement in the trade. Pokladnik (2008) found similar stakeholder frustrations in her ginseng ―poaching‖ study in Appalachia, with study participants suggesting that the government should recognize habitat destruction (e.g.,

―mountaintop removal‖) as a type of ginseng ―poaching.‖ One KI in the present study admonished: ―The government should enforce its own regulations against itself!33‖

Accurate or not, the perception of disproportionate scrutiny of ginseng collectors and planters, without equal attention to habitat loss and degradation, undermine compliance with harvest restrictions and other laws intended to foster stewardship in the industry.

During the 2006 ―enforcement‖ FGD, an officer offered the following advice: ―Collectors have no impetus to protect the resource if resource agencies do not. There needs to be attention given to protection of ginseng habitat or DCNR will not be able to ―sell‖ stewardship to the public34.‖ Similarly, a KI (and veteran law enforcement officer) shared the following perspective:

―Habitat loss and woodland clearing are the greatest threats to Pennsylvania‘s wild ginseng population. Wildcrafters do not pose as great a risk to wild Pennsylvania ginseng as land developers. If the resource is truly to be protected, habitat loss and clearing of wild ginseng sites must be regulated above all else. Some of our law-abiding natural resources agencies are more destructive to ginseng than law-abiding wildcrafters. There are places on state land where ginseng has been mowed and cut away so trails ―look nice‖. I have seen ginseng patches bulldozed for buildings on several occasions. Wildcrafters rarely dig a colony of ginseng out of existence. Bulldozers always do [sic]35.‖

33 KI from Cambria County, Pennsylvania (verbal communication) 34 FGD ―enforcement,‖ Pennsylvania State Police (verbal communication) 35 FGD ―enforcement,‖ Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (verbal communication)

91 This view was affirmed by survey results in that at least two-thirds of survey respondents cited ―timber removal‖ (68%) and ―land development‖ (66%) as activities that they had personally observed leading to the ―elimination‖ of ginseng from collection/planting areas (Table 3.4) and by broader findings such as a 2003 Brookings Institution Center on

Urban and Metropolitan Policy report which indicated that 1.1 million acres of ―natural land‖ was developed in Pennsylvania between 1982 and 1997. A 2004 forest inventory analysis found that more than 663,000 acres of forestland were lost to residential and industrial development in Pennsylvania between 1989 and 2004, a rate of about 44,000 acres annually (McWilliams et al. 2007).

While habitat loss and degradation were most commonly cited by study participants as ―threats‖ to ginseng in Pennsylvania, there was also widespread acknowledgement that improper and/or unethical collection practices were also problems

(Table 3.4). In the survey results, ―collection by diggers‖ was considered a threat by more than half (60%) of respondents. KIs and FGD participants widely shared the belief that while there are ―bad diggers,‖ they are fewer in number than ―good diggers.‖ KIs frequently asserted that ginseng collectors and planters were important for conserving the species because of their local knowledge of ―patches‖ and their active attentiveness to planting berries and seeds in these patches. One KI, for example, wrote the following related anecdote:

―Ginseng when I was a kid was ¼ of our living. All day digging was generally 8 to 10 lbs green. We always planted the berries. Almost always we stuck the stem with berries on it down in the ground and the berries then would ripen and onto that loose ground and nature did the rest. We would come back apast where we stuck stem in the ground in a couple yrs and see one prongers everywhere close together. Every year

92 we hunted over the same territory, this shows we done the right thing. I‘ve told people all my life how to plant ginseng berries [sic]36.‖

Such assertions are supported by harvest models that suggest conscientious harvesters/planters can strongly enhance population growth rates and thus long-term viability of harvested patches or populations (Van der Voort and McGraw 2006).

36 KI, Somerset County, Pennsylvania (written communication)

93 Table 3.4 Survey respondent (i.e., collectors, planters and buyers) observations regarding the reasons for loss of wild ginseng in Pennsylvania (n = 349). Respondents were asked to respond to an activity only if they had personally observed it had caused losses or extirpation of ginseng from an area.

Yes No

Timber removal 68% (n = 238) 32% (n = 111)

Herbicide applications on forestlands 13% (n = 45) 87% (n = 304)

Surface mining 48% (n = 167) 52% (n = 182)

Land development 66% (n = 230) 34% (n = 119)

Deer browsing 25% (n = 87) 75% (n = 262)

Competition from other plants 23% (n = 79) 77% (n = 270)

Collection by diggers: 60% (n = 208) 40% (n = 141)

Harvest out of season (n = 208) 61% (n = 126) 39% (n = 82)

Not planting seed from harvested plants (n = 208) 54% (n = 113) 46% (n = 95)

Harvest before berries are ripe (n = 208) 77% (n = 160) 23% (n = 48)

Harvest of young plants (n = 208) 75% (n = 155) 25% (n = 53)

Harvest of too many plants in an area (n = 208) 74% (n = 154) 26% (n = 54)

94 5.0 Synthesis and implications

Although Pennsylvania‘s wild American ginseng industry has been regulated for more than 20 years, there has never been any solicitation for stakeholder input on the appropriateness or efficacy of existing regulations. This study represents the first effort to gather such input. In doing so, I found general support for existing harvest restrictions among all stakeholders, with the strongest support indicated for a restriction stipulating that berries must be mature (i.e., red) before plants are harvested. Support for harvest restrictions generally declined in survey results as stakeholder age and experience increased, suggesting that both play a role in stakeholder acceptance and compliance.

When asked about these interactions, KIs frequently asserted that older stakeholders were less accepting of regulations because they resented recent government involvement, having lived during unregulated historical times, while those with greater experience were allegedly less likely to agree with regulations because of the unreliability or impracticality of harvest restrictions when compared with actual ―real-world‖ scenarios gained through experience.

While I found general support for government harvest restrictions, participants in this study widely shared the belief that harvest restrictions are ―irrelevant in the woods‖ and only reinforce existing stewardship behaviors (where they exist) rather than encourage them. KIs and FGD participants across stakeholder groups (including members of the ―enforcement‖ community) believed restrictions are in practice

―unenforceable‖ and thus collection and husbandry represent ―a scout‘s honor tradition,‖ especially on private lands. This emic is externally validated by the fact that enforcement

95 in Pennsylvania is constrained by complex jurisdictional boundaries resulting in the inability of DCNR to enforce harvest restrictions on private lands. Even if these issues regarding jurisdiction were resolved, however, the extensive land-base to ―police‖ (~16.6 million acres) suggests that such efforts would continue to challenge limited personnel and resources indefinitely into the future. Due to these limitations, stakeholders suggested that Pennsylvania DCNR focus on ‗scrutinizing‘ licensed buyer-traders and build relationships with those ―ethical‖ buyer-traders who can serve as ―liaisons‖ and/or

―coaches‖ with the public. It was contended that ethical buyer-traders can discourage unsustainable behaviors more effectively than restrictions by simply refusing to purchase juvenile roots or roots collected out of season, for example.

Underlying these circumstances, this study uncovered a widely shared stakeholder emic that government agencies seemingly focus on collectors as the primary threat to ginseng, without paying equal or more attention to loss of ginseng through continued habitat conversion and/or degradation. This perception, accurate or not, generates considerable friction between stakeholders and government agencies in charge of wild ginseng management with the consequence that disregard and/or distrust of government driven regulatory efforts exists throughout this industry.

The most common suggestion for conserving ginseng documented in this study, supported by all KIs and FGD participants, is to involve stakeholders proactively as

―partners‖ in planting and restoration (―conservation through cultivation‖ approach, c.f.

Alcorn 1995). All KIs believed that such an approach would help to ―take the pressure off‖ of any remaining wild populations and suggested that such efforts would ideally be aided by ―government sponsored‖ planting stock supply programs developed using

96 regionally sourced, nursery propagated genetic material. In the absence of any stock supply program(s), stakeholders suggested that ―government‖ agencies should at least support planting and cultivation on private forestlands by recognizing forest-based ginseng production as a legitimate, albeit incipient, industry and better align ginseng management programs so that this industry can operate more transparently and securely in the future. Nearly all study participants, regardless of stakeholder group, believed the only way to counter overexploitation and habitat loss (both considered inevitable) is to increase the amount of ginseng planted on forestlands via ―stocking‖ or agroforestry

(e.g., ―forest farming‖) programs, rather than by ―piling-on‖ regulations. Moreover, stakeholders believed strongly that additional regulations, or a CITES ban on exports, would serve to ―drive the good people out‖ of this industry resulting in ―black market trade‖ and acrimonious relations between government agencies such as DCNR and FWS and private citizens who might have otherwise helped to contribute to ginseng‘s preservation through partnerships.

In conclusion, the impact of a CITES-driven ―top-down‖ regulatory approach to wild ginseng conservation appears to be largely ineffectual as currently implemented in

Pennsylvania. Moreover, this scenario is not likely to change due to deeply embedded cultural emics (e.g., the primacy of personal experience over government regulation) as well as practical constraints to enforcement (e.g., limited jurisdiction and personnel, challenges in enforcing harvest restrictions). The willingness of many stakeholders to act as partners in ―bottom-up‖ ginseng planting and restoration efforts should be explored by

Pennsylvania DCNR (and similar agencies in other states) as a proactive mechanism for achieving greater conservation gains than are probably currently attainable through the

97 existing ―top-down‖ regulatory approach. The inclusion of planting programs as part of any comprehensive conservation effort is not without precedent with CITES listed plants, particularly where socio-economic drivers underlie wild exploitation (c.f., Entwistle et al.

2002, Pandey et al. 2007). This approach to wild plant conservation also has the potential to concomitantly contribute to sustainable livelihoods in forested regions of

Pennsylvania (and the eastern US) by providing economic incentives for forest retention and stewardship on privately-owned lands (Brennan, Luloff and Finley 2005, Burkhart and Jacobson 2009).

References

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. 2005. The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. In:

Albarracín, D., B. T. Johnson and M. P. Zanna (eds), The Handbook of Attitudes.

Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Ajzen, I. and N. G. Cote. 2008. Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior. In: Crano,

W.D. and R. Prislin (eds), Attitudes and Attitude Change. Psychology Press, New

York, NY.

Alcorn, J.B. 1995. Economic Botany, Conservation, and Development: What‘s the

Connection? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 82: 34-46.

Anderson, R.C. 2003. Wild American Ginseng Root Weight and Plant Age Comparison.

Presentation given at USFWS American ginseng meeting, held February 19-21 at

Missouri Botanical Gardens, St. Louis, MO. Available from FWS.

Assinewe, V.A., B.R. Baum, D. Gagnon, and J.T. Arnason. 2003. Phytochemistry of

98 Wild Populations of Panax quinquefolius L. (North American Ginseng). Journal

of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51: 4549-4553.

Bilger, B. 2002. Wild Sang: Rangers, Poachers, and Roots that Cost a Thousand Dollars

a Pound. The New Yorker (July 15): 38+

Blankenship, K. 2005. Picked to Death: Ginseng‘s Popularity at the Root of its Woes.

Keystone Wild! Notes (Summer): 1, 4-5.

Blundell, A.G. 2007. Implementing CITES Regulations for Timber. Ecological

Applications 17(2): 323-330.

Bourne, J. 2000. On the Trail of the ‗Sang Poachers. Audubon (Mar-Apr): 84-91.

Brennan, M.A., A.E. Luloff, and J.C. Finley. 2005. Building Sustainable Communities

in Forested Regions. Society and Natural Resources 18:779–789.

Burkhart, E. 2003. Pennsylvania Ginseng Study: Can You Contribute? Pennsylvania

Forests 94 (1): 4.

Burkhart, E.P. and M.G. Jacobson. 2005. Taking Stock of Ginseng. Pennsylvania Game

News 76 (2): 29-31.

Burkhart, E.P. and M.G. Jacobson. 2009. Transitioning from Wild Collection to Forest

Cultivation of Indigenous Medicinal Forest Plants in Eastern North America is

Constrained by Lack of Profitability. Agroforestry Systems 76 (2): 437-453.

Charron, D., and D. Gagnon. 1991. The Demography of Northern Populations of Panax

quinquefolius (American Ginseng). Journal of Ecology 79: 431-445.

CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora. 2010. Available on the internet at: http://www.cites.org/ Last accessed:

July 2010.

99 Corbin, J.E. 2002. Conservation of Species by Protective Marking. Native Plants

Journal 3 (2): 98-99.

Creswell, J. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches, Third edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: the Tailored Design Method, Second

edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Entwistle, A., S. Atay, A. Byfield, and S. Oldfield. 2002. Alternatives for the Bulb

Trade from Turkey: a Case Study of Indigenous Bulb Propagation. Oryx 36(4):

333-341.

Farrington, S.J. 2006. An Ecological Study of American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius

L.) in the Missouri Ozark Highlands: Effects of Herbivory and Harvest,

Ecological Characterization and Wild Simulated Cultivation. Master of Science

Thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia.

FWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. American Ginseng Exports

from the United States. Data obtained from Division of Scientific Authority by

request.

Guo, Y.P., W.G. Bailey and K.B. van Dalfsen. 1995. North American Ginseng (Panax

quinquefolium L.) Root Grading. Pages 380-389 in W.G. Bailey, C. Whitehead,

J.T.A. Proctor and J.T. Kyle, eds. Proceedings of the International Ginseng Conference –

Vancouver 1994 ―The Challenges of the 21st Century.‖ Simon Fraser University,

Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Hu, S.Y. 1976. The Genus Panax (Ginseng) in Chinese Medicine. Economic Botany

30: 11-28.

100 Lewis, W.H. 1987. Root Weight of Panax quinquefolium (Araliaceae) Correlated with

Age and Leaf Morphology. Economic Botany 41 (4): 523-524.

Lim, W., K.W. Mudge, and F. Vermeylen. 2005. Effects of Population, Age, and

Cultivation Methods on Ginsenoside Content of Wild American Ginseng (Panax

quinquefolium). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53: 8498-8505.

McGraw, J.B., S. Souther, and A.E. Lubbers. 2010. Rates of Harvest and Compliance

with Regulations in Natural Populations of American Ginseng (Panax

quinquefolius L.). Natural Areas Journal 30: 202-210.

McGraw, J.B., M.A. Furedi, K. Maiers, C. Carroll, G. Kauffman, A. Lubbers, J. Wolf,

R.C. Anderson, M.R. Anderson, B. Wilcox, D. Drees, M.E. Van Der Voort, M.A.

Albrecht, A. Nault, H. MacCulloch, and A. Gibbs. 2005. Berry Ripening and

Harvest Season in Wild American Ginseng. Northeastern Naturalist 12 (2): 141-

152.

McWilliams, W.H., S.P. Cassell, C.L. Alerich, B.J. Butler, M.L. Hoppus, S.B. Horsley,

A.J. Lister, T.W. Lister, R.S. Morin, C.H. Perry, J.A. Westfall, E.H. Wharton and

C.W. Woodall. 2007. Pennsylvania‘s Forest, 2004. Resour. Bull. NRS-20.

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern

Research Station.

Mulhollem, J. 2004. Trying to Get a Handle of Ginseng Culture. PennState Agriculture

(Fall): 4-5.

Nantel, P., D. Gagnon, and A. Nault. 1996. Population Viability Analysis of American

Ginseng and Wild Leek Harvested in Stochastic Environments. Conservation

Biology 10 (2): 608-621.

101 PA DCNR - Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2010.

Pennsylvania Ginseng Export Program: 1989-2009 Harvest/Export Reports.

Harrisburg, PA.

Pandey, H., S.K. Nandi, A. Kumar, U.T. Palni, and L.M.S. Palni. 2007. Podophyllotoxin

Content in Podophyllum hexandrum Royle Plants of Known Age of Seed Origin

and Grown at a Lower Altitude. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 29 (2): 121-126.

Pokladnik, R.J. 2008. Roots and Remedies of Ginseng Poaching in Central Appalachia.

PhD dissertation, Environmental Studies, Antioch University, New England.

Robbins, C.S. 1998. American Ginseng: the Root of North America‘s Medicinal Herb

Trade. TRAFFIC North America, Washington, D.C.

Robbins, C.S. 2000. Comparative Analysis of Management Regimes and Medicinal

Plants Trade Monitoring Mechanisms for American Ginseng and Goldenseal.

Conservation Biology 14 (5): 1422-1434.

Roy, R.C., R. Grohs, and R.D. Reeleder. 2003. A Method for Classification by Shape of

Dried Roots of Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.). Canadian Journal of Plant

Science 83: 955-958.

Shepherd, C.R., and Nijman, V. 2008. The Trade in Bear Parts from Myanmar: an

Illustration of the Ineffectiveness of Enforcement of International Wildlife Trade

Regulations. Biodiversity Conservation 17: 35-42.

Stewart, K. 2009. Effects of Bark Harvest and Other Human Activity on Populations of

the African Cherry (Prunus africana) on Mount Oku, Cameroon. Forest Ecology

and Management 258 (2009) 1121–1128.

The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. 2003. Back to

102 Prosperity: A Competitive Agenda for Renewing Pennsylvania. Full report

available on the internet at:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2003/12metropolitanpolicy_pennsylvania.aspx

Last accessed July 2010.

Van der Voort, M.E., B. Bailey, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. McGraw. 2003. Recovery of

Populations of Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.) and American Ginseng

(Panax quinquefolius L.) Following Harvest. The American Midland Naturalist

149: 282-292.

Van der Voort, M.E. and J.B. McGraw. 2006. Effects of Harvester Behavior on

Population Growth Rate Affects Sustainability of Ginseng Trade. Biological

Conservation 130: 505-516.

Vaske, J.J. 2008. Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation and

Human Dimensions. Venture Publishing, State College, PA.

Walsh, B.W. 2005. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora: a CITES Timeline. Selbyana 26(1): 92-102.

Weisberg, H.F. 2005. The Total Survey Error Approach: A Guide to the New Science of

Survey Research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

103 Chapter 4

―Stocking the hunting ground:” Insights into the supply of “wild” ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) from Pennsylvania, U.S.A., and implications regarding the lexicon surrounding an important internationally traded non-timber forest product.

Abstract

Pennsylvania is one of nineteen states in the United States of America (U.S.A.) that exports wild American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) roots into the international marketplace under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) treaty. Given concerns over the sustainability of this trade, there is an urgent need to better understand the wild supply chain along with any husbandry involved in the production of exported roots. I conducted a mixed methods study using a survey instrument and key informant (KI) interviews to gather information from people involved in the sale of wild ginseng in Pennsylvania between 2002 and 2009. Results indicate that a variety of husbandry practices are used to produce ginseng which ultimately is sold and traded as ―wild,‖ ranging from intensive agroforestry (e.g., ―forest farming‖) to enrichment plantings (e.g., ―stocking‖ of collection areas). Survey data gathered annually between 2004 and 2006, for example, suggest at least half of the wild ginseng from Pennsylvania may originate from husbandry/collection activities involving intentional planting on forestlands. Similarly, KIs interviewed between 2004 and 2009 shared a variety of practices they use to produce roots ultimately sold as ―wild.‖ KIs revealed that questionable buyer-trader purchasing behaviors and/or concerns over theft (i.e., ―poaching‖) continue to fuel secrecy surrounding ginseng husbandry. Moreover, most KIs did not distinguish between wild ginseng raised from wild-harvested parent plants and ―wild‖ ginseng originating from stock obtained from commercial suppliers. Such a scenario presents a dilemma regarding interpretation of ―wild‖ harvest trends because current industry reporting mechanisms in Pennsylvania, and within CITES, are unable to account for the complex range of husbandry practices used, and which often result in ―wild‖ appearing roots. Given this complexity, and seller concerns, I suggest that Pennsylvania (and other states) include a confidential reporting mechanism (e.g., survey) in point-of-sale paperwork to help clarify exports. This instrument should use language that simplifies, rather than further complicates, the lexicon surrounding this unique non-timber forest product.

104 1.0 Introduction

For more than one-thousand years, the genus Panax has been valued in eastern

Asia for its purported tonifying properties (Hu 1976, Hu 1977). While indigenous to eastern North American forestlands, American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) is now similarly esteemed as a result of nearly 300 years of trade (Carlson 1986, Evans 1985,

Lass 1969, Schorger 1969). American ginseng (hereafter referred to as ginseng) is a perennial herb, requiring at least three growing seasons to reach reproductive or harvestable stages under cultivation (OMAFRA 2005). Five or more years may be required under natural habitat conditions to reach the same harvestable stage (Anderson et al. 1993, Carpenter and Cottam 1982). When collected for commercial sale, the entire root and attached short rhizome (known as the ―neck‖ or ―querl‖) are generally taken, resulting in plant mortality. Regeneration and recruitment occurs primarily through sexual means, with seed production and seedling survival being important, and often constraining, life history traits (Charron and Gagnon 1991, Lewis and Zenger 1982).

Collector attention to population structure (i.e., growth stages present) and harvest restraint are necessary for continuous, sustained harvests (Van der Voort and McGraw

2006). Even given proper attention, recovery rates can be slow, and years of ―rest‖ between harvests may be required on wild sites (Lewis 1988).

Because ginseng may be easily overexploited as a wild-harvested plant, it is currently included under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). To meet treaty obligations, the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as the management authority in the

105 U.S.A., requires all export states track commerce for purposes of gauging long-term trends in individual state exports. In response, export states have developed permitting or licensing programs for ginseng buyers-traders to gather commerce data through point-of- sale paperwork. Stakeholder (i.e., buyer-trader and seller) honesty and a willingness to disclose information about their product are critical for accurate data collection through these programs. State programs generally do not have ways to verify the factualness of information gathered via these buyer-seller transaction logs, particularly regarding root origin and how they were produced (Robbins 1998).

Of the nineteen states that legally export wild ginseng from the U.S.A.,

Pennsylvania (PA) is a steady albeit minor contributor, ranking between eighth and fourteenth relative to other export states (Table 4.1). Since the late 1980s, the

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) has been responsible for tracking wild ginseng trade in Pennsylvania. Between 1990 and 2009, the annual certified export harvest from Pennsylvania was between 915 and 4,236 dry pounds.

County level trade data indicate the majority of ginseng originates from the western half of the state, with 13 counties in this region each having cumulative 1991-

2009 harvests totaling more than 1,000 pounds (Figure 4.1). Collectively, these 13 counties account for more than half the recorded historic (beginning in 1989) harvest of

46,039 pounds (PA DCNR 2010). All but one (e.g., Westmoreland) of the counties are classified as ―rural‖ (Center for Rural PA 2010). Of the state‘s 67 counties, only

Philadelphia County is without any recorded ginseng harvest since records have been kept (although the plant has historically been documented there). Fayette County has

106 been the greatest source of wild ginseng exports with a total of 3,744 pounds recorded between 1991 and 2009.

Because of concerns surrounding the exploitation of wild ginseng, there is an urgent need to better understand how wild ginseng markets are supplied. As with other states that export wild ginseng (Leinwald 2007), Pennsylvania (i.e., the PA DCNR) struggles to understand the supply brought to market for export each year and the behaviors underlying the often erratic reported annual trade. Demand by Asian consumers, in particular, for roots exhibiting ―wild‖ traits, as determined by taste, shape, color, and texture (Guo, Bailey and van Dalfson 1995, Roy, Grohs and Reeleder 2003) continues to drive a unique management scenario in which there is impetus for public adoption of husbandry practices resulting in wild-appearing roots. The market price, for example, for wild-appearing ginseng roots continues to be as much as 100 times greater than for cultivated roots (Burkhart and Jacobson 2009). In response to this demand, which shows no signs of abating, there is ample guidance available for those interested in producing so-called ―wild-simulated‖ ginseng on forestlands including books (c.f., Epler

1985, Persons and Davis 2005, Pritts 1995), magazine articles (c.f. Brewer 1990), and

Cooperative Extension publications (c.f., Beyfuss 2000, Burkhart and Jacobson 2007,

Hankins 2000). It is therefore increasingly possible that much of the ―wild‖ ginseng exported from Pennsylvania is intentionally husbanded on forestlands rather than gathered from spontaneously occurring wild populations.

107

Table 4.1 Total wild American ginseng root exports from Pennsylvania (PA), 1989-2009, estimated plants harvested, and comparison with total exports from the United States of America (U.S.A).

Certified Number of Number of Certified root PA rank (out Percentage of total Year exports from roots per pound plants exports from of 19 export exports from PA * (dry wt) * harvested ** U.S. *** states) U.S.A.

1989 2,226 no data 480,649 107,217 12 2.1% 1990 4,236 no data 914,658 129,027 10 3.3% 1991 2,036 no data 439,559 128,440 14 1.6% 1992 3,122 no data 674,161 159,197 12 2% 1993 3,361 no data 725,724 101,542 10 3.3% 1994 3,463 no data 747,662 125,153 9 2.8% 1995 2,744 no data 592,563 129,856 11 2.1% 1996 2,859 168 480,396 144,158 12 2% 1997 2,829 235 664,815 110,164 11 2.6% 1998 1,722 232 399,411 65,941 10 2.6% 1999 2,481 191 473,852 66,724 8 3.7% 2000 2,028 no data 437,982 75,430 11 2.7% 2001 1,604 190 304,741 73,565 11 2.2% 2002 1,711 228 390,017 59,687 12 2.7% 2003 920 213 195,960 78,153 14 1.8% 2004 1,029 248 254,834 60,246 13 1.7% 2005 915 215 196,268 44,920 12 2% 2006 1,355 242 327,837 54,499 11 2.5% 2007 1,947 225 438,075 59,279 10 3.3% 2008 1,838 205 376,606 59,537 11 3.1% 2009 1,614 194 313,116

Data sources: * Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR 2010) ** Calculated as: pounds × number of roots per pound. Years without roots per pound data available are calculated as pounds × average number of roots per pound using an average of existing PA DCNR data (= 214.2 roots per pound) *** United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 (FWS)

108 I conducted a concurrent mixed methods study incorporating a survey instrument and key informant interviews to gather information from stakeholders (collector, planter- grower, buyer-trader) involved in the sale of wild ginseng from Pennsylvania.

Specifically, I asked the following research questions: (1) How much of the wild ginseng exported from Pennsylvania is produced through intentional plant husbandry versus gathered from spontaneously occurring populations?; (2) What are the origins of any husbandry stock and what are stakeholders attitudes towards genetic provenance or origins?; and (3) Are existing ginseng trade reporting mechanisms appropriate and, if not, how might they be improved to better reflect the supply of ―wild‖ ginseng from

Pennsylvania? My goal in undertaking this research was not only to develop information to assist Pennsylvania DCNR in their management of this unique industry, but also to determine what changes might be needed to best support a ―conservation through cultivation‖ (c.f., Alcorn 1995) approach to plant conservation in the state.

109

43

18 2 10 20 16 7 27 47 60 37 33 51 41 55 48 32 62 34 46 31 52 15 61 57 58 24 12 64 39 9 59 8 50 54 42 19 44 66 6 17 29 14 30 13 38 35 23 22 49 45 5 21 56 53 25 67 3 4 65 1 40 26 28 63 11 36

Figure 4.1 County ranks according to the total quantity of ginseng (dry lbs) reported between 1991 and 2009. Shading indicates counties with a cumulative recorded harvest of more than 1,000 pounds (dry weight). Cumulative harvest weights per county range from none recorded (#67, Philadelphia) to 4,744 pounds (#1, Fayette).

110

2.0 Research methods

This study utilized a concurrent triangulated mixed methods approach (Cresswell

2009) to data collection by simultaneously using of a survey instrument and key informant interviews. Specifically, the survey instrument served to quantify behaviors pertinent to ginseng husbandry and supply chains while key informant interviews were concomitantly conducted to elucidate values and beliefs underlying practices and behaviors (Cresswell 2009, Vaske 2008).

2.1 Sample frame identification

The main sample frame used for survey distribution was identified in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

(PA DCNR), which provided names and addresses gathered under their ―Vulnerable

Plant‖ licensing program between 1990 and 2006. In this program, transaction logs containing names and addresses of individuals who sold ginseng during the previous year are annually submitted to DCNR by licensed buyers-traders. Limitations to this sample frame were consequently: this sample does not include individuals involved with ginseng who did not buy or sell during this period; individuals involved with ginseng who did not have a commercial focus (and thus failed to show up in the log as ―sellers‖); and individuals producing/harvesting inside Pennsylvania but selling in another state (albeit technically unlawful). To help compensate for these limitations, a second sample frame

111 was developed by combining targeted media and outreach activities. Between 2003 and

2007, this study was featured in numerous outdoor magazine and newspaper articles appealing for public participation (e.g., Blankenship 2005, Burkhart 2003, Burkhart and

Jacobson 2005, Mulhollem 2004). Key informants were frequently solicited using

―snowball sampling‖ through methods further described in the following sections. In snowball sampling, existing study subjects recruit future subjects from among their acquaintances. This sampling technique can often be helpful in accessing hidden

―populations‖ which are difficult for researchers to access (Weisburg 2005).

2.2 Key informant interviews

The key informant (KI) method is based on obtaining information from a community resident who is in a position to know the community as a whole, or a particular portion of interest (Cresswell 2009). Between 2004 and 2009, 25 KI interviews were conducted with individuals from three ―ginseng community‖ stakeholder groups in Pennsylvania: collectors (n = 10), planters-growers (n = 10) and buyers-traders

(n = 5). Each KI was purposefully selected (Cresswell 2009) based upon the following criteria: (1) he/she must have had at least ten years of experience with ginseng or the ginseng trade; (2) he/she was considered to be a ―very knowledgeable‖ informant by others encountered during the course of this study (i.e., ―recommended‖ as someone to interview, i.e., ―snowball sampling‖); (3) he/she considered him/herself to be

―representative‖ or ―typical‖ of his/her regional ginseng network or community (with an effort made to include KIs from around the state); and (4) he/she was predominantly from

112 one stakeholder category since it is common for roles to overlap (e.g., collectors might also be planters and/or buyers-traders and vice versa).

Interviews with KIs were semi-structured and occurred at private residences and/or on forestlands via ―forest walks‖ and/or ―ginseng hunts.‖ Each interview consisted of eight to twelve questions relating to ginseng conservation efforts. Some questions were open-ended probes (e.g., ―How long have you been planting ginseng?‖) while others were more targeted (e.g., ―Where/How have you obtained planting stock?‖)(Refer to Appendix A for the complete list of questions). Each KI was interviewed on at least two occasions between 2004 and 2009, with each interview lasting from one to three hours. Multiple interviews with KIs were conducted to develop a relationship with them to garner trust and honesty and also to allow for iterative exploration of important themes/findings. Notes were taken either concurrently or immediately subsequent to each interview. KIs were invited to submit perspective and experience (e.g., stories) using written comments. When included in the discussion that follows, these are identified through the use quotations or blocked text with footnotes.

Those included were included because they represent summative and broadly shared stakeholder perspectives.

2.3 Survey development and delivery

Discussions with DCNR along with a literature review (both academic and popular) were used to guide survey topic, question, and language usage. A draft survey was pre-tested with 10 stakeholders (i.e., collectors, planters and dealers) who were

113 solicited early in the study to help identify and address instrument ambiguities. The final survey consisted of 12 pages, containing 40 questions organized into four sections) (See

Appendix J for the full instrument). Question formats included 3-point Likert scales

(e.g., very important, important, not important), binary response (e.g., agree/disagree, yes/no), and requests for short explanations. A four-stage survey delivery method (i.e.,

―Tailored Design Method‖) was used to encourage a high return rate (Dillman 2000).

During the first stage, a letter was sent by Pennsylvania DCNR to households notifying individuals a survey was forthcoming along with an appeal for participation (See

Appendix E). During the second stage, a cover letter (Appendix F), survey (Appendix J), and return postcard (Appendix G) were mailed to individuals as a packet. Approximately three weeks after this packet was mailed, a reminder postcard (Appendix H) was sent to households, representing a third stage. In the fourth and final stage all households that had not returned a survey were sent a second survey packet with a final letter of appeal for participation (Appendix I). Surveys were annually distributed to new participants over a three year period (2004-2006) representing a cross-sectional rather than a longitudinal sampling approach (Vaske 2008, Weisburg 2005).

The survey instrument, and associated letters and solicitation methods, were approved by the Pennsylvania State University Office for Research Protections (IRB project# 20703).

2.4 Data analysis and validation

114 Survey responses from each year were coded according to the year received (i.e.,

2004, 2005, 2006) and sampling frame (e.g., DCNR transaction logs, individual requests) when compiled to create a master data set. Responses to each survey question were analyzed using year and sampling frame as variables of interest to determine if any differences in question responses might be associated with these variables or if it would be reasonable to pool all respondents for greater analytical power. No significant differences were found for any survey questions according to year or sampling frame and thus data were pooled for analysis.

The continuous variables age and number of years collecting and/or planting were recoded into three discrete categories for analysis. This was done because numerous KIs suggested different attitudes and/or behaviors are associated with these variables

(discussed further in section 4.1). Category breaks were selected to permit examination of possible response differences based upon levels of experience (1-10 years = inexperienced, 11-30 = experienced, 31+ = very experienced) and/or age group (18-40,

41-60, 61+ years of age), while providing for sufficient samples in each partition.

Additional categorical variables examined in relation to question response were region of residence (SW, NW, SC, NC, SE, NE) and whether or not respondents owned forestlands

(yes, no). Chi-square Tests of Independence were used to test for relationships between categories and question response. Binary logistic regression was used to develop odds ratios for significant response differences between categories, as well as for the continuous variables respondent age and number of years collecting or planting. The

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (v. 15, SPSS Inc. 2007) was used for data analysis with the significance level set at 10% (i.e., P ≤ .10).

115 KI interview text transcripts were studied for attitudes, opinions, experiences, and recommendations regarding government conservation efforts and regulations. Once identified, these were numerically coded for basic statistical analysis to identify the most widespread and representative (Cresswell 2009). Results from this analysis are included in the results and discussion alongside survey results and the percentage of KIs who shared a particular attitude, view, or experience is given. I include direct quotations from KIs where these serve to highlight shared attitudes, ideas, or suggestions. These quotes are attributed via footnotes to indicate a survey comment or

KI contribution. To protect the confidentiality of study participants, KI participant names are not included.

In accordance with the concurrent triangulation approach (Cresswell 2009) adopted in this study, results from all KI research activities were compared after summarizing with each other, and with survey results, to cross-validate key findings, themes, attitudes, and experiences. Results from KI findings are presented alongside survey results in the following sections to provide both quantitative and qualitative understanding and insights into the major social phenomena uncovered by this mixed- methods research approach.

3.0 Results and Discussion

3.1 Survey response rates

116 Of the 1,184 surveys that were mailed to postal addresses between 2004 and

2006, 383 (32%) had been returned by the conclusion of the survey period (January 1,

2007). Fourteen surveys were excluded from the sample due to insufficient completion, or because the survey could not be linked to a legitimate name and address. This resulted in final sample size of 369 surveys. In a cover letter included with each survey, it was explained that individuals could refuse to answer any question if they were not comfortable with it. This, and the fact that not all survey sections and questions were applicable to a respondent, altered the sample size for each question.

Most surveys were received during 2004 and 2005, comprising 41% (n = 150) and 43% (n = 158) of the pooled sample, respectively. A much lower return rate (16%, n

= 61) followed in 2006. Survey return rates ranged from 30 (dealer transaction logs) to

81 (individual requests) percent and averaged 37 percent when delivery methods were pooled. Most (71%, n = 263) survey participants were solicited from DCNR dealer transaction logs. Return rates include adjustments for surveys returned as ―non- deliverable‖ (12%, n = 137) or ―not applicable‖ (1%, n = 16). ―Non-deliverable‖ surveys occurred despite careful review of DCNR lists to screen obvious illegitimate, duplicate, and insufficient names and addresses. Surveys considered ―not applicable‖ were received from individuals now deceased, no longer active, or considered (by their own judgment) not knowledgeable enough to participate. Usable surveys were received from 52 (77%) counties, representing all geographic regions of Pennsylvania. Respondent age varied widely from 18 to 95 years although the mean, median, and mode were similar at 53 (σ =

14 years), 52, and 50 years, respectively. Of 365 respondents, 179 (49%) owned forestland. The area owned by individuals ranged from 1 to 700 acres, with an average of

117 61 acres (σ = 104 acres). The mode and median ownership were 10 and 20 acres, respectively.

3.2 Ginseng husbandry in Pennsylvania

A 1994 effort to quantify the number of forest-based growers in Pennsylvania estimated the total number at 160, growing ginseng on roughly 60 acres (Persons 1995).

In 2000, a similar effort resulted in an estimate of 75 forest growers and 110 acres, respectively (Persons 2000). The accuracy of these data is questionable since this information was compiled by querying a single, albeit well-known, informant who sold ginseng seed in the state (S. Persons, pers. comm.). This study found people engaged in a wide array of ginseng planting activities in Pennsylvania, with 288 individuals (78% of survey respondents) completing a section of the survey pertaining to ginseng planting in

Pennsylvania. The average length of time these individuals had planted ginseng in the state was 19 years (σ = 14 years, median = 15 years, mode = 20 years). The minimum was one year (i.e., first year after planting) and the maximum 78 years. Sixty-two percent (n = 179/288) of respondents had been planting ginseng for between two and 20 years (Figure 4.2).

Ginseng planters were active in all parts of Pennsylvania, and more than half

(52%, n = 151/288) of survey respondents and all KIs indicated they had planted ginseng in two or more counties. In both survey and KI results, there was strong overlap between those counties in PA where planting was most commonly reported and counties where

―wild‖ exports have been greatest (Figure 4.3).

118

110 101 100 90 78 80

70 60 49 50 40 30 30

Number of surveyNumberof participants 20 12 13 10 3 1 1 0 0-1 2-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80

Years planting

Figure 4.2 The length of time survey participants had been planting ginseng in Pennsylvania (n = 288).

119

4 9 24 3 32 16 19 1 5 3 10 1 3 11 3 7 4 1 10 2 1 10 14 1 1 4 15 25 4 27 1 2 2 1 10 25 6 3 20 11 12 4 2 4 1 2 30 10 1 11 1 5 37 26 1 30 3 6 5 18 1

Figure 4.3 The number of times each county was reported by survey respondents as a place where he/she has planted ginseng (n = 548). Respondents were asked: ―In which county/counties of Pennsylvania have you planted ginseng?” The top 13 Pennsylvania export counties are indicated (shaded) for comparison.

120

Study results indicate that planting and ginseng husbandry are most commonly practiced on forestlands in Pennsylvania, rather than under artificial shade as is the predominant practice in regions such as Ontario, Canada where commercial cultivation is common (OMAFRA 2005). More than three-quarters of survey respondents, for example, indicated that they planted ginseng in ―small, un-crowded forest plantings

(78%, n = 224/288).‖ Other planting arrangements reported by respondents included

―dense forest plantings (39%, n = 112/288) and ―beds in the forest (31%, n = 89/288).

Only 12% (n = 34/288) indicated they plant ginseng ―under artificial shade.‖ Similarly, nearly all (92%, n = 23/25) KIs planted ginseng on forestlands in ―un-crowded‖ and/or

―crowded‖ plantings; about one-quarter (24%, n = 6/25) grew ginseng in ―beds in the forest.‖ Only one KI grew ginseng under artificial shade and, notably, this was done to produce seed for ―stocking‖ his forestlands and not to produce roots for market.

The practice of sowing seed on non-intensively prepared or unmodified forestlands has been referred to as ―wild simulated‖ ginseng cultivation by some popular authors (e.g., Persons and Davis 2005, Pritts 1995). Despite this popular usage, nearly three-quarters of KIs (72%, n = 18/25) were unfamiliar with this term though most were clearly participating in such planting activities. KIs considered root produced through such planting efforts ―wild‖ if little or no site preparation and/or subsequent management were involved. This perspective was also corroborated by survey results. When collectors were asked how much of the wild ginseng they collect originates from seed

―previously purchased and sown in the forest,‖ more than half (55%, n = 186/337) indicated the wild ginseng they collect originates from ―seed previously purchased and sown in the forest.‖ Of these, 28 percent (n = 95) said less than half of the ginseng

121 collected originates in this way, 16 percent (n = 54) said more than half does, and 11 percent (n = 37) indicated ―I think so.‖ Logistic regression using respondent age and number of years collecting or planting ginseng as continuous covariates were all significant. For every year added, the odds that the wild ginseng had originated from commercial seed was increased by a factor of one for respondent age (B = .018, eb =

1.018, df = 1, P = .031), years collecting (B = .020, eb = 1.020, d.f. = 1, P = .004) and years planting (B = .028, eb = 1.029, d.f. = 1, P = .005). Logistic regression results using the categorical variable land ownership (i.e., whether or not the respondent owned forestland), though only marginally significant (B = .421, eb = 1.523, d.f. = 1, P = .058), suggested an increased likelihood of wild ginseng having been grown from commercial seed if an individual owned forestland.

Survey respondents disclosed that ginseng planting was most commonly (73%, n

= 210/288) practiced on ―forestlands that someone else owns.‖ While this response could have been more common because survey respondents were concerned about their name and address being linked to the survey instrument, it is also notable that slightly less than half (49%) of respondents said they owned forestlands. This suggests that many individuals may plant on someone else‘s property out of necessity, an explanation supported by KIs (discussed further below). Moreover, more than one-quarter (27%, n =

78/288) of planters indicated they had planted ginseng on public forest and parklands, and more than half (56%, n = 152/288) said they plant ginseng ―wherever I find a good spot.‖ These results collectively suggest a disregard for land ownership when deciding where to plant and a ―commons‖ mentality in which forestlands are considered ―open access‖ as has been reported in West Virginia (Hufford 1997). This also raises further

122 questions about the true source or origins of any reportedly wild collected ginseng entering into trade markets.

About two-thirds (64%, n = 16/25) of KIs similarly acknowledged planting ginseng on forestlands owned by others (including public lands). When questioned about their reasons for doing so, they generally shared an attitude that sowing ginseng seed on such forestlands was at worst a benign activity. Moreover, there was a widespread belief that planting was an important mechanism for conserving the species and for being able to ―hunt‖ the plant in future years (i.e., ―stocking the hunting grounds‖). In a few cases

(20%, n = 5/25), KIs even stated they had no intention of returning to planted areas to harvest any plants; rather, they were ―just putting it out there for future generations of

―sangers.‖‖ Where there was intent to harvest, informants often believed they would

―leave behind more ginseng than was there to begin with‖ which in many cases had been none. One KI jokingly referred to such illicit planting activities as ―guerilla ginseng farming.‖ About half (44%, n = 11/25) of KIs had learned about such practices from articles in popular outdoor magazines (c.f., Brewer 1990) while roughly a third (33%, n =

8/25) had learned from a friend or family member.

Ginseng planters also had many acquaintances who planted ginseng. ―Friends‖ were most common among these (72%, n = 170/237) followed by family (50%, n =

113/224), parents (43%, n = 100/232), and grandparents (39%, n = 80/206). One KI elaborated in a letter about his family‘s historical involvement with ginseng:

―I remember well that my fathers income was quite modest and we supplemented same with trapping during the winter months and harvesting as much as a pound of dried ginseng per season, which value of $60.00 was a great boost to our economic situation. We always

123 counted the growth nodules and never harvested a plant that was under 7 seasons old. [sic]37‖

Region of residence was associated with whether or not planters knew someone who had also planted ginseng. Individuals residing in southwest and south-central Pennsylvania were seven times more likely to have a grandparent who had planted ginseng compared with those residing in the southeastern part of the state (southwest: B = 1.938, eb = 6.947, d.f. = 1, P = .015; south-central: B = 1.910, eb = 6.750, d.f. = 1, P = .035). These individuals were also four and seven times more likely, respectively, to have a parent who had planted ginseng versus residents of southeastern Pennsylvania (southwest: B =

1.482, eb = 4.400, d.f. = 1, P = .031; south-central: B = 1.992, eb = 7.333, d.f. = 1, P =

.013). These findings suggest a stronger social context or tradition of ginseng planting among individuals from the southwestern and south-central Pennsylvania.

3.3 Sources of ginseng planting stock and attitudes regarding genetic provenance

Survey results indicated that ginseng planting stock was obtained from a variety of sources, the most common being ―from Pennsylvania forestlands that someone else owns (62%, n = 172).‖ Planting stock was also obtained from: ―commercial suppliers

(45%, n = 125),‖ ―forestlands in Pennsylvania that I own (39%, n = 109),‖ and ―public forest and parklands in Pennsylvania (21%, n = 57).‖ Commercial suppliers included vendors (in order of most to least commonly cited) in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New

York, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, British Columbia, Tennessee,

37 KI from Lebanon County, Pennsylvania (written communication)

124 Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Kentucky, Iowa, Vermont, and

Massachusetts.

Interviews with KIs revealed that ginseng planting stock was often distributed through complex and nearly inscrutable networks with little attention paid to planting stock origin. Several (n = 3) buyer-trader KIs purchased seed from other buyers-traders to distribute seed to their clients (i.e., sellers), sometimes giving away seed free-of-charge to assure a future supply. In one example, a ginseng buyer-trader in Westmoreland

County had been purchasing seed from another buyer located in Schuylkill County (the other side of the state). The latter was, in turn, importing this ginseng seed from

Wisconsin. Records of these transactions (made available to the author) revealed that between 16 and 30 pounds of seed was distributed annually between 2000 and 2005 via this network, for a total of 111 pounds of seed distributed. If all this seed was planted, this equates to roughly 666,000 seeds distributed to Pennsylvania planters through this network alone.

When KIs were asked about their perspective on the conservation of wild ginseng genetic stock of Pennsylvania origins, a commonly (72%, n = 18/25) held belief was that

―there is no true wild ginseng anymore.‖ One KI summed it up this way: ―ginseng, like people, has been blended.38‖ A few KIs (16%, n = 4/25) considered any concern over genetics to be a ―government or academic ploy‖ rather than a legitimate concern. One KI argued:

―The government is changing the issues. They could not find fault [with planters/growers] in any other way during the past 25 years so now they are turning to seed source. What about all the non-native animals

38 KI from Greene County, Pennsylvania (verbal communication)

125 introduced by government? Why was there no fuss raised about these? Is it because these are more popular with the public?39‖

Despite widespread dismissal of genetic considerations, KIs did generally (76%, n =

19/25) acknowledge that there may be ―local strains‖ of ginseng that should be conserved but believed this should not be used to discourage people from planting ginseng from commercial or non-local sources. Most (80%, n = 20/25) KIs believed that ―local environment‖ and ―habitat conditions‖ were the most important determinants of success at introducing ginseng on forestlands. Asked how genetic concerns could be addressed in practice, KIs commonly suggested the government should encourage scientists to listen to and work with growers to identify and conserve unique or local strains and make these strains available for establishing regional ginseng nurseries. To describe any efforts along these lines, a few (16%, n = 4/25) KIs suggested the term ―locally adapted‖ was better than ―wild‖ as a working concept.

3.4 Shortcomings of the existing ginseng trade lexicon: improving supply transparency

Survey results reveal that more than half (53%, n = 153/288) of planters had harvested and sold ―wild‖ roots from their ginseng plantings. Similar to the findings relating to where ginseng had been planted in Pennsylvania (c.f., Figure 4.3), there was strong overlap between where respondents had harvested and sold ginseng from their plantings and top export counties (Figure 4.4). This is an important finding as it suggests the scale to which husbanded (i.e., ―wild simulated‖) roots are supplanting roots gathered

39 KI from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (verbal communication)

126 from truly wild, spontaneously occurring populations. It also helps to explain frequent erratic patterns observed in county level trade data. As an example, one KI explained that an observed ―spike‖ in reported harvest data from Lehigh County between 1998 and

2002 was due to his harvesting and selling ―wild‖ ginseng from his plantings (Figure

4.5).

Thus, a key challenge facing Pennsylvania DCNR is how to increase transparency relative to true ―wild‖ ginseng origins. Buyer-trader KIs were concerned only with root appearances and not necessarily with production methods. KIs belonging to all stakeholder groups frequently reiterated that a ―wild root can look cultivated and a cultivated root can look wild.‖ Pennsylvania DCNR and FWS, conversely, are interested in production methods only insofar as they provide insight into wild resource

―sustainability.‖ The present FWS lexicon, derived from CITES (FWS 2007) and used by many states including Pennsylvania on point-of-sale forms, identifies ―cultivated‖ plants as ―artificially propagated‖ and in Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP14) these are defined as:

―Plants grown under controlled conditions from seeds, cuttings or divisions of cultivated parental stock. A controlled condition is defined as a non-natural environment that is intensively manipulated by human intervention. General characteristics of controlled conditions may include but are not limited to tillage, fertilization, weed control, irrigation, or nursery operations. The cultivated parental stock used must have been established in accordance with national and State laws, determined not to be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild, and managed in such a way as to guarantee long-term maintenance of the cultivated stock.‖

Any ginseng that does not meet these criteria is considered to be ―wild‖ under CITES and at present, de facto, by FWS and State (including PA) export programs. The results from this study suggest that this dichotomous lexicon is far too simplistic to account for the

127 breadth of agroforestry-related husbandry practices that are being employed by citizens of the state to produce roots ultimately sold as ―wild‖ and that given this dichotomy many producers choose to report their product as wild.

KIs were asked about the CITES derived definitions commonly used in point-of- sale paperwork. All considered these definitions ―unrealistic,‖ and many even ridiculed them as ―laughable‖ or ―a joke.‖ KIs widely believed such distinctions may be ―fine for management efforts,‖ but are not useful from a ―practical‖ standpoint. The limitations of the CITES derived lexicon have not gone unnoticed by FWS (2007), however:

―We note that the classification of ginseng as either wild or artificially propagated on export permits is only for CITES purposes and is not intended to indicate marketing categories or value of roots‖ and ―it does not preclude the use of additional categories by States and Tribes. We continue to monitor the use of additional categories by States and Tribes, and we may use such information in future decision making on ginseng exports a we evaluate the impact of trade on the viability of the wild populations.‖

Accordingly, FWS has continued to urge Pennsylvania and other states to implement measures for differentiating ―wild-simulated‖ ginseng from ―wild‖

(c.f., FWS 2006). When KIs were asked about adding more descriptive terms

(e.g., ―wild-simulated‖ ―wood‘s-grown‖) to point-of-sale paperwork, they unanimously expressed an unwillingness to disclose detailed information about the specific husbandry practices used to produce roots for sale. KIs did so because they feared the product may be devalued by the buyer if true origins were known. More than half (52%, n = 13/25) of KIs claimed they had encountered buyers-traders who offered to pay substantially less for what could be called

―wild-simulated‖ ginseng roots even though the roots were indistinguishable from

128

50% 50% 50% 42% 44% 60% 100%

0% 0% 33% 50% 50% 13% 50% 0% 0% 67% 67% 0% 0% 57% 76% 100% 78% 43% 100% 0% 0% 73% 33% 53% 25% 50% 0% 0% 75% 61% 67% 0% 50% 0% 0% 42% 56% 52% 40% 100% 67%

Figure 4.4 The percentage of ginseng planters in each county who reported (via survey responses) having harvested and sold ―wild‖ ginseng from their ginseng plantings (n = 288). The top 13 Pennsylvania export counties (1991-2009) are indicated by shading for comparison (refer to Figure 4.1 for further explanation).

129

Figure 4.5 (Top) Pounds (dry) of ―wild‖ ginseng root harvested from Lehigh County, Pennsylvania between 1991 and 2009 revealing a ―spike‖ in exports between 1998 and 2002. (Bottom) Lehigh County KI supplied photograph showing a portion of his ―wild‖ harvest gathered from forest plantings between 1998 and 2002, which contributed to this ―spike.‖

130 wild. The following collector-planter KI remark attests to the widespread uneasiness that exists toward buyers-traders and the process surrounding root valuation:

―Five years ago I dug couple lbs of my roots not to sell but get opinion and price. I went to three dealers – every dealer told me something different about my root. #1 – they were transplants. #2 – roots too heavy. #3 – I done something to entice their growth. That shows you these dealers trying get your wild roots for a lesser price. [sic]40‖

KIs believed the government would be hurting planters and growers by forcing them to disclose production information to buyers at the time of sale. Especially since they believed the buyers-traders would then sell roots as ―wild‖ at a higher price. KIs also expressed concerns that, because they must also provide a name and address on point-of- sale paperwork, others would know they are cultivating or planting on their property and this would attract attention and possibly theft. One buyer-trader KI offered the following related perspective:

―What would stop a buyer like me, knowing the physical address of the property, from sending his/her henchmen down and stealing it? [Buyers] know where it is, why pay for it? [sic]41‖

Thus, KIs representing all stakeholder groups indicated the need to ―hide‖ the production method and location from buyers in any ―push‖ to improve transparency. Otherwise, attempts to clarify the source of ―wild‖ ginseng through the use of specialized terminology in point-of-sale paperwork will be resisted (or falsified) as long as seller concerns are not concomitantly addressed. Perhaps just as importantly, this study found that many stakeholders do not distinguish between categories such as ―wild‖ versus

―wild-simulated‖ for practical or philosophical reasons. All KIs believed ―wild‖ versus

40 KI from Greene County, Pennsylvania (written communication) 41 KI from Somerset County, Pennsylvania (written communication)

131 ―wild-simulated‖ (the latter sometimes called ―tame‖ by KIs) is simply a matter of perception. A commonly held reason against making any such distinction is found in the following KI question: ―If I dig wild ginseng and plant its seed back in the same spot, as is required by regulation, is the new plant then ―wild-simulated?‖42‖

Such KI questions are central to wild ginseng conservation and management and raise profound questions regarding any incipient domestication or semi-domestication processes operating through current ginseng planting activities. Findings from this study indicate that a continuum of husbandry practices, and associated selection processes, are operational in Pennsylvania. These include wild collection, management in situ, enrichment plantings, cultivation in situ, and cultivation ex situ. The widespread importation and movement of ginseng stock for planting purposes in Pennsylvania is not new but dates back to the early 1900s (Figure 4.6). In the past, it appears that any attention to planting stock was directed toward conscious selection for improved or uniform root shapes, higher fecundity, and/or earlier harvest (Nash 1898, Paseador 1903).

In recent years, however, there has been increasing attention paid to the possible consequences of unconscious selection (c.f., Zohary 2004) among ginseng harvesters and planters, and possible impacts on genetic diversity (Cruse-Sanders, Hamrick and

Ahumada 2005) and local genotype conservation (Mooney and McGraw 2007).

In his ―taxonomy‖ of domestication from an evolutionary perspective, Rindos

(1984) branded the planting of ginseng seeds from harvested plants ―replacement planting‖ and considered it ―an incidental type of domestication interaction.‖ The traits or features commonly used as markers of ―true‖ domestication in plants include:

42 KI from Wayne County, Pennsylvania (verbal communication)

132

Figure 4.6 Examples of early advertisements by Pennsylvania growing stock suppliers (Source: Special Crops 1903, 1904, 1930).

133 Increased reproductive effort; rapid and synchronous germination; uniform ripening period; non-dehiscent fruits and seeds; self-pollination; annual life-cycle; increased palatability; color changes; loss of defensive structures; increased local adaptations; and perhaps most pertinent to ginseng, selection for larger or more uniformly shaped tubers

(Hancock 2004, Zohary and Hopf 1993). The challenge in identifying any domesticate

―markers‖ in forest grown ginseng stems from: (a) there is a niche market that favors

―wild‖ characteristics and therefore little impetus exists for forest-based producers to favor ―cultivated‖ traits; and (b) there appears to be continuous germplasm flow between forest habitats and artificial shade plantations. Despite dismissal of ―genetic‖ concerns by many KIs, the success/failure of those attempting to plant ginseng on forestlands using

―commercial‖ stock remains an important research topic as agroforestry-based cultivation of ginseng continues to expand in the United States and, as this study suggests, is adopted on a variety of scales. Unconscious selection of genotypes favored by artificial shade plantation growing conditions, followed by planting of these genotypes on forestlands, may prove to be an increasingly important factor limiting success among ginseng husbandry adopters.

4.0 Conclusions

Wild plant trade monitoring and conservation efforts are more likely to have their intended effect(s) when informed by an understanding of how species markets are structured and supplied. Lacking such understanding, even the most well-intentioned and devised conservation and trade monitoring efforts may be of little practical value

134 (Hamilton and Hamilton 2006, Larsen and Olsen 2007, Strandby and Olsen 2008). This mixed-methods study is the first to attempt to understand the supply of ginseng from

Pennsylvania, and to determine what behaviors and husbandry processes may underlie state exports. Findings suggest a complex management scenario in which ―wild‖ exports consist of a mix of collected, cultivated or otherwise husbanded product. Findings further suggest a complex suite of historical and contemporary husbandry practices are involved in modern ―wild‖ ginseng occurrence and these practices continue to obscure and complicate any distinction between ―wild‖ and ―cultivated.‖ Currently, the lexicon surrounding ginseng is confusing, highly contentious, and without common agreement.

Insights gained from the survey used in this study suggest point-of-sale surveying could be an important tool to help inform state and federal ginseng programs, especially if ―conservation through cultivation‖ (c.f., Alcorn 1995) is to be employed as a proactive approach to ginseng conservation. Specifically, to improve confidentiality during buyer/seller transactions, a brief point-of-sale survey instrument could gather information about the source of the ginseng being sold as ―wild‖ in the marketplace. Done annually, these efforts could provide longitudinal insight into trends in collection versus husbandry.

In developing this instrument, the inclination to introduce husbandry terminology via an increasingly complicated lexicon (e.g., ―wild simulated, woods-cultivated, virtually wild, wild stewarded, artificially propagated, wild‖) should be avoided. Findings from this study suggest that attempts at clarifying the origins of ―wild‖ ginseng through specialized terminology in point-of-sale paperwork will be resisted (or falsified) as long as seller concerns regarding buyer-trader price gouging (e.g., buyers paying less for ―wild- simulated‖ root) and garden/patch security (e.g., ―poaching‖) are not concomitantly

135 addressed. Study findings also reveal that many stakeholders do not distinguish between such categories, on either practical or philosophical grounds, and this will further complicate or hinder attempts to arrive at a common lexicon for truthful reporting. For these reasons, a point-of-sale survey should be confidentially submitted separate from transactions (e.g., mail-in form) and use questions that ask about husbandry practices

(e.g., Question: ―What is the origin of this harvest?‖ Possible answers: ―plants that I found‖ or ―plants that I grew‖) rather than questions that make use of specific language

(e.g., ―Is this ginseng wild-simulated or woods-grown?‖) that are unfamiliar or unrealistic to stakeholders involved in the supply chain surrounding this unique and evolving industry.

References

Alcorn, J.B. 1995. Economic Botany, Conservation, and Development: What‘s the

Connection? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 82: 34-46.

Anderson, R.C., J.S. Fralish, J.E. Armstrong, and P.K. Benjamin. 1993. The Ecology

and Biology of Panax quinquefolium L. (Araliaceae) in Illinois. American

Midland Naturalist 129 (2): 357-372.

Beyfuss, B. 2000. The Practical Guide to Growing Ginseng. Cornell Cooperative

Extension of Greene County, Cairo, NY.

Blankenship, K. 2005. Picked to Death: Ginseng‘s Popularity at the Root of its Woes.

Keystone Wild! Notes (Summer): 1, 4-5.

Burkhart, E. 2003. Pennsylvania Ginseng Study: Can You Contribute? Pennsylvania

136 Forests 94 (1): 4.

Brewer, C. 1990. Ginseng Longlining: Combining Home Cultivation with Woods

Grown Operation Yields Impressive Harvests. Fur-Fish-Game (Apr): 26+

Burkhart, E.P. and M.G. Jacobson. 2005. Taking Stock of Ginseng. Pennsylvania Game

News 76 (2): 29-31.

Burkhart, E.P. and M.G. Jacobson. 2007. Opportunities from Ginseng Husbandry in

Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Burkhart, E.P. and M.G. Jacobson. 2009. Transitioning from Wild Collection to Forest

Cultivation of Indigenous Medicinal Forest Plants in Eastern North America is

Constrained by Lack of Profitability. Agroforestry Systems 76 (2): 437-453.

Carlson, A.W. 1986. Ginseng: America‘s Botanical Drug Connection to the Orient.

Economic Botany 40 (2): 233-249.

Carpenter, S.G. and G. Cottam. 1982. Growth and Reproduction of American Ginseng

(Panax quinquefolius) in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Botany 60:

2692-2696.

Center for Rural Pennsylvania. 2010. Rural and Urban Areas of Pennsylvania.

Available on the internet at: http://www.rural.palegislature.us/ Last accessed:

August 2010.

Charron, D., and D. Gagnon. 1991. The demography of northern populations of Panax

quinquefolius (American ginseng). Journal of Ecology 79: 431-445.

Creswell, J. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches, Third edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Cruse-Sanders, J.M., J.L. Hamrick and J.A. Ahumada. 2005. Consequences of

137 Harvesting for Genetic Diversity in American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.):

a Simulation Study. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 493-504.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: the Tailored Design Method, 2nd

edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Epler, J.W., Jr. 1985 (first printing). All About Ginseng. Cornhusker Press, Hastings,

NE.

Evans B.L. 1985. Ginseng: Root of Chinese-Canadian Relations. Canadian Historical

Review LXVI (1): 1-26.

FWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Non-detriment Finding on CITES

Export Permit Applications for Wild and Wild-simulated American Ginseng

Harvested in 2006. June 6. Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, Robert R.

Gabel. Washington D.C.

FWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Revision of Regulations for the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora (CITES); Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 163, Part IV,

Department of the Interior. August 23.

Guo, Y.P., W.G. Bailey and K.B. van Dalfsen. 1995. North American ginseng (Panax

quinquefolium L.) root grading. Pages 380-389 in W.G. Bailey, C. Whitehead,

J.T.A. Proctor and J.T. Kyle, eds. Proceedings of the International Ginseng

Conference – Vancouver 1994 ―The Challenges of the 21st Century.‖ Simon

Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Hamilton, A. and P. Hamilton. 2006. Plant Conservation: An Ecosystem Approach.

People and Plants Conservation Series, Earthscan, Sterling, VA.

138 Hancock, J.F. 2004. Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species, 2nd edition. CABI

Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

Hankins, A. 2000. Producing and Marketing Wild Simulated Ginseng in Forest and

Agroforestry Systems. Virginia Cooperative Extension, Publication 354-312.

Hu, S.Y. 1976. The Genus Panax (Ginseng) in Chinese Medicine. Economic Botany

30: 11-28.

Hu, S.Y. 1977. A Contribution to our Knowledge of Ginseng. American Journal of

Chinese Medicine 5 (1): 1-23.

Hufford, M. 1997. American Ginseng and the Idea of the Commons. Folklife Center

News, Winter-Spring, 19 (1-2): 1-18.

Larsen, H.O. and C.S. Olsen. 2007. Unsustainable Collection and Unfair Trade?

Uncovering and Assessing Assumptions Regarding Central Himalayan Medicinal

Plant Conservation. Biodiversity Conservation 16: 1679-1697.

Lass, W.E. 1969. Ginseng Rush in Minnesota. Minnesota History (Summer): 249-266.

Leinwald, D. 2007. States Seek Grip on Wild Market: As Value of Medicinal Root

Grows, So Do Gnarly Problems of Poaching, Crop Control. USA Today, Dec. 3.

Lewis, W.H. and V.E. Zenger. 1982. Population Dynamics of the American Ginseng

Panax quinquefolium (Araliaceae). American Journal of Botany 69 (9): 1483-

1490.

Lewis, W.H. 1988. Regrowth of a Decimated Population of Panax quinquefolium in a

Missouri Climax Forest. Rhodora 90 (861): 1-5.

Mooney, E.H. and J.B. McGraw. 2007. Effects of Self-pollination and Outcrossing with

139 Cultivated Plants in Small Natural Populations of American Ginseng, Panax

quinquefolius L. (Araliaceae). American Journal of Botany 94 (10): 1677-1687.

Mulhollem, J. 2004. Trying to Get a Handle of Ginseng Culture. PennState Agriculture

(Fall): 4-5.

Nash, G.V. 1898. American Ginseng: Its Commercial History, Protection, and

Cultivation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Botany, Bulletin

Number 16 (revised). Washington D.C.

OMAFRA – Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2005. Production

Recommendations for Ginseng. Publication 610. Ministry of Agriculture and

Food, Toronto, Canada.

PA DCNR - Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2010.

Pennsylvania Ginseng Export Program: 1989-2009 Harvest/Export Reports.

Harrisburg, PA.

Paseador, C.B. 1903. Plant Improvement. The Ginseng Garden 1 (4): 5-7.

Persons, W.S. 1994. American Ginseng, Green Gold: Revised Edition. Bright Mountain

Books, Asheville, NC.

Persons, W.S. 1995. American Ginseng Farming in its Native Woodland Habitat. Pages

78-83 in W.G. Bailey, C. Whitehead, J.T.A. Proctor and J.T. Kyle, eds.

Proceedings of the International Ginseng Conference – Vancouver 1994 ―The

Challenges of the 21st Century.‖ Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British

Columbia, Canada.

Persons, W.S. 2000. An Overview of Woodland Ginseng Production in the United

140 States. Pages 6-11 in R.L. Beyfuss, ed. Proceedings of the ―American Ginseng

Production in the 21st Century‖ conference, September 8-10, 2000. Cornell

Cooperative Extension of Greene County, NY.

Persons, W.S. and J. M. Davis. 2005. Growing and Marketing Ginseng, Goldenseal, and

Other Woodland Medicinals. Bright Mountain Books, Fairview, NC.

Pritts, K.D. 1995. Ginseng: How to Find, Grow, and Use America‘s Forest Gold.

Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA.

Rindos, D. 1984. The Origins of Agriculture: an Evolutionary Perspective. Academic

Press, Orlando, FL.

Robbins, C.S. 1998. American Ginseng: the Root of North America‘s Medicinal Herb

Trade. TRAFFIC North America, Washington, D.C.

Roy, R.C., R. Grohs, and R.D. Reeleder. 2003. A Method for Classification by Shape of

Dried Roots of Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.). Canadian Journal of Plant

Science 83: 955-958.

Schorger, A.W. 1969. Ginseng: A Pioneer Resource. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences,

Arts and Letters 57: 65-74.

Strandby, U. and C.S. Olsen. 2008. The Importance of Understanding Trade When

Designing Effective Conservation Policy – the Case of the Vulnerable Abies

guatamalensis Rehder. Biological Conservation 141: 2959-2968.

Van der Voort, M.E. and J.B. McGraw. 2006. Effects of Harvester Behavior on

Population Growth Rate Affects Sustainability of Ginseng Trade. Biological

Conservation 130: 505-516.

Vaske, J.J. 2008. Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation and

141 Human Dimensions. Venture Publishing, State College, PA.

Weisberg, H.F. 2005. The Total Survey Error Approach: A Guide to the New Science of

Survey Research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Zohary, D. and M. Hopf. 1993. Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Clarendon

Press, Oxford.

Zohary, D. 2004. Unconscious Selection and the Evolution of Domesticated Plants.

Economic Botany 58 (1): 5-10.

142 Chapter 5

American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) floristic associations in Pennsylvania: guidance for adoption of “wild-simulated” agroforestry.

Abstract

American ginseng is a native North American forest plant whose root is collected for the international medicinal plant trade. The historic range of this species includes a broad region of eastern North America from southeastern Canada, south through Georgia, and west to the Mississippi River area. In Pennsylvania (PA), there continues to be strong interest among forest landowners in ginseng husbandry, and particularly in establishing ginseng on forestlands using a ―wild-simulated‖ agroforestry approach. Accordingly, this study documented the flora and soil conditions associated with wild and wild-simulated ginseng populations throughout PA to provide guidance to landowners interested in establishing ginseng on forestlands. A total of 243 plant species (including 20 exotic invasive species) were documented associates of ginseng across PA: 32 over-story trees; 37 shrubs and understory trees; 15 vines; 143 herbs; and 16 ferns. The most common tree, shrub, vine, herb, and fern associates, respectively, were: sugar maple, spicebush, Virginia-creeper, Jack-in-the-pulpit, and Christmas fern. Sørenson coefficients indicated an average of 36 to 45 percent floristic similarity between sites, and 23 to 33 percent similarity between plots. Indicator species analysis (ISA) revealed floristic associates significantly differed according to region, physiographic province and/or certain soil traits (e.g., pH and calcium levels). Field results from this study were compared with observations solicited from PA collectors and planters via a survey study, and these were in general concurrence. Despite similarities in associated flora, there was considerable variation in all soil characteristics examined except for calcium and texture. Soil calcium content of at least 3,000 pounds per acre along with a loam texture appears to be particularly conducive to ginseng, and ISA suggested certain ―indicator‖ flora may be useful for determining sites meeting this calcium threshold. These results, and comparisons with other studies, indicate floristic associations may be more reliable and practical than soil testing for ―wild-simulated‖ site selection and that landowners should prioritize sites where sugar maple, Jack-in-the-pulpit, and rattlesnake fern are found in association for increased chances of success in ginseng culture.

143 1.0 Introduction

American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.), hereafter referred to as ginseng, is an herbaceous perennial forest plant that has been collected throughout eastern North

America as a valued export commodity for nearly 300 years (Carlson 1986, Evans 1985).

The historic native range of this species includes a broad geographic area in North

America spanning from southern Canada to Georgia, and west to states along the

Mississippi River (Gleason and Cronquist 1991). Currently, 19 states within this range export wild ginseng roots to supply a niche market centered in East Asia where ginseng is valued as a tonic and adaptogen (Court 2000, Hu 1976). Between 1990 and 2010, wild ginseng root exports from the United States totaled between 45,000 and 160,000 pounds

(dry weight) annually (FWS 2010). During the past 100 years, ginseng has also become a specialty field crop in certain parts of its natural North American range (e.g.,

Wisconsin, Ontario) and elsewhere in the world (e.g., China, Korea). These operations involve intensive cultivation methods incorporating artificial shade, mechanization, and rely heavily on pesticides to produce most of the ginseng found in commerce (OMAFRA

2005).

Significant price disparities exist between wild appearing ginseng roots originating from forestlands and cultivated product from artificially-shaded farming operations. These prices can differ as much as 100 fold with an average of $10-30

(US$/dry/lb) paid for root that appears ―cultivated‖ versus $300-1,000 (US$/dry/lb) for roots with ―wild‖ attributes (Burkhart and Jacobson 2009, Persons and Davis 2005).

Such price differences are a expression of Asian cultural predilections and tradition rather

144 than a reflection of any differences in medicinal chemistry between ―wild‖ and

―cultivated‖ product per se (Lim, Mudge and Vermeylen 2005, OMAFRA 2005). In recent years, American ginseng has been recommended as an agroforestry crop candidate since the species appears well suited to the practice of forest farming and in particular the so-called ―wild-simulated‖ approach to forest farming that seeks to capitalize on the

―premium‖ paid for ―wild‖ roots (Hill and Buck 2000, Nadeau et al. 2003, USDA NAC

2009). Using this approach, ginseng is established in the forest understory, with little site preparation or manipulation, and the resulting roots are then sold as ―wild‖ in the marketplace (Persons and Davis 2005, Pritts 1995).

Financial models suggest the production of ―wild‖ appearing ginseng roots on forestlands using ―wild simulated‖ methods is financially lucrative under a variety of husbandry scenarios and historic price levels (Burkhart and Jacobson 2009). As such, the production of ―wild simulated‖ ginseng on forestlands is an economic opportunity for forest landowners who have annual ownership liabilities such as taxes as well as for generating short-term (relative to timber harvest) income that could be used for timber stand improvements (TSI) such as thinning, fencing, and invasive species eradication and control. Adoption of ―wild simulated‖ ginseng husbandry could also contribute to ginseng conservation efforts by substituting intentionally grown and stewarded roots for wild-collected, spontaneously-occurring ones. If broadly adopted, ginseng forest farming might also contribute to price stabilization and help to curb undesirable collector behaviors resulting from short-term price spikes (e.g., over-exploitation when prices peak).

145 For ―wild simulated‖ forest farming ginseng production to be successfully practiced, landowners must be able to identify favorable planting sites. This is because the most successful and profitable strategy for producing roots with ―wild‖ traits relies upon a ―hands-off‖ approach with little or no site manipulation (Beyfuss 1999, Persons and Davis 2005). In this regard, the most practical means for forest landowners to identify suitable growing sites is to provide them with information on so-called

―indicators‖ or ginseng associates that can serve to identify the most promising locations.

In addition to the use of this information by private landowners interested in deriving income from ginseng, it could also guide natural resource managers to identify ginseng habitat on managed lands for monitoring of extant plants or introducing new plants via restoration efforts.

The objective of this study was to answer the following questions regarding ginseng habitat associations in Pennsylvania (PA): (1) What flora is associated with viable, reproducing ginseng populations? (2) What soil conditions are associated with these populations? (3) Do the more common/reliable floristic associates differ according to region, physiographic province, and/or soil conditions? (4) How do results from field studies in PA compare with ―folk‖ indicators reported by collectors and planters operating in the state?

2.0 Methods and materials

2.1. Study area

146 Pennsylvania (PA) is located within the Northeastern and Middle Atlantic regions of the United States (39°43´13´´ south to 42° north latitudes; 74°37´30´´ east to

80°31´13´´ west longitudes). It has been nicknamed the ―Keystone State‖ since it forms a geographic bridge between the northeastern and southern United States (US) as well as between the Atlantic seaboard and the Midwestern United States. Elevations range from sea level to 3,213 feet above sea level (979 meters). Generally, base elevation increases as one moves west from southeastern PA. The Delaware River and Lake Erie are the only natural boundaries (PA Geological Survey 2011).

Pennsylvania includes portions of seven major physiographic provinces but three describe most of the land area in the state. The Appalachian Plateau is the largest province and is characterized by having many deep narrow valleys which are drained by the Delaware, Susquehanna, Allegheny, and Monongahela River systems. Elevations in this province are generally between 1,000 and 2,000 feet (305 to 610 meters) above sea level with some mountain tops extending to more than 3,000 feet (e.g., Mount Davis).

The Ridge and Valley Province is 80 to 100 miles wide and characterized by parallel ridges and valleys oriented northeast-southwest. The mountain ridges vary from 1,300 to

1,600 feet (396 to 488 meters) above sea level. The Piedmont Province includes rolling or undulating uplands, low hills, fertile valleys, and well-drained soils, and has elevations ranging from 100 to 500 feet (30 to 152 meters) (PA Geological Survey 2011).

While complex physiographic features contribute to rather localized or regional weather patterns, two climates are generally characteristic of PA. Most of the state has a

―humid continental climate‖ with the exception of the southeastern counties which have a

―humid subtropical climate‖ (Köppen Climate Classification 2011). Average total annual

147 precipitation ranges between 34 (86 cm) and 54 inches (137 cm) depending on region.

Slightly more precipitation is received during the spring and summer months, and in the eastern portion of the state. July temperatures average 69°F (21°C) along Lake Erie to

75°F (24°C) degrees in the southeastern counties adjacent the Delaware River. January temperatures average 24°F (4°C) and 30°F (1°C), respectively (PA State Climatologist

2011).

Of the roughly 28.7 million acres (44,817 sq. miles or 116,075 km2) of total land area within PA, about 16.6 million acres (26,000 sq. miles or 67,379 km2) or 58 percent are forested (USDA 2002). The northern third of the state is dominated by the ―northern hardwood‖ forest type while the southern two-thirds of the state is primarily the

―Appalachian oak‖ forest type. Other much more delimited forest types in the state are

―beech-maple,‖ ―hickory-oak-pine,‖ and ―mixed mesophytic‖ types (Rhoads and Klein

1993, Rhoads and Block 2005). These broad forest types do not account for the diverse floristic assemblages found within the state at a more localized level. One recent plant community classification, for example, recognized 105 distinct types of floristic assemblages in the state (Fike 1999). A total of 3,318 species of trees, shrubs, vines, and herbaceous plants are recorded for PA, including both native and non-native species

(Rhoads and Klein 1993).

2.2. Solicitation of research sites and inclusion criteria

Between 2002 and 2008, wild ginseng habitat study sites were solicited from botanists, ginseng collectors and planters, and forest landowners in PA. More than 100

148 sites were volunteered by individuals but only 54 were eventually included in this study.

Each site was required to have healthy, reproductive ginseng populations. Specifically, all study sites were required to have at least 25 genets of various demographic stages from seedling to adult, and had to occur in reproductive ―clusters‖ in at least five separate areas of the study site so that sampling plots did not overlap. The number of genets at each study location accordingly ranged from a minimum of 25 genets to more than 1,000 genets. Most populations in this study contained between 51-100 genets and were scattered in reproductive ―clusters‖ over an area of two or more acres (Figure 5.1).

Because of the long history of human interaction with ginseng in PA (c.f.,

Burkhart, this dissertation), certain assumptions were questioned early in the study.

Chief among these was the assumption that unless otherwise informed, all sites were

―wild.‖ In 2003, for example, this assumption proved erroneous when the author was shown a ―wild‖ population by an informant and was subsequently (later that day) shown the same population by a different informant who claimed to have established the population from non-local germplasm many years prior. A decision was made at that time to include ―wild-simulated‖ sites established at least ten years prior to the year studied, and which exhibited ―naturalization‖ on the site via reproduction and recruitment. Since the main objectives of this study was to develop habitat information to guide adoption of ―wild-simulated‖ ginseng forest farming on PA forestlands, the inclusion of successful ―wild-simulated‖ introduction sites was appropriate.

149 Figure 5.1 American ginseng population sizes (top) and the total area distribution per population (bottom) for ginseng habitat association study sites in Pennsylvania.

50.0% 44.4% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0%

30.0%

25.0% 22.2% 20.0% 15.0% 13.0% 9.3% sites of study Percentage 10.0% 7.4% 3.7% 5.0%

0.0% 25-50 51-100 101-250 251-500 501-1000 1001+

Number of plants per area

n = 7, 24, 12, 5, 2, 4 (left to right)

70%

60% 57.4%

50% 38.9% 40%

30%

20%

10%

3.7% Percentage of sites per area category per area of sites Percentage 0% 10-100 sq yd 101 sq yd - 2 acres >2 acres Population area

n = 2, 21, 31 (left to right)

150 A total of 54 sites and 270 understory plots were included in this study. These sites were located throughout the state within 34 of PA‘s 67 counties (Figure 5.2). Most study locations (33 sites, 165 plots) were located in the Appalachian Plateau Province, followed by the Ridge and Valley (14 sites, 70 plots), Piedmont (5 sites, 25 plots), and

New England Provinces (2 sites, 10 plots). Because only two sites were in the New

England Province, these were included with the Piedmont Province data for analysis. Of

54 sites, four were known ―wild-simulated‖ populations established at least 10 years prior to initiation of this study.

151

40° 45´

77° Figure 5.2 Counties where ginseng associations were studied in 45´Pennsylvania (shaded). Open circles (white) represent ―wild simulated‖ ginseng study sites while closed circles (black) were presumed ―wild‖ study populations. For analyses by region, the latitude of 40° 45´ was used to divide Pennsylvania into northern and southern halves, while the longitude 77° 45´ was used to divide the state into eastern and western halves.

152

2.3. Vegetation sampling methods

Forest over-story and under-story vegetation associated with ginseng were documented using a combination of plot and plot-less sampling methods. At each site, five circular plots, each with an area of 314 ft2 (d = 20 ft, r = 10 ft), were used for sampling the herbaceous layer. The size of this plot was based on the premise that only the ―nearest neighbors‖ to ginseng were to be recorded. Each plot was then divided into four quarters to document mid- and over-story trees following a point-centered quarter- method approach (Causton 1987, Kent and Coker 1992). Using this method, only the nearest dominant or co-dominant canopy tree (stems > 3.0 in. diameter at breast-height

(4.5 ft.) or dbh, height > 4.5 ft.) within each quarter was recorded, yielding one tree per quarter and four trees per plot. Dbh was recorded for each tree species to calculate importance values (Curtis and McIntosh 1951, McCune and Grace 2002).

Plots and plot centers were established at each site using a stratified but non- random approach (i.e., ―subjective‖) in which the goal was to document only the vegetation in close proximity to ―clusters‖ or ―patches‖ of ginseng while still attempting to capture any and all floristic and/or site features. The intent was to ensure that only the

―nearest neighbors‖ to ginseng at each location were recorded; no attempt was made to inventory the entire flora at each site nor to account for any vegetation differences associated with areas of each site where ginseng did not occur. The limitations of this targeted sampling approach with respect to characterization of ―ginseng habitat‖ per se are discussed later in this paper.

153 Each study site was visited for sampling purposes at least twice between 2002 and

2008. Multiple visits were made to ensure thorough documentation of seasonal transitions in vegetation and to ensure accuracy of any questionable plant species identifications. Visits were timed to document the spring and early summer flora at each site (April-May) and then mid- to late summer flora (July-August). Most sites were visited more than twice to achieve comprehensive documentation.

Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for all study sites are on file with

PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). Voucher specimens for ginseng were collected at all study sites and were deposited in 2010 in herbaria at the

Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Pittsburgh, PA) and The Academy of Natural

Sciences (Philadelphia, PA).

2.4. Soil sampling methods and analysis

A soil auger was used to collect five soil samples (A-horizon, generally 0-8 in (0-

20 cm) depth) at each site, one from each plot. When collecting these samples, any coarse leaf litter (O-horizon) was first removed. Because plots were located through each site, these samples represented a variety of microsite differences resulting from slope position and/or location, but were always proximal (i.e., within 6 in (15 cm) of the stem and immediately adjacent to the root) to a selected vigorous individual ginseng plant within each plot. Due to cost, only a single sample was collected for texture analysis

(i.e., particle size analysis) at each site, at random from one of the five plots.

154 After collection, all soil samples were kept chilled in a cooler while in the field, and then stored in a refrigerator upon returning from the field until they could be delivered to the Pennsylvania State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory,

University Park, PA for analysis. At the laboratory, samples were dried and then analyzed using the following protocol: soil pH was determined using the Water method (Eckert and Sims 1995); macro-nutrient content (available P, K, Ca, Mg) of samples was determined using the Melich 3 (ICP) method (Wolf and Beegle 1995); organic matter content was determined via the Loss on Ignition method (Schulte 1995); and texture analysis was conducted using the Hydrometer method (Gee and Bauder 1986).

2.5. Survey sampling methods

To complement field data, a survey instrument was used to gather popular or

―folk‖ opinion regarding plant, shrub, and tree habitat indicators within PA. Each survey respondent was asked to list up to five plants, shrubs, and trees each that he/she considered indicators of good ginseng habitat in PA. This survey was distributed between 2004 and 2006 using a sample frame identified in collaboration with PA DCNR, who provided names and addresses gathered as part of their ―Vulnerable Plant‖ licensing program. In this program, transaction logs are submitted by buyers to DCNR on an annual basis. These contain the names and addresses of individuals selling ginseng within the state during the previous year. Names and addresses occurring in transaction logs between 1990 and 2005 were used. A second sample frame was developed through a combination of targeted media and outreach activities. Between 2003 and 2007, this

155 study was featured in numerous magazine and newspaper articles, with appeals made for public participation. A number of solicitations appeared in high-profile, widely- circulated popular outdoor or trade magazines. Additionally, presentations were given to target audience groups including botanical (PA Native Plant Society, Botanical Society of

Western PA), outdoor sporting (PA Trappers Rendezvous), and agricultural and forestry

(PA Association for Sustainable Agriculture, various woodland associations in the state) groups.

Additional information about this survey effort, delivery methods and sample considerations, and the limitations of the sampling frames can be found in Burkhart (this dissertation).

2.6. Data analysis

A total of 270 herbaceous layer sample plots were included in all analyses along with 1,180 trees documented as part of over-story sampling. A total of 270 soil chemistry samples were included along with 54 texture samples. The use of five sample plots at each study site facilitated analysis within sites as well as between sites for all data except soil texture. In addition to generating descriptive statistics for all floristic and soil data collected, indicator species analysis (ISA) was conducted (described below) and two parameters of interest were calculated: (1) An index of floristic similarity to compare flora between sites (Sørenson coefficient (Ss ) = 1 - 2C/A+B where A and B are the species numbers in samples A and B and C is the number of species shared by the two samples) (McCune and Grace 2002); and (2) Importance values for description of main

156 over-story species. Importance values (IV) for each dominant or co-dominant over-story tree species were calculated using relative density, relative dominance, and relative frequency data (Curtis and McIntosh 1951, Kent and Coker 1992).

To examine soil characteristics between study sites, a two- or three-way parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA, P ≤ 0.05) was used to compare soil traits (e.g., pH, nutrient levels, physical properties) using region (df = 1) and physiographic province as main effects (df = 2). For site variables having three categories (e.g., physiographic province), post-hoc mean separation between main effects was by Fisher‘s Least

Significant Difference test (LSD) with the significance level set at P ≤ 0.05. The Levene

Test for Homogeneity of Variances was used to examine data normality prior to conducting parametric ANOVA.

ISA was used to determine if floristic associates differed according to geographic and site variables of interest. This analytical method uses relative frequency and abundance data, and the product of the two, to derive an ―indicator value‖ (IndVal = Aij ×

Bij × 100, where Aij = Nindividualsij/Nindividualsi and Bij = Nsitesij/Nsitesj). A Monte

Carlo randomization procedure is then used to determine significance (Dufrêne and

Legendre 1997, McCune and Grace 2002). Variables of interest in this study were: region (i.e., north, south, east, and west) and physiographic province (i.e., Appalachian

Plateaus, Ridge and Valley, and Piedmont). In addition, two soil-related variables were included: pH (< 5.5 versus > 5.5) and calcium level (< 3,000 lbs/acre or 1,500 mg/kg-1 versus > 3,000 lbs/acre or 1,500 mg/kg-1). For ISA and ANOVA using region as a variable of interest, PA was dissected according to latitudes and longitudes which roughly divide the state into half. The latitude of 40° 45´ was used to divide PA into

157 northern and southern halves, while the longitude 77° 45´ was used to divide the state into eastern and western halves (Figure 5.2).

The two soil-related variables (pH and calcium levels) were chosen because these have been suggested as possible important soil-related factors involved with ginseng occurrence and/or growth (Beyfuss 2000, Nadeau et al. 2003, Persons and Davis 2005).

The inclusion of these variables in ISA was done to examine the presence of certain indicator species potentially expected under certain soil conditions (e.g., high versus low pH and/or calcium). A soil pH of 5.5 was used as an ISA break value (i.e., < 5.5 versus >

5.5) since this was roughly the mean value of all soil test results in this study (the actual mean was 5.3 as discussed later under results). A soil calcium break value of 3,000 pounds per acre (i.e., < 3,000 lbs/acre or 1,500 mg/kg-1 versus > 3,000 lbs/acre or 1,500 mg/kg-1) was chosen since this level has been implicated and/or recommended as an important threshold for growth/survival (c.f., Beyfuss 2000, Nadeau, Simard and Olivier

2003).

ISA and similarity indices were calculated using PC-ORD (Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, v. 5.0, MJM software design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon). A total of

4,999 randomizations were used for Monte Carlo tests, with the significance level set at P

≤ 0.10 (herbaceous flowering plants and ferns) and P ≤ 0.15 (over-story and understory trees, shrubs, and vines) for analyses according to region, province, and forest type. A significance level of P ≤ 0.10 was used for examining floristic associations according to soil pH and calcium levels. ANOVA analysis of soil data was conducted using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (v. 15, SPSS Inc. 2007).

158 Survey responses were pooled and numerically coded prior to analysis. In some cases, survey respondents listed a species (e.g., sugar maple, red oak) but in many cases only a generic term (e.g., ―maple‖) was given by survey respondents. Thus, data were separately coded for both ―generic‖ and ―specific‖ responses. Only basic summation statistics were generated for these data.

All plant nomenclature follows Rhoads and Block (2007).

3.0 Results

A total of 243 plant species were documented associates of ginseng across the study sites: 32 over-story trees (i.e., dominant or co-dominant canopy position), 52 mid- and under-story trees, shrubs, and vines, 143 herbs and 16 ferns. Sørenson coefficients indicated an average of 36 to 45 percent floristic similarity between sites, and 23 to 33 percent similarity between plots (Table 5.1). The highest average Sørenson coefficients were associated with ferns. The range in Sørenson coefficients was 0 (i.e., no shared species) to 100 percent (i.e., identical species composition) for both plots and sites.

159

Table 5.1 Floristic similarity index results for American ginseng habitat study sites in Pennsylvania.

Sørenson coefficient (Ss)

mean, s.d. min max

Between sites (n = 54)

Trees, shrubs, vines 36% σ 14% 0% 79%

Herbaceous flowering plants 36% σ 12% 4% 72%

Ferns and allies 45% σ 23% 0% 100%

Overall 37% σ 10% 5% 63%

Between plots (n = 270)

Trees, shrubs, vines 23% σ 18% 0% 100%

Herbaceous flowering plants 24% σ 13% 7% 100%

Ferns and allies 33% σ 29% 0% 100%

Overall 25% σ 12% 15% 100%

160 3.1. Over-story associates (i.e., dominant and co-dominant canopy trees)

A total of 32 canopy tree species were associated with ginseng in PA. The most common associate was sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marshall) which occurred on 69 percent of sites and 56 percent of plots (Table 5.2). Of 32 species, 21 occurred on less than 20 percent of sites and fewer than 5 percent of plots. ISA indicated that the occurrence of the more common over-story trees (occurring on 20% or more of sites) differed according to region (i.e., latitude, longitude), physiographic province and/or soil conditions. Of these, region was the most common as a determinant of co-occurrence with 9 of 11 top associated species differing according to latitude or longitude. There was little difference in ranking when importance values for the 10 most common trees were calculated, except tulip-poplar which increased from fourth to second rank based on site dominance values (Table 5.3).

161

Table 5.2 Over-story trees associated with American ginseng in PA along with indicator species analysis (ISA) results for geographic region, physiographic province and soil characteristics. Only associates occurring on twenty percent or more of research sites are given (n = 54 sites/270 plots).

Scientific Common Percentage Percentage of sites of plots ISA variables (refer to footnotes) name name and (n) and (n) Lat Long Prov pH Ca Acer saccharum Sugar < 70 (38) 56 (151) N*** W* AP*** Marshall maple 5.5** Fraxinus > White ash 61 (33) 31 (83) N*** E** americana L. 3,000** Tilia americana American 59 (32) 31 (84) N** L. basswood Liriodendron Tulip- > 48 (26) 27 (74) S*** E* P*** tulipifera L. poplar 5.5*** Prunus serotina Black < 46 (25) 20 (53) W*** AP*** L. cherry 3,000*** Acer rubrum L. Red maple 44 (24) 19 (51) N*** E*** Quercus rubra Northern 44 (24) 18 (49) S*** L. red oak Fagus American grandifolia 43 (23) 14 (38) beech Ehrhart Quercus alba L. White oak 25 (14) 9 (24) S*** < 3,000* Black Betula lenta L. 22 (12) 9 (23) S* E*** P*** birch Tsuga Eastern canadensis (L.) 22 (12) 6 (16) hemlock Carrière

Abbreviations- Latitude (Lat): North (N), South (S) relative to 40° 45‘; Longitude (Long): West (W), East (E) relative to 77° 45‘; Physiographic province (Prov): Appalachian Plateau (AP), Ridge and Valley (RV), Piedmont (P); Soil pH (pH); Soil calcium (Ca) content (lbs/acre).

Monte Carlo test of significance P-values: * P ≤ 0.10, ** P ≤ 0.05, *** P ≤ 0.01

162

Table 5.3 Relative abundances and importance values (IV) for the top ten ranked overstory tree species (stems greater than 3 in. dbh) associated with wild and ―wild simulated‖ populations of ginseng in Pennsylvania (all study plots combined).

Relative Abundance

Species Frequency Density Dominance IV IV%

Acer saccharum 55.9 25.1 47.4 128.4 42.8

Liriodendron tulipifera 27.4 13.0 21.0 61.4 20.5

Fraxinus americana 30.7 9.9 10.4 51.1 17.0

Tilia americana 31.1 9.4 7.8 48.3 16.1

Prunus serotina 19.6 6.6 3.5 29.7 9.9

Acer rubrum 18.9 6.9 3.1 28.9 9.6

Quercus rubra 18.1 4.9 3.5 26.5 8.8

Fagus grandifolia 14.1 4.1 1.2 19.4 6.5

Quercus alba 8.9 2.2 0.5 11.6 3.9

Betula lenta 8.5 2.3 0.3 11.1 3.7

163 3.2. Mid- and under-story woody associates (i.e., shrubs, understory trees and vines)

A total of 52 species of shrubs, trees, and vines were mid- or under-story floristic associates of ginseng in PA (Table 5.4). The most common associate was Virginia- creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch.), occurring on 76 percent of sites and

51 percent of plots. Forty-one species occurred on less than 20 percent of sites and fewer than 8 percent of plots. ISA indicated that the occurrence of some of the more common associates (occurring on 20% or more of sites) differed according to region (i.e., latitude, longitude), physiographic province and/or soil conditions. Region (especially latitude) and physiographic province were the most common determinants of co-occurrence with

10 out of 11 top associated species differing according to latitude, for example.

164 Table 5.4 Mid- and under-story trees, shrubs and vines associated with American ginseng in PA along with indicator species analysis (ISA) results for geographic region, physiographic province and soil characteristics. Only associates occurring on twenty percent or more of research sites are given (n = 54 sites/270 plots).

Common Percentage Percentage Scientific name of sites of plots ISA variables (refer to footnotes) name and (n) and (n) Lat Long Prov pH Ca Parthenocissus Virginia- > quinquefolia (L.) 76 (41) 51 (138) S*** P*** creeper 5.5** Planch. Lindera benzoin > Spicebush 56 (30) 41 (111) S*** P*** (L.) Blume 5.5* Maple- Viburnum > leaved 52 (28) 23 (62) S*** P*** acerifolium L. 5.5** viburnum Hamamelis Witch- 52 (28) 22 (60) S** RV* virginiana L. hazel Toxicodendron > radicans (L.) Poison-ivy 46 (25) 23 (61) S*** P*** 5.5** Kuntze Ostrya virginiana Hop- 44 (24) 16 (43) N** (Mill.) K. Koch hornbeam Prickly Ribes cynosbati L. 35 (19) 12 (32) N*** AP*** gooseberry Vitis spp. Wild grape 35 (19) 11 (30) S** Acer pensylvanicum Striped > 25 (14) 19 (50) N* RV** L. maple 3,000* Red- Sambucus berried 30 (16) 11 (29) N*** racemosa L. elder Rubus spp. Blackberry 30 (16) 9 (25)

Abbreviations- Latitude (Lat): North (N), South (S) relative to 40° 45‘; Longitude (Long): West (W), East (E) relative to 77° 45‘; Physiographic province (Prov): Appalachian Plateau (AP), Ridge and Valley (RV), Piedmont (P); Soil pH (pH); Soil calcium (Ca) content (lbs/acre).

Monte Carlo test of significance P-values: * P ≤ 0.10, ** P ≤ 0.05, *** P ≤ 0.01

165 3.3. Under-story herbaceous associates (i.e., flowering plants and ferns)

A total of 143 species of herbaceous flowering plants were associated with ginseng in PA, along with 16 ferns. The most commonly associated flowering herb was

Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum (L.) Schott) which occurred on 93 percent of sites and 80 percent of plots, while the most common fern was Christmas fern

(Polystichum acrostichoides (Michx.) Schott) which occurred on 74 percent of sites and

54 percent of plots (Table 5.5). One-hundred and twelve species of flowering herbs occurred on less than 30 percent of sites and fewer than 20 percent of plots. Eleven ferns occurred on less than 30 percent of sites and fewer than 15 percent of plots. ISA indicated that the occurrence of the more common of these herbs (occurring on 30% or more of sites) differed according to region (i.e., latitude, longitude), physiographic province and/or soil conditions.

166 Table 5.5 Under-story herbs (flowering plants and ferns) associated with American ginseng in PA along with indicator species analysis (ISA) results for geographic region, physiographic province and soil characteristics. Only associates occurring on thirty percent or more of research sites are given (n = 54 sites/270 plots).

Scientific Common Percentage Percentage of sites of plots ISA variables (refer to footnotes) name name and (n) and (n) Lat Long Prov pH Ca Arisaema Jack-in-the- > triphyllum (L.) 93 (50) 80 (216) E** > 5.5* pulpit Schott 3,000* Polygonatum Solomon‘s- > pubescens 80 (43) 39 (104) P* seal 5.5** (Willd.) Pursh Circaea Enchanter‘s- canadensis (L.) 74 (40) 59 (158) S*** P* nightshade Hill Polystichum Christmas acrostichoides 74 (40) 54 (146) N** fern (Michx.) Schott Sweet- Galium scented 69 (37) 41 (110) N*** triflorum Michx. bedstraw Botrychium Rattlesnake > > virginianum (L.) 69 (37) 38 (102) E** P*** fern 5.5*** Sw. 3,000** Podophyllum Mayapple 65 (35) 37 (101) S*** P** peltatum L. Maianthemum False racemosum Solomon‘s- 63 (34) 33 (90) S** P*** > 5.5* Link. seal Ageratina altissima (L.) White- 59 (32) 35 (95) R.M. King & H. snakeroot Robinson Eurybia White wood > divaricata (L.) 57 (31) 33 (88) N* aster 5.5*** Nesom Dryopteris Marginal marginalis (L.) 54 (29) 34 (92) N*** wood fern A. Gray Persicaria virginiana (L.) Jumpseed 52 (28) 31 (83) W*** < 5.5* Gaertner Downy Viola pubescens yellow 52 (28) 26 (71) Aiton violet Dryopteris Spinulose < carthusiana 50 (27) 36 (96) N* W** AP* wood fern 5.5*** (Vill.) H.P.

167

Table 5.5 contd.

Osmorhiza claytonii Sweet- 48 (26) 26 (69) (Michx.) C.B. cicely Clarke Actaea pachypoda Doll‘s-eyes 44 (24) 29 (78) N*** Elliot Actaea Black 43 (23) 30 (80) S*** P* racemosa L. cohosh Dryopteris Evergreen intermedia 43 (23) 25 (68) N*** RV* wood fern (Muhl.) A. Gray Galium Wild- > circaezans 43 (23) 24 (66) E* P*** licorice 5.5*** Michx. Trillium Purple 43 (23) 19 (50) N*** AP** erectum L. trillium Pilea pumila Clearweed 41 (22) 24 (64) W* (L.) A. Gray Collinsonia > Horse-balm 41 (22) 21 (56) S*** P*** canadensis L. 5.5*** Uvularia Bellwort 39 (21) 19 (50) perfoliata L. Geum White avens 39 (21) 14 (38) canadense Jacq. Small- Ranunculus flowered 37 (20) 11 (31) abortivus L. crowfoot Viola hirsutula Southern 35 (19) 20 (53) S*** Brainerd wood violet Caulophyllum < thalictroides Blue cohosh 35 (19) 19 (51) N** AP** 5.5*** (L.) Michx. Geranium Wood 35 (19) 16 (42) S*** P** maculatum L. geranium Viola Canada 33 (18) 24 (65) canadensis L. violet Dioscorea Wild yam 31 (17) 15 (41) S*** P** villosa L.

Abbreviations- Latitude (Lat): North (N), South (S) relative to 40° 45‘; Longitude (Long): West (W), East (E) relative to 77° 45‘; Physiographic province (Prov): Appalachian Plateau (AP), Ridge and Valley (RV), Piedmont (P); Soil pH (pH); Soil calcium (Ca) content (lbs/acre).

Monte Carlo test of significance P-values: * P ≤ 0.10, ** P ≤ 0.05, *** P ≤ 0.01

168 3.4. Non-native, exotic associates (i.e., ―invasive plants‖)

A total of 20 non-native, exotic (to PA and North America) ―invasive‖ plant species were recorded as ginseng associates in this study. These included three over- story trees, seven shrubs/understory trees, two vines and eight herbs (Table 5.6). The most common ―invasive‖ associate was multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora Thunb. Ex

Murray) which occurred on 46 percent of sites and 21 percent of plots. Of 20 species, 10 occurred on less than 5 percent of sites and fewer than 2 percent of plots. ISA revealed that most non-native associates occurred on sites in eastern PA, within the Piedmont physiographic province, and were associated with soils having a pH of 5.5 or above.

169 Table 5.6 Exotic flora associated with American ginseng in PA along with indicator species analysis (ISA) results for geographic region, physiographic province and soil characteristics. Only associates occurring on five percent or more of research sites are given (n = 54 sites/270 plots).

Common Percentage Percentage Scientific name of sites of plots ISA variables (refer to footnotes) name and (n) and (n)

Lat Long Prov pH Ca Rosa multiflora Multiflora < 46 (25) 21 (56) P** Thunb. ex Murray rose 3,000* Alliaria petiolata Garlic- (M. Bieb.) Cavara 37 (20) 26 (69) E* mustard & Grande Berberis Japanese > 26 (14) 8 (22) P* thunbergii DC barberry 5.5** Persicaria Low longiseta (Bruijn) 20 (11) 10 (26) S** smartweed Kitagawa Epipactis Bastard > helleborine (L.) 19 (10) 6 (17) N*** hellebore 3,000* Crantz Rubus > phoenicolasius Wineberry 13 (7) 7 (18) S** E*** P*** 5.5*** Maxim. Lonicera japonica Japanese 7 (4) 2 (6) E** P*** > 5.5* Thunb. honeysuckle Prunus avium (L.) Sweet > > 7 (4) 2 (4) E** P*** L. cherry 5.5*** 3,000** Euonymus alatus Burning- > 6 (3) 2 (5) E* P*** (Thunb.) Siebold bush 5.5** Ligustrum spp. Privet 6 (3) 2 (4) P**

Abbreviations- Latitude (Lat): North (N), South (S) relative to 40° 45‘; Longitude (Long): West (W), East (E) relative to 77° 45‘; Physiographic province (Prov): Appalachian Plateau (AP), Ridge and Valley (RV), Piedmont (P); Soil pH (pH); Soil calcium (Ca) content (lbs/acre).

Monte Carlo test of significance P-values: * P ≤ 0.10, ** P ≤ 0.05, *** P ≤ 0.01

170 3.5. Survey results

Of the 1,184 surveys mailed to postal addresses between 2004 and 2006, 383

(32%) were returned by the conclusion of the survey period (January 1, 2007). Most surveys were received during 2004 and 2005, comprising 41 (n = 150) and 43 percent (n

= 158) of the pooled sample, respectively. A much lower return rate (16%, n = 61) followed in 2006. A final sample of 369 surveys was included in the analysis (see

Burkhart, this dissertation, for additional details regarding this survey effort).

A total of 685 responses were received to the question: “List three plants that you consider most useful for identifying ginseng habitat in Pennsylvania. Please provide as many common or scientific names as you know for each species that you list.” Of these,

―maple‖ was the most commonly listed tree (17% of total listings) followed by ―oak‖

(13%), tulip-poplar (13%), ―cherry‖ (13%), and ―ash‖ (10%)(Table 5.7). The remaining responses each comprised less than 10 percent of the total (refer to Appendix J-9 for a complete list of responses).

Of the 207 responses received to a similar question regarding ―useful shrubs,‖ spicebush was the most commonly listed shrub, understory tree or vine (27% of total listings) by survey respondents. This was followed by wild grape (23%), blackberry

(10%) striped-maple (5%) and witch-hazel (4%). The remaining responses each constituted less than 4 percent of the total (refer to Appendix J-9 for a complete list of responses).

Of the 730 responses received regarding ―useful herbs,‖ black cohosh (or the folk synonyms ―rattleweed,‖ ―rattletop,‖ or ―rattleroot‖) was the most commonly listed

171 herbaceous plant (14% of total listings) by survey respondents. This was followed by

Indian-turnip/Jack-in-the-pulpit (11%), goldenseal (8%), blue cohosh (7%), and mayapple (6%). The remaining responses each constituted less than 6 percent of the total

(refer to Appendix J-9 for a complete list of responses).

172

Table 5.7 The top five tree, shrub, and herb habitat associates for ginseng in PA as reported by survey respondents and compared alongside field study plot results.

Number of times listed by Number of field plots in survey respondents and which species occurred (n = percent of responses 270) and percent of plots

n % n %

Trees (n = 685)

Maple 119 17 151, 51* 56, 19*

Oak 90 13 49, 24, 9, 9** 18, 9, 3, 3**

Tulip poplar, yellow poplar, poplar 90 13 74 27

Cherry, black cherry 88 13 53 20

Ash, white ash 66 10 83 31

Shrubs (n = 207)

Spicebush 55 27 111 41

Wild grape, grapevine 48 23 30 11

Blackberry 21 10 25 9

Striped maple 11 5 50 19

Witch-hazel 8 4 60 22

Herbs (n = 730)

Black cohosh, rattleweed, rattletop, 104 14 80 30 rattleroot

Indian-turnip, jack-in-the-pulpit 81 11 216 80

Goldenseal 59 8 7 3

Blue cohosh 54 7 51 19

Mayapple 41 6 101 37

* Sugar maple and red maple, respectively ** Red oak, white oak, black oak and chestnut oak, respectively

173 3.6. Soil results

In general, there was wide variation in soil traits associated with ginseng in PA both within and between sites. The minimum soil pH associated with ginseng across all study sites was 4.2 and the maximum was 7.8, with an average pH across all sites of 5.3

(σ = 0.7). Macro-nutrient levels also varied considerably, with average levels across all sites as follows: phosphorous (P): 145 lbs/acre (σ = 177, range = 9-1,287); potassium (K):

250 lbs/acre (σ = 103, range = 70-713); calcium (Ca): 3,726 lbs/acre (σ = 3,992, range =

281-41,700); and magnesium (Mg): 404 lbs/acre (σ = 297, range = 56-2,653). Soil particle size analysis results indicated that texture was the most consistent soil trait across

PA with all soils being ―loamy‖ in nature (e.g., sandy clay loam, loamy sand, sandy loam, clay loam). Loam was the most common textural class in all provinces except Piedmont where sandy loams were most common. Soils were generally high in organic matter

(mean = 10%, σ = 6, range = 3-53%).

ANOVA results indicated a number of soil parameters differed according to physiographic province and longitude (Table 5.8). Both of these main effects were expected to correlate with one another since provinces generally change from west to east across the state. Soil traits exhibiting variation along these gradients included pH, P, K,

Ca, Mg and texture. In general, soil pH and nutrient levels were greater on study sites located in eastern PA, compared with the western part of the state. Similarly, average pH and nutrient levels were greatest in the Piedmont Province (eastern PA) but declined incrementally in the central (Ridge and Valley) and western (Appalachian Plateaus)

174 provinces (Table 5.9). The exception to this trend was P, for which incremental increases in content were observed in the central and western provinces, respectively.

175

Table 5.8 Average pH, fertility levels, and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in Pennsylvania in relation to region, forest type and/or physiographic province.*

Latitude (40° 45’) Longitude (77° 45’) Physiographic province** Ridge Appalachian North South East West and Piedmont Plateau Valley pH 5.2 a 5.4 a 5.6 a 5.1 b 5.1 a 5.5 b 6.1 c

P (lbs/ac) 166 a 128 a 119 a 164 b 156 a 135 a 111 a

K (lbs/ac) 238 a 261 a 269 a 237 b 156 a 135 a 111 b

Ca (lbs/ac) 4,008 a 3,497 a 4,481 a 3,175 b 3,191 a 4,872 b 3,968 ab

Mg (lbs/ac) 393 a 414 a 509 a 328 b 346 a 385 a 738 b

Sand (%) 44 a 46 a 48 a 42 a 40 a 51 b 52 b

Silt (%) 35 a 35 a 33 a 36 a 38 a 30 b 33 ab

Clay (%) 21 a 19 a 19 a 21 a 21 a 19 ab 15 b

* Mean separations are within latitude, longitude, forest type and physiographic province. Means with the same letter are not significantly different using ANOVA, P ≤ 0.05 ** Post-hoc mean separation by LSD, P ≤ 0.05

176

Table 5.9 pH, fertility and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in PA in relation to physiographic province (standard deviation is included in parentheses below). Appalachian Plateaus Ridge and Valley (n = Piedmont (n = 7) (n = 33) 14)

Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range pH* 5.1 (0.6) 4.2 – 7.1 5.5 (0.7) 4.5 – 7.8 6.1 (0.6) 5.0 – 7.1

P (lbs/ac)* 156 (198) 9 – 1287 135 (17) 23 – 664 111 (125) 14 – 490

K (lbs/ac)* 239 (95) 70 – 540 242 (95) 106 – 509 332 (146) 79 – 713

3,191 281 – 4,872 592 – 3,968 604 – Ca (lbs/ac)* (2,765) 16,210 (6,228) 41,700 (2,392) 10,407

Mg (lbs/ac)* 346 (230) 56 – 1,351 385 (209) 146 – 1,185 738 (488) 163 – 2,653

Sand (%)** 41 (10) 24 – 60 51 (16) 20 – 84 52 (9) 42 – 66

Silt (%)** 38 (8) 23 – 53 30 (11) 9 – 53 33 (7) 23 – 40

Clay (%)** 22 (5) 10 – 29 19 (6) 7 – 31 15 (3) 11 – 18

Organic matter 9.5 (6.5) 2.7 – 53.2 10.7 (6.8) 2.6 – 39.8 9.9 (6.5) 3.2 – 22.3 (%)* * Number of soil samples analyzed: Appalachian Plateaus: n = 165; Ridge and Valley: n = 70; Piedmont: n = 35. ** Number of soil samples analyzed: Appalachian Plateaus: n = 33; Ridge and Valley: n = 14; Piedmont: n = 7.

177 4.0 Discussion

4.1 Limitations regarding the use of associations for site selection

The principal objective of this study was to document the vegetation and soils associated with wild and ―wild simulated‖ ginseng in Pennsylvania for purposes of helping guide land-owner adoption of ―wild-simulated‖ forest farming in the state and region. Accordingly, this study followed a targeted, stratified-random but ―subjective‖ sampling approach that did not include sites where ginseng did not occur. Similar approaches have been used in Arkansas (Fountain 1986), Illinois (Anderson et al. 1984,

Anderson et al. 1993), Kentucky (Jones and Wolf 2001), Missouri (Farrington 2006),

Quebec (Nadeau and Olivier 2003) and Wisconsin (Anderson 1996, Carpenter 1980). As noted by McGraw et al. (2003), this type of data collection approach is prone to bias if the results are used to establish a ―preferred‖ habitat for the species since the approach does not account for sites where ginseng is not found. In addition, a long history (nearly

300 years) of ginseng collection in PA complicates recognition of ―ginseng habitat‖ since many suitable sites can lack or contain very few plants due to previous collection.

Collection pressure may also continue to influence specific plant associates commonly encountered. Thus, the results obtained in this study should be cautiously used when providing guidance to forestland owners and/or managers.

Many of the more common ginseng associates or ―companion plants‖ documented in this study may be encountered under a broad range of habitat conditions (e.g., enchanter‘s-nightshade, mayapple). Consequently, in developing any list of possible

178 ginseng habitat ―indicators,‖ floristic association results should consider the reproductive and ecological predilections of each species (c.f., Bierzychudek 1982), with emphasis given to those that have requirements similar to ginseng (i.e., slow-growing perennial, shade-obligate species). One possibly useful method for sorting according to such requirements is to rank associates by Coefficients of Conservatism (Farrington 2006,

Ladd 1993). At the very least, the utility and reliability of floristic associates for identifying favorable ginseng habitat for forest farming and reintroduction efforts is likely improved by concomitant attention to all species occurring in all forest strata (over- story, mid-story, under-story), rather than any particular species per se. In this regard, a

―triangulated‖ approach should be employed where one looks for species associations using all strata (i.e., over-story, mid-story, and under-story).

4.2 Top PA ginseng associates and comparisons with other states (and regions)

Although a large number (243) of species were associated with ginseng across

PA, Sørenson coefficients revealed considerable similarity between sites with an average of one-third (35%) to nearly one-half (45%) shared floristic similarity between sites.

Given the diverse geographical and ecological context of PA, this suggests that a core floristic ―indicator‖ assemblage may provide useful guidance throughout the state for site selection providing the limitations cited above are acknowledged. The species comprising this assemblage, and any considerations regarding usage, are discussed below.

179 4.2.1 Over-story associates (i.e., dominant and co-dominant canopy trees)

A comparison of the top ranked over-story tree associates from this study with results from other states and regions reveals many similarities. Of particular interest is the fact that sugar maple was the most common (70%) over-story tree associated with ginseng in PA. ISA indicated that sugar maple is most commonly associated with ginseng in the northern and western regions, which largely overlap and correspond with the Appalachian Plateau Province (also indicated by ISA). This may be expected since the northern third of PA is dominated by the ―northern hardwood‖ forest type, in which sugar maple figures prominently (Rhoads and Block 2005).

Sugar maple has similarly been reported as the most common over-story associate in Illinois (Anderson et al. 1984, 1993), Missouri (Farrington 2006), New York (Beyfuss

2000) and Quebec (Nadeau and Olivier 2003), and one of the top ranked associates in

Wisconsin (Anderson 1996) and Arkansas (Fountain 1986). Although sugar maple can tolerate a wide range of pH conditions, it has most commonly been linked to ―rich‖ sites having soils with a pH above 5.5 (Godman, Yawney and Tubbs 1990) and high levels of exchangeable calcium (Long et al. 2009, Sharpe and Drohan 1999). In this study, however, ISA revealed that sugar maple was most commonly associated with ginseng on sites where the soil pH was below 5.5 and there was no correlation observed with soil calcium levels (high or low). Beyfuss (2000) has similarly noted this apparent contradiction in New York and suggested it may be due to the often significant foliar calcium contributions provided by decaying sugar maple leaves (Godman, Yawney and

Tubbs 1990), but which may not be reflected in soil analysis results unless the O-horizon

180 (i.e., organic litter or ―duff‖ layer) is included in analysis samples. In this study, soil core samples were taken after removing the O-horizon to expose the mineral soil and so calcium may have inadvertently been ―left out.‖

Of the remaining top ranked over-story trees in PA, the following have been reported as frequent associates elsewhere in the natural range of ginseng: American beech, white ash, tulip-poplar, white oak, northern red oak, and basswood (Anderson et al. 1993, Anderson 1996, Farrington 2006, Fountain 1986, Nadeau and Olivier 2003).

ISA indicated that many of these tree species were more or less common as associates on a regional basis in PA. For example, ISA revealed that tulip-poplar was a more frequent associate in the southern and eastern portions of the state, including the Piedmont

Province. This correlates well with distribution maps for the species (c.f., Beck 1990,

Rhoads and Block 2005), which indicate a more southerly distribution. Similarly, both of the top associated oak species, white oak and northern red oak, were more commonly associated with ginseng in the southern half of PA, a distribution that corresponds with the ―Appalachian oak‖ forest type found in the southern two-thirds of the state (Rhoads and Block 2005).

The fact that red maple and black cherry were among the top ranked over-story associates in PA (both in terms of frequency and importance value) is notable since these species are less commonly reported as top associated species elsewhere in the range.

Exceptions are Rock et al. (1999) and Farrington (2006) who noted red maple as a canopy species in eastern Tennessee/North Carolina and Missouri, respectively, and

Nadeau and Olivier (2003) who noted black cherry as an associated over-story element on 38 percent of research sites in Quebec. Overall both of these species appear to figure

181 more prominently as ginseng associates in PA than in other states (based on existing published research). It is worth noting that red maple is the most abundant tree in PA according to the most recent forest inventory analysis data while black cherry ranks closely behind at third (McWilliams et al. 2007). Thus, the more common association of these species in PA may relate to historical land-use and/or forest management practices.

Of the tree species associated with ginseng, white ash may be the most useful and/or reliable indicator for moderate to high calcium sites (the importance of which is discussed under section 4.5). This species is commonly associated with high calcium soils, and research has shown calcium is second (after nitrogen) in importance among white ash macronutrient requirements (Schlesinger 1990). In this study, white ash was found on nearly two-thirds (61%) of sites and ISA revealed it was associated with ginseng most commonly on sites with soil calcium content greater than 3,000 pounds per acre. This species was also more commonly associated with ginseng in the northern and eastern halves of PA.

4.2.2 Mid- and under-story associates (i.e., trees, shrubs and vines)

Virginia-creeper was the most frequent vine associate of ginseng in this study, found on more than three-quarters (76%) of sites and over half (51%) of plots. This species has been documented as a frequent ginseng associate in other parts of its range

(c.f., Anderson 1996, Anderson et al. 1993, Farrington 2006, Jones and Wolf 2001).

However, Virginia-creeper can persist under a variety of habitat conditions, many of which are not especially conducive to ginseng (e.g., forest edges, field margins, and

182 roadside areas). Rather than attributing this association to both of these species having a similar ―ecological niche,‖ the frequent association of these two species may be better explained by similarities in morphology: both have a palmate-compound leaf. This foliage similarity makes distinguishing between the two difficult during certain life stages and seasons. Thus, the association of ginseng and Virginia-creeper could be a result of

―plant mimicry‖ where collectors inadvertently ―miss‖ ginseng due to the presence of

Virginia-creeper. On sites where Virginia-creeper is not present, or is present in low numbers, ginseng would be more readily apparent to collectors and thus perhaps more likely collected.

This study found that spicebush was the most common mid/under-story shrub associated with ginseng in PA, occurring on more than half (54%) of the sites. This species has also been reported as a top ginseng associate in Missouri (Farrington 2006) and a frequent associate in Illinois (Anderson et al. 1984). ISA results suggest this species was more commonly associated with ginseng on sites in the southern half of PA, and was more common as an associate in the Piedmont Province.

Nearly all of the remaining top ranked mid- and under-story shrub/tree/vine ginseng associates in PA have been reported as associates elsewhere (e.g., Anderson et al. 1984, Anderson 1996, Farrington 2006, Nadeau and Olivier 2003) and many (e.g., poison-ivy, wild grape, blackberry) are ―weedy.‖ Exceptions are maple-leaved viburnum, which was found on more than half (52%) of study sites, and prickly gooseberry, which co-occurred on about a third (35%) of sites. While other researchers

(e.g., Anderson 1996, Farrington 2006) have noted gooseberries (a.k.a., currents, Ribes spp.) as ginseng associates in other states, especially R. missouriense (also found in PA

183 but not on any sites in this study), none had reported the most common species observed in PA, prickly gooseberry. Rhoads and Block (2007) describe the habitat for this species as ―thin, moist, rocky woods‖ in PA.

Maple-leaved viburnum occurs statewide in PA (Rhoads and Klein 1993) but was nevertheless most commonly associated with ginseng in the southern portion of the state, and within the Piedmont Province. By contrast, ISA results indicated that prickly gooseberry was more commonly associated with ginseng in northern PA, and within the

Appalachian Plateau Province in particular. The latter finding agrees with the known distribution for this species in the state which is largely restricted to the Appalachian

Plateau Province (Rhoads and Klein 1993, Rhoads and Block 2007). Both findings suggest delimited ―indicator value‖ for each of these species with maple-leaved viburnum being more useful/reliable in southern PA while prickly gooseberry may be a more useful/reliable in the northern part of the state.

4.2.3 Under-story associates (i.e., herbs and ferns)

Jack-in-the-pulpit was the most common flowering herb ginseng associate in PA, occurring on 93 percent of sites and 80 percent of plots. This species has also been found to be a top or top-ranked associate in Illinois (Anderson et al. 1984), Kentucky (Jones and Wolf 2001), Missouri (Farrington 2006), Quebec (Nadeau and Olivier 2003) and

Wisconsin (Anderson 1996). Thatcher et al. (2006) found this species was one of the top ginseng indicators on sites located in eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia.

Rhoads and Block (2007) describe the habitat for this species as ―moist woods, swamps,

184 and bogs‖ and note it is found throughout PA. ISA results indicate Jack-in-the-pulpit was most commonly associated with ginseng in the eastern half of the state, and on soils with a pH above 5.5 and calcium levels greater than 3,000 pounds per acre. These findings, and considering the broad habitat niche associated with this species, suggest it is most useful as an ―indicator‖ when encountered on forestlands (as opposed to swamps and bogs) and in association with other calcicoles such as sugar maple and rattlesnake fern

(discussed below).

Based upon fieldwork in Great Smoky Mountains National Park in eastern

Tennessee and North Carolina, Rock et al. (1999) suggested that bloodroot, black cohosh, maidenhair fern, and yellow lady-slipper were useful for predicting ginseng habitat. Of these four species, black cohosh and maidenhair fern were the most common associates in PA, and were present on 42 and 27 percent of sites, respectively. Bloodroot and yellow lady-slipper, comparatively, were only present on 18 and 4 percent of sites in PA, respectively. The findings from this study therefore suggest bloodroot and yellow lady- slipper may be useful in other parts of the species‘ range (e.g., southern?) but are of limited ―indicator value‖ in PA.

With regard to ferns, the most common ginseng associates in PA were Christmas fern, rattlesnake fern, and three species of wood fern (Dryopteris spp.). All have similarly been reported as top associates elsewhere within the natural range (Anderson et al. 1984, Farrington 2006, Nadeau and Olivier 2003). Of particular interest is rattlesnake fern, which was present on more than two-thirds (69%) of sites in this study and most commonly on eastern sites where soil pH was above 5.5 and calcium levels above 3,000 pounds per acre. Rhoads and Block (2007) have noted the habitat for this species in PA

185 is ―rich loamy woods and moist wooded slopes‖ and is distributed throughout the state.

This fern was associated with ginseng on 69 percent of sites in Illinois (Anderson et al.

1984), 59 percent of research sites in Kentucky (Jones and Wolf 2001), 53 percent of sites in Missouri (Farrington 2006) and 45 percent of sites in Quebec (Nadeau and Olivier

2003), suggesting an important ―indicator role‖ for this species across a broad range of eastern North America. In addition to rattlesnake fern, other common names for this fern include ―seng/sang pointer,‖ ―seng/sang sign,‖ and ―seng/sang fern‖ (Bergen 1894,

Waters 1903). All of these latter common names allude to this species usefulness as a

―folk indicator‖ to locate ginseng throughout Appalachia, a belief that goes back at least

100 years (c.f., Bergen 1894, Waters 1903). It should be noted that rattlesnake fern is the most widespread Botrychium in North America (Wagner and Wagner 1993).

4.3 ―Invasive‖ plants as ginseng associates

A total of 21 non-native ―exotic‖ plants were found to be ginseng associates in this study. Many of these species occur on ―invasive plant‖ lists in PA and the region.

The most common associate in PA was the Asian shrub multiflora rose. Farrington also noted this species is an associate in Missouri (Farrington 2006). Wixted and McGraw

(2009) found multiflora rose was the most common ―invasive‖ associate in their study which included sites from seven eastern states (i.e., PA, West Virginia, Maryland, New

York, Kentucky, Virginia and Indiana). Additional species have been documented, and which were also documented in this study, included: Japanese barberry, garlic-mustard, wineberry, honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.), tree-of-heaven, privet (Ligustrum spp.),

186 Japanese honeysuckle, Norway maple, and burning-bush. Of note is the apparent absence of several non-native, exotic species from sites in the Wixted and McGraw study, but present on a significant number of sites in this study. Three such species were low smartweed, bastard hellebore, and sweet cherry, which were documented on 20, 19, and 6 percent of sites in this study, respectively. Bastard hellebore (along with several other non-native exotic species) was observed on ginseng sites during the Wixted and McGraw study but never was proximal enough to record per their sampling methodology and/or may have been missed on sites because they were only sampled once during the spring

(Wixted, pers. comm. 2010).

In this study, ISA indicated non-native exotic plants were most commonly associated with ginseng on sites in the southeastern region of PA and, more specifically, within the Piedmont Province. While no attempt was made to account for land use history in this study, it is probable that this is due to a long and extensive history of land disturbance and fragmentation in this region. The largest city in PA (and the fourth largest urban area in the U.S.), Philadelphia, is located within this province. It is also the province within which much of the state‘s agricultural and horticultural industry is centered, and the land is also being rapidly converted to housing and commercial development (The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 2003).

Thus, it is not surprising that most invasive associates occurred in this region/province.

An exception to this geographical pattern was bastard hellebore, which was most commonly associated with ginseng in northern PA, and on sites having more than 3,000 pounds of calcium per acre. Horsley et al. (2009) noted this non-native species is indicative of ―healthy‖ sugar maple stands in northern PA and New York, and further

187 noted it was often associated with disturbed conditions (e.g., roadsides, trails). Howard et al. (2004) found high available calcium linked with exotic plant invasions in New York, suggesting that the significant ISA correlations observed between soil pH, soil calcium, and invasive plants as associates of ginseng in southeast PA may reflect something more than just ―land-use legacy‖ (c.f., Foster et al. 2003) in this part of the state. Continued documentation at these field sites is needed to determine if and how invasive plants impact ginseng in the state over the long-term.

4.4. PA floristic association comparisons with collector/planter experience

Because ginseng has been pursued by wild collectors for nearly three centuries, there is considerable popular folklore regarding ―ginseng habitat‖ and ―indicators‖ in outdoor magazines and publications (c.f., Schload 1993, Skipper 2005). The scientific validity of such information is questionable, yet many individuals rely on this information in their attempts to collect or grow ginseng. For this reason, a comparison of

―folk‖ knowledge regarding ginseng habitat associations alongside field studies was of interest in this study.

When juxtaposed, there was general concurrence between field and survey results in this study. All of the top survey respondent submissions were encountered on field plots. Moreover, all the most common associates found in this field study were strikingly also most commonly cited by survey respondents. The most notable discrepancies between these two data sets occurred with herbaceous plants. Black cohosh, goldenseal, and blue cohosh were ranked highly as ―indicators‖ by survey respondents whereas in the

188 field studies these species ranked much lower as associates. This was especially notable with goldenseal, which was only encountered as an associate on four sites and seven plots in PA (7% of sites and 3% of plots) and yet was listed by 59 survey respondents. In other research, goldenseal has been documented as a more common associate than what was observed in this study. Farrington (2006), for example, found goldenseal was an associate on 42 percent of her research sites in Missouri and Jones and Wolf (2001) reported goldenseal on 41 percent of research sites in Kentucky. Other researchers have noted goldenseal as an infrequent associate elsewhere (e.g., Anderson et al. 1984). In

PA, goldenseal has been documented mostly in the southern half of the state (Rhoads and

Klein 1993) and indeed all occurrences in field plots were in southern PA.

Perhaps the most notable difference between field and survey respondent results is the complete absence of many top field documented floristic associates from the survey respondent responses. Three of the top five associates (i.e., Solomon‘s-seal, enchanter‘s- nightshade and sweet-scented bedstraw), for example, were not mentioned by even a single survey respondent. This is perhaps due to the somewhat cryptic and non-showy appearance of these species, especially when compared alongside more apparent plants like black and blue cohosh, and because of the more technical taxonomic skills required to identify these taxa (especially the bedstraws, Galium spp., of which there are 18 different species in PA). Another possible factor involved is that collectors and planters are probably much more familiar with goldenseal, black and blue cohosh, and mayapple because these species are, like ginseng, medicinal plants that are traded in commerce

(c.f., Burkhart and Jacobson 2009). Thus, many individuals are probably familiar with them because they have been solicited by buyers, or read about them in popular outdoor

189 magazines, and have therefore either collected, planted, or simply learned to recognize them as a consequence of their market value. A final reason these species may not have been mentioned is simply because people do not know their names. Indeed, nine survey respondents wrote this on their surveys, and it was common for contacts in this study to ask the author what a particular ―indicator‖ plant was called when he/she was in the field with the author at a volunteered research site.

4.5 Associated soil conditions

Soil characteristics associated with wild and wild-simulated ginseng varied considerably in PA both within and between sites. The exception to this was soil texture, which was ―loamy‖ for all sites. Varying soil conditions have similarly been reported in studies from ginseng sites in Arkansas (Fountain 1982), Illinois (Anderson et al. 1984,

1993), Kentucky (Jones and Wolf 2001), Missouri (Farrington 2006), New York

(Beyfuss 2000), and Wisconsin (Anderson 1996). Ginseng is mycorrhizal (McGonigle et al. 1999, Whitbread et al. 1996) and this may account for its ability to tolerate the wide variety of soil chemical conditions observed in wild ginseng studies.

Fertility was generally low for all major nutrients, except calcium which averaged greater than 3,000 pounds per acre in all physiographic provinces and regions. Previous research suggests calcium levels may be important for wild and wild-simulated ginseng production. Beyfuss (2000), for example, has noted the association of ginseng with sugar maple may be due to a predilection by both species for soils high in calcium. Horsley et al. (2009) found that ginseng could be used as an indicator of ―healthy‖ sugar maple

190 stands in PA, New York, Vermont and New Hampshire, in part because high soil calcium correlated with both ginseng and healthy sugar maple.

Nadeau et al. (2003) investigated the role of soil pH and fertility on wild- simulated ginseng production by examining survival and growth in response to lime and organic fertilizer additions. After five years of growth, they measured significant differences in both the establishment and vegetative growth of plants grown using these amendments on a highly acidic site (pH 3.8-4.1). Of particular interest, however, was their observation that calcium additions had a greater positive effect than organic fertilizer (or fungicides) on survival and growth. This finding agrees with earlier studies showing beneficial effects from lime and/or calcium including Konsler and Shelton

(1990) who found that dolomitic lime and phosphorus increased final root weight and

Stoltz (1982) who demonstrated that calcium deficiency symptoms were the first to be expressed in hydroponic nutrient deficiency studies. Additions of lime (and thus calcium) were also found by Konsler et al. (1990) to significantly alter the content of certain ginsenosides in vegetative and root tissue, as well as increase total ginsenoside levels. Ginsenosides are believed responsible for any beneficial health effects associated with consuming ginseng and ginseng products (Court 2000).

5.0 Conclusions

Sugar maple was the most common over-story tree associated with ginseng in PA, occurring in close proximity to ginseng on 70 percent of sites. The significant role of this species as an over-story element has been noted as far north as Quebec (Nadeau and

191 Olivier 2003), as far west as Wisconsin (Anderson 1996), and as far south as Arkansas

(Fountain 1986). From an agroforestry adoption standpoint, sugar maple as a common associate of ginseng in PA is important because it can be used to manufacture maple syrup (an established non-timber forest product industry in PA) and is a desirable hardwood timber species as well. Thus, the production of wild-simulated ginseng in maple dominated forests (i.e., ―sugarbushes‖), while pursuing other longer term ―tree cropping‖ options, holds significant potential as a ―sustainable‖ land use option in PA.

Although documented statewide as an associate, sugar maple was most commonly associated with ginseng in the northern and western halves of PA.

The utility and reliability of over-story tree associates for identifying favorable ginseng habitat is greatly improved by concomitant attention to site under-story species composition. The results obtained in this study suggest a ―core assemblage‖ of over- and under-story species is most reliable for practical identification of forestlands conducive to wild-simulated ginseng agroforestry. Following the elimination of many common associates on account of life history traits (e.g., ―weedy-ness‖) and/or wide ecological breadth (i.e., ―generalist‖), and considering ginseng association findings from other regions, the following species are suggested as useful for identifying calcium-rich, conducive sites for wild-simulated ginseng production on forestlands in PA: sugar maple as a dominant over-story canopy tree; spicebush as a dominant mid-story shrub; and

Jack-in-the-pulpit and rattlesnake fern in the herbaceous layer. When these species are present as over- and under-story associates, respectively, landowner chances of either encountering or establishing ginseng on forestlands are greatly improved.

192 References

Anderson, M.P. 1996. American ginseng (Panax quinquefolium L.) in Southwestern

Wisconsin: Patterns of Demography and Habitat Associations. M.S. Thesis.

University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI.

Anderson, R.C., J.S. Fralish, J.E. Armstrong and P.K. Benjamin. 1984. Biology of

Ginseng (Panax quinquefolium L.) in Illinois. Illinois Department of

Conservation, Division of Forest Resources and Natural Heritage. Springfield, IL.

Anderson, R.C., J.S. Fralish, J.E. Armstrong, and P.K. Benjamin. 1993. The Ecology

and Biology of Panax quinquefolium L. (Araliaceae) in Illinois. American

Midland Naturalist 129 (2): 357-372.

Bergen, F.D. 1894. Popular American Plant Names III. Araliaceae. The Journal of

American Folklore 7 (15).

Beck, D.E. 1990. Yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) in Burns, R. M. and B.H.

Honkala (tech. cords). Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture

Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Beyfuss, B. 1999. The Practical Guide to Growing Ginseng. Cornell Cooperative

Extension of Greene County. Cairo, NY.

Beyfuss, B. 2000. Soil Nutrient Characteristics of Wild Ginseng Populations in New

York, New Jersey, Maine, and Tennessee. Pages 105-114 in R.L. Beyfuss, ed.

Proceedings of the ―American Ginseng Production in the 21st Century‖

conference, September 8-10, 2000. Cornell Cooperative Extension of Greene

County, NY.

193 Bierzychudek, P. 1982. Life Histories and Demography of Shade-Tolerant Temperate

Forest Herbs: A Review. New Phytologist 90: 757-776.

Burkhart, E.P. and M.G. Jacobson. 2009. Transitioning from Wild Collection to Forest

Cultivation of Indigenous Medicinal Forest Plants in Eastern North America is

Constrained by Lack of Profitability. Agroforestry Systems 76 (2): 437-453.

Carlson, A.W. 1986. Ginseng: America‘s Botanical Drug Connection to the Orient.

Economic Botany 40 (2): 233-249.

Carpenter, S.G. 1980. Population Dynamics, Life History, and Management

Recommendations for American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) in Wisconsin.

MS Thesis. University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI.

Causton, D.R. 1987. An Introduction to Vegetation Analysis: Principles, Practice, and

Interpretation. Uniwn Hyman, Boston, MA.

Court, W.E. 2000. Ginseng: The Genus Panax. Harwood Academic Publishers, The

Netherlands.

Curtis, J.T. and R.P. McIntosh. 1951. An Upland Forest Continuum in the Prairie-Forest

Border Region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32: 476-496.

Dufrêne, M. and P. Legendre. 1997. Species Assemblages and Indicator Species: the

Need for a Flexible Asymmetrical Approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345-

366.

Eckert, D. and J.T. Sims. 1995. Recommended Soil pH and Lime Requirement Tests.

Pages 11-16 in J. Thomas Sims and A. Wolf, eds. Recommended Soil Testing

Procedures for the Northeastern United States. Northeast Regional Bulletin #493.

Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.

194 Emerman, S.H. and T.E. Dawson. 1996. Hydraulic Lift and Its Influence on the Water

Content of the Rhizosphere: An Example from Sugar Maple, Acer saccharum.

Oecologia 108: 273- 278.

Epler, J.W., Jr. 1985 (first printing). All About Ginseng. Cornhusker Press, Hastings,

NE.

Evans B.L. 1985. Ginseng: Root of Chinese-Canadian Relations. Canadian Historical

Review LXVI (1): 1-26.

Farrington, S.J. 2006. An Ecological Study of American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius

L.) in the Missouri Ozark Highlands: Effects of Herbivory and Harvest,

Ecological Characterization and Wild Simulated Cultivation. Master of Science

Thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Fike, J. 1999. Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant Communities of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. Harrisburg, PA.

Foster, D., F. Swanson, J. Aber, I. Burke, N. Brokaw, D. Tilman and A. Knapp. 2003.

The Importance of Land-use Legacies to Ecology and Conservation. BioScience

53 (1): 77-88.

Fountain, M.S. 1982. Site Factors Associated with Natural Populations of Ginseng in

Arkansas. Castanea 47: 261-265.

Fountain, M.S. 1986. Vegetation Associated With Natural Populations of Ginseng

(Panax quinquefolium) in Arkansas. Castanea 51 (1): 42-48.

FWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. American Ginseng Exports from

the United States. Data obtained from Division of Scientific Authority by request.

Gee, G.W. and J.W. Bauder. 1986. Particle size analysis. Pages 383-411 in A. Klute, ed.

195 Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods.

Agronomy Monograph #9. Second edition. American Society of Agronomy,

Madison, WI.

Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern

United States and Adjacent Canada. Second edition. The New York Botanical

Garden, Bronx, NY.

Godman, R.M., H.W. Yawney and C.H. Tubbs. 1990. Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) in

Burns, R. M. and B.H. Honkala (tech. cords). Silvics of North America: 2.

Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Washington, DC.

Hill, D.B., and L.E. Buck. 2000. Forest Farming Practices. Pages 283-320 in Garrett,

H.E., W.J. Rietveld, and R.F. Fisher, eds. North American Agroforestry: an

Integrated Science and Practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

Horsley, S.B., S.W. Bailey, T. E. Ristau, R. P. Long, and R. A. Hallett. 2008. Linking

Environmental Gradients, Species Composition, and Vegetation Indicators of

Sugar Maple Health in the Northeastern United States. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research 38: 1761-1774.

Howard, T.G., J. Gurevitch, L. Hyatt, M. Carreiro and M. Lerdau. 2004. Forest

Invasibility in Communities in Southeastern New York. Biological Invasions 6:

393-410.

Hu, S.Y. 1976. The Genus Panax (Ginseng) in Chinese Medicine. Economic Botany

30: 11-28.

Jones, R.T. and J. Wolf. 2001. Report of 1999 Wild Ginseng Monitoring Program in

196 Kentucky. Empire State Ginseng Growers Association (ESGGA) News 3 (1).

April.

Kent, M. and P. Coker. 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical

Approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Konsler, T.R. and J.E. Shelton. 1990. Lime and Phosphorus Effects on American

Ginseng: I. Growth, Soil Fertility, and Root Tissue Nutrient Status Response.

Journal of the American Horticultural Society 115 (4): 570-574.

Konsler, T.R., Zito, S.W., Shelton, J.E. and Staba, E.J. 1990. Lime and Phosphorus

Effects on American Ginseng: II. Root and Leaf Ginsenoside Content and Their

Relationship. Journal of the American Horticultural Society 115 (4): 575-580.

Köppen Climate Classification. 2011. Climate data and summaries for Pennsylvania.

Available on the internet at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification Last

accessed: March 2011.

Ladd, D. 1993. Coefficients of Conservatism for Missouri Vascular Flora. The Nature

Conservancy. St. Louis, MO.

Lim, W., K.W. Mudge, and F. Vermeylen. 2005. Effects of Population, Age, and

Cultivation Methods on Ginsenoside Content of Wild American Ginseng (Panax

quinquefolium). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53: 8498-8505.

Long, R.P., S.B. Horsley, R.A. Hallett and S.W. Bailey. 2009. Sugar Maple Growth in

Relation to Nutrition and Stress in the Northeastern United States. Ecological

Applications, 19(6): 1454–1466.

McCune, B. and J.B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MJM

197 Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR.

McGraw, J.B., S.M. Sanders and M. Van der Voort. 2003. Distribution and Abundance

of Hydrastis canadensis L. (Ranunculaceae) and Panax quinquefolius L.

(Araliaceae) in the Central Appalachian Region. Journal of the Torrey Botanical

Society 130 (2): 62-69.

McGonigle, T.P., J.P. Hovius R.L. and Peterson. 1999. Arbuscular Myccorhizae of

American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) in Cultivated Field Plots: Plant Age

Affects the Development of a Colonization Lag Phase. Canadian Journal of

Botany 77: 1028-1034.

McWilliams, W.H., S.P. Cassell, C.L. Alerich, B.J. Butler, M.L. Hoppus, S.B. Horsley,

A.J. Lister, T.W. Lister, R.S. Morin, C.H. Perry, J.A. Westfall, E.H. Wharton and

C.W. Woodall. 2007. Pennsylvania‘s Forest, 2004. Resour. Bull. NRS-20.

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern

Research Station.

Nadeau, I. and A. Olivier. 2003. Revue de la biologie et de la production du ginseng à

cinq folioles (Panax quiquefolius L.) en milieu forestier au Canada. Canadian

Journal of Plant Science 83: 877-891.

Nadeau, I., R.R. Simard, and A. Olivier. 2003. The Impact of Lime and Organic

Fertilization on the Growth of Wild-simulated American Ginseng. Canadian

Journal of Plant Science 83: 603-609.

OMAFRA – Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2005. Production

Recommendations for Ginseng. Publication 610. Ministry of Agriculture and

Food, Toronto, Canada.

198 PA Geological Survey. 2011. Geographic data and summaries for Pennsylvania.

Available on the internet at: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/index.aspx Last

accessed: March 2011.

PA State Climatologist. 2011. Climate data and summaries for Pennsylvania.

Available on the internet at: http://climate.met.psu.edu/www_prod/ Last

accessed: March 2011.

Persons, W.S. and J.M. Davis. 2005. Growing and Marketing Ginseng, Goldenseal and

Other Woodland Medicinals. Bright Mountain Books, Fairview, NC.

Pritts, K.D. 1995. Ginseng: How to Find, Grow, and Use America‘s Forest Gold.

Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA.

Rhoads, A.F. and W.M. Klein, Jr. 1993. The Vascular Flora of Pennsylvania Annotated

Checklist and Atlas. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA.

Rhoads, A.F. and T.A. Block. 2005. Trees of Pennsylvania: A Complete Reference

Guide. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Rhoads, A.F. and T.A. Block. 2007. The Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Manual.

Second edition. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Rock, J., J.H. Hornbeck, J. Tietjen, and E. Choberka. 1999. Habitat Modeling and

Protection of American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) in Great Smoky

Mountains National Park. U.S. National Park Service Report. Great Smoky

Mountains National Park, Gatlinburg, TN.

Schlesinger, R.C. 1990. White ash (Fraxinus americana) in Burns, R. M. and B.H.

Honkala (tech. cords). Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture

Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

199 Schload, P. 1993. Ginseng Hunting Tips. The Trapper and Predator Caller. September:

29-30.

Schulte, E.E. 1995. Recommended Soil Organic Matter Tests. Pages 47-56 in J.

Thomas Sims and A. Wolf, eds. Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the

Northeastern United States. Northeast Regional Bulletin #493. Agricultural

Experiment Station, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.

Sharpe, W.E. and J.R. Drohan. 1999. Proceedings of the ―1998 Pennsylvania Acidic

Deposition‖ conference, September 14-16, 1998. Environmental Resources

Research Institute, the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Skipper, R.A. 2005. 12 Tips for Finding More Wild Ginseng. Fur-Fish-Game, August:

23-24.

Thatcher, C.A., J.A. Young and F.T. van Manen. 2006. Habitat Characterization and

Population Abundance of Internationally Traded Plants. Final Report Submitted

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Scientific Authority.

The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. 2003. Back to

Prosperity: A Competitive Agenda for Renewing Pennsylvania. Full report

available on the internet at:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2003/12metropolitanpolicy_pennsylvania.aspx

Last accessed March 2011.

USDA – United State Department of Agriculture. 2002. McWilliams, W.H., C.A.

Alerich, D.A. Devlin, A.J. Lister, T.W. Lister, S.L. Sterner, and J.A. Westfall.

Annual Inventory Report for Pennsylvania‘s Forests: Results from the First Two

200 Years. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station Resource Bulletin

NE-156.

USDA NAC – United State Department of Agriculture National Agroforestry Center.

2010. Available on the internet at: http://www.unl.edu/nac/ Last accessed:

September 2010.

Wagner, W.H. and F.S. Wagner. 1993. Ophioglossaceae: Adder‘s-tongue family. Pages

85-106 in Flora of North America North of Mexico volume 2: Pteridophytes and

Gymnosperms. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Waters, C.E. 1903. Ferns: A Manual for the Northeastern United States. Henry Holt

and Company, New York, NY.

Whitbread, F., T.P. McGonigle and R.L. Peterson. 1996. Vesicular-Arbuscular

Mycorrhizal Associations of American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) in

Commercial Production. Canadian Journal of Botany 74: 1104-1112.

Wixted, K. and J.B. McGraw. 2009. A Panax-centric View of Invasive Species.

Biological Invasions 11: 883-893.

Wolf, A.M. and D.B. Beegle. 1995. Recommended Soil Tests for Macronutrients:

Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium, and Magnesium. Pages 25-34 in J. Thomas

Sims and A. Wolf, eds. Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the

Northeastern United States. Northeast Regional Bulletin #493. Agricultural

Experiment Station, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.

201 Chapter 6

Conclusion: Recommendations regarding the “conservation through cultivation” approach to ginseng conservation in Pennsylvania

This interdisciplinary study of American ginseng in Pennsylvania sought to develop information that could be used to better understand the context within which

―conservation through cultivation‖ can be strategically implemented. Taken as a whole, study findings suggest a complex scenario in which existing ―wild‖ root exports already consist of a mix of collected and husbanded product, and an industry in which some are striving for greater recognition and legitimacy while others would like to remain ―under the radar.‖ Within this context, the ginseng market classifies and values roots according to appearances and not necessarily according to how it was produced. Thus, the axiom

―if it looks wild, it is wild‖ was commonly overheard among stakeholders.

Financial models indicate that ginseng is one of the few commercial native forest medicinal plants that can be cultivated profitability as part of ―forest farming‖ agroforestry ecosystems (Chapter 2). Social inquiries suggest that many individuals are already doing so (Chapter 4). Nevertheless, concerns over the sustainability of the wild trade, and the difficulty of differentiating wild (i.e., spontaneously-occurring) from wild- simulated (i.e., intentionally managed) roots indicates better mechanisms are needed to help track the true origins of ―wild‖ roots traded in commerce (Chapter 4). Ginseng conservation efforts to date have followed a top-down, regulatory approach which appears to have serious shortcomings (e.g., lack of enforcement), and many stakeholders would prefer to have proactive planting (―cultivation through cultivation‖) programs to

202 these existing efforts (Chapter 3). The use of specific floristic assemblages can provide statewide guidance to landowners interested in ginseng husbandry on private forestlands in the state (Chapter 5). All of these findings collectively suggest ginseng ―conservation through cultivation‖ has potential as conservation vehicle in Pennsylvania.

Recommendations based on these studies:

A ―conservation through cultivation‖ program or effort in Pennsylvania will require re-structuring of existing wild ginseng management approaches and mechanisms.

The following recommendations derived from the studies in this dissertation are intended to: (1) better align the Pennsylvania ginseng management program with the complex and evolving nature of this industry; (2) facilitate an adaptive management approach that can be continually informed by stakeholders; and (3) provide an appropriate management context within which a ―conservation through cultivation‖ approach can be promoted and enabled.

▪ Simplify and modify ginseng commerce paperwork and the root certification process so

that commerce tracking mechanisms are better aligned with buyer and trader

norms (including the trade lexicon).

▪ Establish a point-of-sale survey to track the source of the supply of ginseng and hold

frequent stakeholder (e.g., dealer, grower, collector) focus groups to gather input

and feedback regarding this process and information derived from it.

203

▪ Recognize forest farming and husbandry as activities that have both recreational and

economic drivers and help encourage good practices through targeted outreach.

▪ Develop a voluntary ―grower program‖ with attractive benefits (e.g., exemptions from

wild regulations; better ability to prosecute theft incidents) thereby facilitating

identification of growers in the state.

▪ Review the appropriateness of established harvest and commerce restrictions (especially

for planters and growers operating on private lands) and strengthen law

enforcement tools and awareness through outreach and improved inter-agency

coordination.

Although intended for Pennsylvania, these recommendations will likely have equal applicability and benefit for other states in eastern North America with wild ginseng export programs, and who might consider ―cultivation through conservation‖ as an approach to ginseng conservation.

Additional questions raised by these studies:

Results from the studies undertaken in this dissertation raised additional research questions for future investigation. These include:

204 ▪ How do the models, and model parameters, used in the financial analyses conducted in

this research compare with real-world case studies of medicinal plant growers?

▪ What are stakeholder attitudes, concerns, and recommendations regarding the

development of a ―wild steward‖ medicinal plant certification program to assist

with the transition from wild extraction to agroforestry-based husbandry or

cultivation?

▪ What elements belong in any certification program to achieve greater transparency and

increased revenues to growers?

▪ How representative are the social results obtained in this research, which made heavy

use of ―convenience‖ and ―snowball‖ sampling? Do any key findings change

with continued (i.e., longitudinal) study?

▪ Can a point-of-sale survey serve as an effective longitudinal mechanism for informing

state and federal ginseng programs about the supply of wild ginseng? What is the

appropriate content and length for this instrument? How should this instrument be

delivered and returned in order to obtain the most reliable and robust

participation?

▪ What does the Asian consumer know about American ginseng conservation efforts and

regulations? What are the emic perspectives regarding ginseng lexicon and origin

within Asian trade and supply chains, including ―China-towns‖ located in the

United States? Are there opportunities to educate the Asian trader/consumer in

order to promote awareness (and sustainability) in purchasing behaviors?

205 ▪ How reliable is the ―core assemblage‖ of ―indicators‖ identified in this study for

identifying conducive habitat(s) across Pennsylvania and across the range of

ginseng?

▪ In what floristic association(s) does one encounter key indicators Arisaema triphyllum

and Botrychium virginianum where ginseng is absent?

▪ What types of habitat conditions are associated with successful ―wild-simulated‖

introductions (which includes a much broader sample than obtained in this

study)? How do these compare with the results obtained in this study?

▪ How common is mycorrhizal colonization of ginseng roots across Pennsylvania, and

what soil conditions and/or grower practices (e.g., use of fungicides) are

associated with colonization (or lack thereof)?

▪ Can mycorrhizal ginseng associates be isolated, cultured, and developed into an

―inoculant‖ that could be used by ginseng growers to promote health and survival

in their ginseng plantings?

▪ What is the long-term fate of ginseng populations in Pennsylvania given ―threats‖ such

as land conversion and development pressures in parts of the state? How do these

compare with the ―threat‖ posed by collection?

▪ How does genetic provenance influence success in introducing ginseng on forestlands

as a ―wild-simulated‖ agroforestry crop?

206 Appendix A

Key informant probe questions: collectors and planters

PART I: Asked to all key informants

1. How and why did you become interested in ginseng? 1A. (If still involved) Why do you continue to take an interest in ginseng?

2. How have you learned about ginseng? 2A. What kinds of information do you think is needed?

3. Do you think that ginseng plant numbers are increasing, declining, or staying about the same in your area? 3A. What do you feel contributes to this?

4. Do you think that more, less, or the same numbers of people are involved in some way with ginseng in your area? 4A. What do you feel contributes to this?

5. What is your opinion of Pennsylvania‘s efforts to manage ginseng in the state? 5A. What are your suggestions for management or regulation?

PART 2A: Asked only to collectors

6. How often do you collect ginseng? 6A. Do you visit the same area every year? 6B. How do you go about harvesting in area? Is there a strategy or do you just collect whatever you come across? 6C. Do you have any idea of whether other people harvest in your collection areas? 6C1. (If yes) Do/Did you have any type of agreement with him/her?

7. In what ways have you tended your collection areas?

8. Do you plant seed or roots in these same areas? 8A. How long have you done so? 8B. How much have you planted? 8C. Where do/did you get the planting stock?

9. What do/did you do with the ginseng that you collect?

207 10. Do you collect any other forest products (plants, mushrooms, berries, etc.) for income or pleasure? 10A. Why did you get involved with this/these?

11. Why don‘t you cultivate ginseng?

12. Will you show me some of the things, including plants and trees, that you look for when you collect ginseng that suggest to you that the plant may be present?

PART 2B: Asked only to ginseng planters/growers

6. How long have you been planting ginseng? 6A. Have you planted on property that you own or elsewhere?

7. Where/How have you obtained planting stock?

8. Have you harvested or sold any ginseng from your plantings? 8A. (If yes) How much and what did you do with it?

9. Do you know anybody who has planted or plants ginseng stock from a commercial source? 9A. (If yes) How much do/did they plant 9B. (If yes) What do/did they do with it?

10. What do you find most troublesome with cultivating/growing ginseng?

11. Will you show me some of the plants and trees you look for when you are looking for planting locations?

208 Appendix B

Key informant probe questions: buyers and traders

1. Vulnerable plants are plant species ―in danger of population decline within this commonwealth because of their beauty, economic value, use as a cultivar or other factors which indicate that persons may seek to remove these species from their native habitats.‖

1A. Should there be any plants listed as vulnerable in Pennsylvania? 1B. Should ginseng be included? 1C. Should goldenseal be included? 1D. Should yellow lady-slipper be included? 1E. Are there others?

2. What should be the role of the PA DCNR with regard to regulation & oversight of ginseng and other vulnerable plant (goldenseal, lady-slipper orchid) collection and planting on 2A. Private lands? 2B. State lands?

3. What should dealer requirements be?

4. In what manner, if any, have PA DCNR/Federal USFWS regulations affected industry: 4A. Ethics 4B. Stewardship/conservation 4C. Business 4D. Husbandry (planting, tending, etc.)

5. How might cooperation/communication/reporting between PA DCNR and the public improved?

6. What do you think the public response would be to establishment of a vulnerable plant collector-grower licensing/permitting program in PA? 6A. Do you have any recommendations on how such a licensing program should be implemented in order to be favorably received by dealers, collectors, planters, etc?

209 Appendix C

Facilitated group discussion probe questions: enforcement community

1. Please state your name, agency affiliation, and level of knowledge about (or experience with) American ginseng.

2. What aspects of the current ginseng management program in Pennsylvania do you feel are enforceable? What is unrealistic?

3. PA DCNR is considering making changes to the ginseng management program in Pennsylvania. How do you feel the program could be improved or made more effective?

4. How do you feel your agency could assist with ginseng management or enforcement in Pennsylvania? In other words, what do you see your role as?

5. What types of resources/activities/tools would be useful to enforce/prosecute ginseng crimes?

210 Appendix D

Facilitated group discussion probe questions: planters and growers

1. Should government have any role in forest farming of ginseng? 1A. Are there any state and federal management steps that could be taken to encourage and support ginseng forest farming in the US?

2. What specific management actions taken by federal and state agencies interfere with forest cultivation and marketing of ginseng? WHY? 2A. What types of restrictions/regulations would be acceptable to growers? Why?

3. Some state and federal ginseng management agencies are suggesting that growers/planters be required to document their planting efforts. How do you feel about such a requirement? 3A. What kinds of ―proofs‖ would you consider acceptable in terms of documentation and reporting of plantings? 3B. What are your concerns about such reporting programs?

4. As a grower/planter of ginseng, do you feel that the distinction between ―wild‖ and ―wild-simulated‖ ginseng is appropriate? 4A. Do you think it is useful for the forest cultivation industry? 4B. How do you think ―wild-simulated‖ should be distinguished or separated from ―wild‖ in plot/harvest reporting?

5. USFWS (and other government agencies) is concerned about the planting of ―non- local‖ or ―commercial‖ stock on forestlands. Do you feel that this is, or should be, an issue for growers/planters? 5A. What steps could be taken by growers to address such concerns? 5B. What steps could be taken by government to address such concerns?

211 Appendix E

Initial letter sent by DCNR to survey sample frame addresses (2004)

212 Appendix F

Cover letter included with each survey instrument (2004-2006)

Greetings:

Enclosed you will find a survey form that is part of a study entitled Taking Stock of American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) in Pennsylvania: Developing Resource Information for Conservation and Cultivation in the 21st Century (information available via the World Wide Web at: www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/wildplant/). As someone involved with American ginseng in Pennsylvania, we are writing to ask for your participation in this statewide study. Because very little is actually known about the involvement of Pennsylvanians in ginseng collection, cultivation, and conservation activities, it continues to be difficult for educators within the Commonwealth to provide support and assistance to those involved with this natural resource. Additionally, there has been concern expressed by members of the Pennsylvania ginseng community regarding current management and regulatory efforts by State and Federal agencies. This survey was created in the hope that you will contribute information in an effort to sustain and improve state educational and management efforts. Your completion of the enclosed survey will provide valuable experience and perspective to those interested and involved with ginseng in the Commonwealth. It should take 10-20 minutes of your time to complete the survey form. Although there are no risks to participating, your involvement is entirely voluntary and you may decline to answer any specific questions included in the survey. Your answers will remain completely confidential and will be released only as part of future summaries in which no individual respondent‘s answers can be identified. Because survey results will remain anonymous, it is important that you complete this survey only once. If you would prefer to communicate your experiences and opinions in-person or by telephone, please contact us so that we might make alternative arrangements. For legal purposes, persons must be 18 years of age or older to participate. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, we would be happy to talk with you. I can be reached by telephone at (814) 863-0401 or via e-mail at [email protected]. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact Penn State‘s Office for Research Protections at (814) 865-1775. By returning a completed survey form, you are consenting to participate in this study. Please keep this letter for your records or future reference.

Thank you for your consideration.

213 Appendix G

Return postcard included with each survey instrument, used to solicit additional survey participants, key informants, and/or field habitat studies sites (2004-2006)

214 Appendix H

Reminder postcard sent to survey addresses (2004-2006)

In past weeks, you should have received a survey packet containing questions about your involvement with and knowledge of ginseng in Pennsylvania. You were selected to receive this survey because of your previous contact with a dealer or at the recommendation of another person who thought that you might be able to provide valuable perspective.

If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks. If not, please do so today. I am especially interested in your participation because it is only through public contributions that the future of ginseng collection, cultivation and commerce will be sustained and improved in Pennsylvania.

If you did not receive a questionnaire, or it was misplaced, please call me at 814-863-0401 and I will get another one in the mail to you today.

Eric P. Burkhart School of Forest Resources, the Pennsylvania State University

215 Appendix I

Final reminder letter sent to non-response survey addresses (2004-2006)

Greetings:

During the past couple of months, you should have received a survey as part of a study of American ginseng in Pennsylvania. The purpose of this letter is to make a final appeal for your participation in this statewide study. If you have not already completed the survey that was mailed to you, then please do so today. If for some reason you did not receive the survey, or it was misplaced or damaged, then please call me and request a new one. If you are not involved with American ginseng, and your name has been forwarded to me in error, then please contact me so that I can remove your name from my mailing list. Because very little is actually known about the involvement of Pennsylvanians with ginseng, it continues to be difficult for Penn State extension to provide the appropriate types of technical support and assistance to those interested in this natural resource. Additionally, members of the Pennsylvania ginseng community have expressed concern to us regarding the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of management and regulatory actions taken by State and Federal agencies in recent years. Your completion of a survey will provide sorely needed local experience and perspective that will be used to help improve educational and management efforts. Survey responses will remain completely confidential and will be released only as part of future summaries in which no individual respondent‘s answers can be linked back to him/her. Because survey results will remain anonymous, it is important that you complete a survey only once. If you would prefer to communicate your experiences and opinions in-person or by telephone, please contact me so that we can make alternative arrangements. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, I would be happy to talk with you. I can be reached by telephone at (814) 863-0401; via e-mail at [email protected]; or by writing to 7 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

216 Appendix J

Survey instrument used in this dissertation research (begins on the next page)(2004-2006)

217

AMERICAN GINSENG IN THE

COMMONWEALTH: A SURVEY OF PENNSYLVANIAN

PRACTICE, EXPERIENCE and OPINION

From Nash, 1898

The Pennsylvania State University School of Forest Resources

Please return your completed questionnaire in the envelope provided to: Eric Burkhart, 7 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802

218

Thank you for agreeing to complete this questionnaire. The form is divided into four sections; complete only those sections that are relevant to you. Feel free to qualify any of your responses by writing notes in the margins alongside the question.

SECTION 1: GINSENG IN PA

This section of the questionnaire should be answered by everyone involved in some way with ginseng in Pennsylvania.

1. Which of the following describes your involvement with ginseng in Pennsylvania (check all that apply)?

□ Current collector □ Current planter □ Current dealer □ Former collector □ Former planter □ Former dealer

□ Other (Please explain):______

2. To what extent do/did the following contribute to your interest in ginseng (check all)?

A lot Some Not At All To provide a source of income……… □ □ □ Forest farming (as a forest crop)….… □ □ □ For personal/family/friend use….... □ □ □ Out of interest in the plant………….. □ □ □ Native plant conservation……….….. □ □ □ Other:______□ □ □

3. How have you learned about ginseng (check all that apply)?

□ Reading (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) □ Television (including videos) □ The World Wide Web (i.e., internet) □ A grandparent □ A parent □ A brother/sister □ A friend □ Other :______

219

4. Please indicate which of the following restrictions regarding ginseng collection in Pennsylvania you do not agree with by placing a check in the box next to each item. Also, please state why you disagree with the restriction in the space provided.

□ Collection season dates (currently Aug. 1-Nov 30)

Why?______

□ Plant stage requirement (plants must have at least three leaves of five leaflets)

Why?______

□ Berries must be ripe (berries must be red when root is harvested)

Why?______

□ Berries must be planted in the immediate vicinity of the collection site

Why?______

5. The Pennsylvania DCNR recently began using a form (titled ‘harvester certification’) asking collectors to provide personal and landowner contact information. The intent of this initiative is in part to protect private landowners from illegal collection (i.e., theft) on their property.

A. Do you know anyone (including yourself) who has had problems with theft of ginseng from their forestland (check one)?

□ Yes □ No B. Do you support the use of the ‘harvester certification’ form as way to address this issue (check one)?

□ I am not familiar with the form □ Yes □ No (If No) Please suggest any improvements or alternatives? ______

220

6. Which of the following activities have you observed leading to the elimination of ginseng from an area (check all that apply)?

□ Timber removal □ Herbicide applications on forestlands □ Surface mining □ Land development □ Deer browsing □ Competition from other plants □ Collection by diggers

(If collection by diggers) How? □ Collection out of season □ Collectors not planting seed from harvested plants □ Collectors harvesting plants before the berries are ripe □ Collectors harvesting young (i.e. 2-prong or less) plants □ Collectors harvesting too many plants from an area □ Other: ______

7. How often have you done the following to wild ginseng plants (check all)?

Frequently Occasionally Never

Passed over a wild plant because it looked too nice to pick……… □ □ □

Pinched off the tops of wild plants to hide from other collectors….. □ □ □

Broke off the neck of a plant and re-planted it to grow……… □ □ □

Placed fertilizer around wild plants to improve growth…………….. □ □ □

Removed competing vegetation around wild plants……………. □ □ □

Re-located wild plants threatened by land development..……….. □ □ □

Transplanted wild plants for use as a source of seed…………….. □ □ □

221

8. How useful would the following types of educational support be to you (check all)?

Useful Somewhat Not useful useful Education materials (brochures, books, videos, internet)………… □ □ □

Forest consultants knowledgeable about ginseng……………………. □ □ □

Educational workshops………………….. □ □ □

Funding for ginseng studies on private forest-lands………….. □ □ □

An organization devoted to Pennsylvania ginseng…………… □ □ □

Access to Pennsylvania ginseng dealer and market info………….. □ □ □

Demonstrations of planting and other related activities…………… □ □ □

9. List three plants, shrubs, and trees that you consider most useful for identifying ginseng habitat in Pennsylvania. Please provide as many common or scientific names as you know for each species that you list.

Plants Trees Shrubs

1. ______2. ______3. ______

10. Do you own forestland in Pennsylvania (check one)?

□ No □ Yes, I own _____ acres

(If Yes) Do you have a written forest management plan?

□ No □ Yes

222

SECTION 2: GINSENG COLLECTION IN PA

The following section contains questions related to your experiences with ginseng collection in Pennsylvania, including collection of any ginseng you deliberately established. If you have never collected ginseng in Pennsylvania, skip to Section 3 (Page 10).

11. How many years have you been active at ginseng collection?

I have collected ginseng for ______year(s).

12. In which county/counties of Pennsylvania have you collected ginseng?

______

13. Which of the following factors are/were important to you in deciding whether to collect ginseng in a given year (check all)?

Very Important Not Important Important Market price………………………….. □ □ □ Availability of plants………………… □ □ □ Financial need………………….…….. □ □ □ Personal enjoyment………………….. □ □ □ Access to forestland………………….. □ □ □ Other: ______□ □ □

14. How often do/did you collect ginseng (check one)?

□ Every year □ Every few years (2-5 years) □ Rarely (5+ years) □ Whenever I see it

15. How often do/did you visit the same area to collect ginseng (check one)?

□ Every year □ Every few years (2-5 years) □ Rarely (5+ years) □ Whenever I get there

223

16. If you have stopped collecting ginseng, how important were the following factors in deciding to quit (check all)?

Very Important Not Important Important

Lack of available ginseng…………….. □ □ □ Lack of interest………………………… □ □ □ Lack of time……………………………. □ □ □ Lack of access to forestland…………... □ □ □ Physically unable to collect..…………. □ □ □ Conservation concerns……..…………. □ □ □ Too much regulatory hassle.…………. □ □ □ Other:______□ □ □

17. Have you ever collected ginseng from the following lands in Pennsylvania (check all)?

Yes No

Private individual lands………………… □ □ Private corporation lands………………. □ □ State forestlands…………………………. □ □ State game lands…………………………. □ □ State park lands………………………….. □ □ Allegheny National Forest……………… □ □ Other (where?):______

18. How often have you returned to an area where ginseng occurs to find someone

else removed some or all of the plants (check all)?

Often Occasionally Never

Some plants removed……………………. □ □ □ All plants removed………………………. □ □ □

19. Does any of the wild ginseng root that you collect originate from seed that you previously purchased and planted in the forest (check one)?

□ No, none of it □ Yes, less than half of it (1-50%) □ Yes, more than half of it (50%+) □ I think so

224

20. When you collect, approximately how many pounds (lbs) of ginseng do you normally dig in a year (indicate if this is green or dry weight)?

Green Weight Dry Weight

Less than 1 lb…………………………….. □ □ 1-2 lbs………………………………….. …. □ □ 3-5 lbs………………………………….. …. □ □ 6-10 lbs………………………………… …. □ □ Over 10 lbs……………………………. …. □ □

21. Have you ever held-over (from one year to the next) roots you collected in a given year (check one)?

□ No □ Yes

22. How much of the root that you collect do you typically sell (check one)?

□ None, I keep it all for myself or a friend □ Some, but I keep most for myself or a friend (If you sold root) □ Most, but I keep a little for myself or a friend □ All of it

Who did you sell the root to (check all that apply)? □ A dealer □ Nobody, I am a dealer □ Someone that I know who uses it □ Someone that I know who sells it locally to customers □ Someone I know who makes products out of it □ A ‘middle-man’ (i.e. friend, work-mate, etc.) who sells it to a dealer □ Other: ______

23. Do you know anyone who is not a resident of Pennsylvania who visits the state to harvest ginseng (check one)?

□ No □ Yes (If Yes) Where do they sell the root (check all that apply)? □ Pennsylvania □ In another state □ They don’t sell it □ I don’t know

225

24. Do you have an agreement with any other ginseng collector(s) in your area to not dig ginseng root from a particular forestland (check one)?

□ No □ Yes (If Yes) Why (check all that apply)? □ So we don’t dig root from each other’s collection area □ Because they own the land □ Other (please explain): ______

25. How often do you collect the following from Pennsylvania forestlands (check all)?

Often Occasionally Never

Blackberries & blueberries…….……… □ □ □ Black cohosh….…….………………….. □ □ □ Bloodroot……………………………….. □ □ □ Blue cohosh…………………………….. □ □ □ Goldenseal…………………………….... □ □ □ Ground-pine/club-moss……..………. □ □ □ Lady-slipper orchid………………….… □ □ □ Maple syrup…………………………..… □ □ □ Mayapple….…………………………..… □ □ □ Sassafras……………………………….… □ □ □ Slippery elm…………………………….. □ □ □ Wild leek/ramps..……………………... □ □ □ Wild mushrooms…….……………….… □ □ □ Other:______□ □ □ Other:______□ □ □

26. Which of the following would prevent you from growing ginseng rather than collecting it from the wild (check all that apply)?

□ Nothing would prevent me from trying to grow ginseng □ I do not own or have access to forestland suitable for growing ginseng □ I do not have the money to invest in growing ginseng □ I enjoy ginseng collection and would rather not try to grow it □ I do not know enough about growing ginseng □ There are too many deer in my area to grow ginseng □ It takes too long to grow ginseng □ There are too many people who steal ginseng in my area □ Other (please describe): ______

226

SECTION 3: GINSENG PLANTING IN PA

The following section contains questions related to your experiences with ginseng planting and husbandry. If you have never planted ginseng in PA, using either wild or cultivated stock, then skip to section 4 (page 12) to complete the questionnaire.

27. How many years have you been active at planting ginseng?

I have planted ginseng for ______year(s).

28. In which county or counties of Pennsylvania have you planted ginseng?

______

29. Which of the following best describe how you have planted ginseng in Pennsylvania (check all that apply)?

□ In small, uncrowded forest plantings □ In dense forest plantings □ In beds in the forest □ Under artificial shade □ Other (please explain):______

30. Where have you planted ginseng (check all that apply)?

□ Forestlands that I own □ Forestlands that someone-else owns □ Public forest and park lands □ Wherever I find a good location □ Other:______

31. How much ginseng have you planted over the years and what was the source of the planting stock?

I have planted _____ pounds of seed/ _____ transplants over the past _____ year(s) and obtained the planting stock from (check all that apply):

□ Forestlands in Pennsylvania that I own □ Forestlands in Pennsylvania that someone-else owns □ Public forest and park lands in Pennsylvania □ A commercial supplier in (please list the state(s)): ______

227

32. Have you harvested and sold ginseng from your plantings (check one)?

□ No □ Yes

33. Have any of these relations of yours planted ginseng on Pennsylvania forestlands (check all)?

Recently In the past Never

Grandparent …………………………… □ □ □ Parent…………………………………… □ □ □ Family…………………………………... □ □ □ Friends………………………………….. □ □ □

34. If you have stopped planting ginseng, how important were the following factors in deciding to quit (check all)?

Very Important Not Important Important

Lack of financial return…………..……. □ □ □ Deer browsing……………..……….…… □ □ □ Difficulties with plant diseases….…….. □ □ □ Lack of time……………………………… □ □ □ Personal health problems…..………….. □ □ □ Problems with theft………….…………. □ □ □ State involvement in ginseng trade….... □ □ □ Other:______□ □ □

35. In your experience, how troublesome are the following factors are in planting and raising ginseng on forestlands in PA (check all)?

Very Somewhat Not troublesome troublesome a problem

Diseases………………………………… □ □ □ Insects……………………………….….. □ □ □ Slugs………………………………….…. □ □ □ Deer……………………………………... □ □ □ Mice, chipmunks, squirrels…..……..… □ □ □ Turkeys…………………………………. □ □ □ Theft of plants………………………….. □ □ □ Seedling establishment…………..……. □ □ □ Other: ______□ □ □

228

SECTION 4: INFORMATION ABOUT YOU

The following section contains several questions about you.

36. In what county of Pennsylvania do you presently reside?

______county (counties)

37. Are you:

□ Male □ Female

38. How old are you?

_____ years of age

39. What is your primary occupation?

______

40. What is your formal educational background (check all that apply)?

□ Less than high school □ High school graduate □ Some college (but I did not complete a degree program) □ Vocational or trade school □ College graduate (baccalaureate) □ Advanced college graduate (above baccalaureate)

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. If you are interested in contributing further in this effort to develop information about ginseng in the Commonwealth, please contact us at the Pennsylvania State University School of Forest Resources (phone xxx-xxx-xxxx) or return the enclosed postcard so that we may contact you. Additionally, if you know someone who did not receive a questionnaire, and would like to participate, then please submit the enclosed postcard so that we may mail him/her a survey.

229 Appendix J-1

Survey instrument results (Question #1)

Which of the following describes your involvement with ginseng in Pennsylvania (n = 367)?

Number of respondents (n) Percent of sample

Collector only 109 30%

Planter only 24 7%

Dealer only 3 < 1%

Collector and planter 196 53%

Collector and dealer 2 < 1%

Planter and dealer 3 < 1%

Collector, planter, and dealer 21 6%

Other* 9 2%

*Other types of involvement with ginseng provided by survey respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ Very interested in sang. I study as much as I can ~ I like to fool with it as a hobby ~ Transport from areas being developed or stripped mined ~ Landowner ~ Experimenting with growing ~ Hobby-trying to keep ginseng from becoming extinct ~ Transplanting ginseng from areas that are being developed or destroyed ~ Always purchase extra seeds that I transplant where I dig of where it looks good ~ Hobbyist ginseng grower ~ Root checker, verifier and grader, pricer (not certified yet) ~

230 Appendix J-2

Survey instrument results (Question #2)

To what extent do/did the following contribute to your interest in ginseng?

A lot Some Not at all

To provide a source of income (n = 336) 21% (n = 69) 61% (n = 206) 18% (n = 61)

Forest farming (as a forest crop) (n = 277) 16% (n = 59) 43% (n = 118) 36% (n = 100)

For personal, family, or friend use (n = 278) 18% (n = 49) 42% (n = 118) 40% (n = 111)

Out of interest in the plant (n = 314) 60% (n = 188) 31% (n = 98) 9% (n = 28)

Native plant conservation (n = 288) 49% (n = 141) 37% (n = 106) 13% (n = 38)

Other* (n = 65) 78% (n = 51) 22% (n = 14)

*Other reasons provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ Thrill of finding and seeing this unique plant ~ Outdoor exploration and exercise ~ Enjoy hunting it ~ Just the enjoyment of hunting it ~ Enjoyment of the outdoors ~ Mainly as a hobby ~ It‘s a challenge to find ~ Just for exercise ~ Getting out in the woods ~ Enjoy the outdoors ~ Spending time in the woods ~ Great time of the year to be in the woods ~ Understand growing ~ Hobby ~ Enjoyment of the outdoors/recreation ~ Like to be outdoors ~ My passion for being outdoors ~ Recreation ~ Father hunted ginseng and I learned from him ~ Cultural ~ Enjoy being in the woods ~ Good to get out in the woods ~ To get in the woods, have fun ~ Just like to get out in the woods ~ Just enjoy being in the woods and hiking around as I did with my dad and now with my brother(s) ~ To bring it back in my area ~ Being in the woods ~ Pays for hunting equipment ~ My father is a dealer ~ Exercise – Hobby ~ Family heritage ~ To conserve ~ Personal enjoyment ~ People needed a market for it ~ Enjoy being in the woods ~ Thought it would be easy to grow ~ Extension education program ~ Experimental ~ Thrill and exercise ~ Fun ~ Enjoyment, recreation ~ To maintain a tradition of old time fur trappers ~ Observing nature ~ Something to do ~ A day in the woods! ~ Fun/relax time. For love of woods ~ Personal enjoyment ~ Hobby/recreation ~ Reason to walk in outdoors ~ I enjoy being out in the woods and enjoy the exercise ~ Hobby, exercise, be out with nature at a wonderful time of year ~ Being outdoors ~ Family tradition ~ Outdoors enjoyment ~ Use of natural herbs/roots ~ Enjoying outdoors hiking/walking ~ Wanted to have something to pass on to offspring ~ Joy of the activity ~ Nature walks-exercise ~ Exercise/observation of wildlife ~

231 Appendix J-3

Survey instrument results (Question #3)

How have you learned about ginseng (n = 366)?

Yes No

Books, magazines, newspapers 60% (n = 219) 40% (n = 147) Television (including videos) 4% (n = 13) 96% (n = 353) Internet 10% (n = 38) 90% (n = 328) Grandparent 26% (n = 94) 74% (n = 272) Parent 33% (n = 122) 67% (n = 244) Sibling 9% (n = 34) 91% (n = 332) Friend 51% (n = 186) 49% (n = 180) Other* 17% (n = 63)

*Other methods provided by respondents (quoted from the survey instrument):

~ Personal experience ~ Uncle ~ Father-in-law ~ Trial and error from growing it ~ Camping trips with family ~ Trial and error experience ~ A class ~ Son ~ Trial and error ~ Older farmers in area ~ Brother in- law ~ Met a ginseng farmer (under artificial shade) about 15 years ago. Got a few roots and a few pounds of seeds and started playing around with ginseng. Also hunted for wild ginseng ~ Experience hunting and growing the plant for 37 years ~ Forestry school ~ Observation - trial and error (growing) ~ Old guys I worked with ~ I‘ve spent all my spare time for the last 60 yrs in the woods ~ Harding‘s Ginseng in Maryland provided advice as part of purchase of seeds ~ Experience ~ Cousin ~ Family business - Fur dealer ~ Father in law, few old timers, my experience ~ Tradition ~ Practical experience ~ Fur buyer (trapping) ~ Extension ~ Old time woodsman ―Shine‖ Kurtz ~ Herbal Classes ~ Old Indian ~ Examining roots brought in by diggers ~ On my own ~ Forest Stewardship Program ~ Conservation District and PSU coop. ext ~ Extension office agents ~ Catskill Seminar Ginseng Festival ~ NE agroforestry learning community project ~ Penn State extension and PA DCNR ~ Husband ~ Hunting the plant ~ Digging for beer money as teen ~ 31 years Dealer ~ Other hunters ~ Cousin ~ Self-taught ~ Observation of sang May- Oct ~ Great uncle ~ By doing it and learning the right way ~ Personal observations ~ Thru growing ~ Tradition, i.e., deer hunting, fishing ~

232 Appendix J-4

Survey instrument results (Question #4, part 1)

Please indicate which of the following restrictions regarding ginseng collection in Pennsylvania you do not agree with by placing a check in the box next to each item. Also, please state why you disagree with the restriction in the space provided.

Agree with restriction Disagree with restriction

Collection season dates (currently 73% (n = 267) 27% (n = 98) Aug. 1-Nov 30) (n = 365)

Comments regarding the restriction (quoted from survey instrument). Response to the question is given in parentheses:

~ (No) August 1 too early for ripe seed ~ (No) Aug 1-Oct 30. Seeds are ready to be planted ~ (No) Aug 1 too early. I would make it Sept 1 and cant find plants in this area after Nov 1 anyway. ~ (No) Too soon. Should be at least Aug 15th or after ~ (No) I have seen a lot of green berries in early August. ~ (No) Too many people digging it before season. ~ (No) Should be the second or third week in August. The berries on the ginseng aren‘t ripe yet. ~ (No) Aug 1 is too early. Berries are not red by this date and many people can dig even if berries are not mature. ~ (No) Because in my area ginseng berries ripen in mid-July and the plants yellow up late Aug Sep Oct are gone to sleep for winter should start mid-July. ~ (No) Too early. Should start Aug 15. Wild berries are completely ripe by then. ~ (No) Needs to be later as some of the seeds are still green mid Aug. ~ (No) On Aug 1 the berries are not ripe. If the harvest date is moved back to Aug 20 or later the berries will be ripe. ~ (No) Ginseng can be picked much earlier. ~ (No) I would like to see it Aug 15-Oct 15 because berries are more ripened by Aug 15 and bow hunting comes in early Oct. ~ (No) August 1 is too soon. The berries are not yet ripe. ~ (No) A lot of seed are not ripe Aug 1. ~ (No) Your season should read Sept 1-Nov 1. Berries do not ripen until Sept 1 (you cant find it after Nov 1). ~ (No) Berries are not ripe till Aug 20. ~ (No) Too early depending on the region of the state youre in. You may be harvesting plants with unripe seeds. Possibly Sept 1. ~ (No) Aug 1 is too early. Seeds are not ripe---cannot reproduce. ~ (No) No one cares and too hard to enforce. ~ (No) Seeds should be ripe and sometimes they are still green. Also on private cultivated plots it should not be enforced. ~ (No) Often to soon. Berries not ripe. ~ (Yes) I believe Sept. 1-Nov. 30 might be better.

233

Respondent comments contd. (collection season):

~ (No) Too early. ~ (No) Sept 1.-Nov. 30 ~ (No) North of I-80 I believe that the berries ripen at about the 15th of August. I have found no change in this date in about 10 years. ~ (Yes) I agree with because this is the dry season and the sap is in the root. ~ (No) Aug. 1 too early - seeds not ripe yet. Also a shorter season would mean less collected. ~ (No) To early and lengthy. ~ (No) Most of the red berries are not ready Aug 15th would be much better. ~ (No) In my area very few berries are ripe that early. ~ (No) Generally, ginseng berries are not yet ripe at this time to replant. ~ (Yes) I don‘t start until Aug 1 but a lot of people don‘t pay any attention to dates. ~ (No) Too long! Should be Aug. 15-Oct. 30 for example. ~ (No) OK for wild only ~ (No) The season should be backed up two weeks with all the timbering off alot of ginseng is burning off. ~ (No) Too long of a time period. ~ (No) Because the berries don‘t ripen until the 15th of August. ~ (No) Berries not ripe to replant ~ (Yes) Sometime the berries turn red early and is easily found with red berries. ~ (No) Mid July berries are mature in size some ripe (see berries). ~ (No) A little early. ~ (No) Start no sooner than Aug. 15. Some seeds (pods) are still unripe. ~ (No) It should be moved back when more berries are ripe. ~ (No) In my area of North Western Pa the berries don‘t get ripe till mid August. ~ (No) Aug - 21st Berry should be all ripe by then. ~ (No) Only for wild - not your own. ~ (No) It starts too early should be Sep 1. ~ (No) At the Aug. 1 date a good 80% of the seeds aren‘t ripe enough to re-plant. ~ (No) Season shouldn‘t start til Sept. 1st because almost no ginseng is ripe by Aug. 1st. ~ (No) Seeds are not ripe in areas that I hunt until 2 wks later. ~ (No) Every five years because every where I plant it back, someone takes it all. ~ (No) Collection season should be shorter. ~ (No) A lot of the berries in the Pod are not ripe yet on Aug 1. I would prefer Sept 1 as starting date. ~ (No) Aug 15 to 10/31. Aug 1 is too early. Nov 30 is too late. Dates could encourage improper digging. ~ (No) Seeds are not Red in Aug. ~ (No) Two weeks too early. ~ (No) Berries are red and ready to reproduce. ~ (No) Seeds don‘t ripen in my area until late August. ~ (No) Seeds or berries isn‘t mature enough to sprout or reseed till 3rd week in Aug. ~ (No) Season to early. Berries not ripe. ~ (No) Should be September 1st to Nov. 30. ~ (No) Some plants die off earlier than other ones, depending on mother nature. ~ (No) Too early. Aug 15-Nov. 30. Many guys will not pass up a plant with some or all green berries and there are a lot of plants with green berries the first part of August. ~ (No) Should start later for natural seed germination. ~ (No) I think that the beginning date is too early. ~ (No) Starting dates of Aug 1 is too early as most seeds are not mature. Sept 1 would be a lot better for starting date. ~ (No) Berries not ripe by Aug. 1. ~ (No) The weather is unpredictable. ~ (No) Berries are usually ripe until Sept.

234

Respondent comments contd. (collection season):

~ (No) Because if hunters would leave a small portion of root and plant it back it regrows and at this time were I live most of the ginseng is already dead for the year. ~ (No) Aug. 1 too early to dig, most sang completely dead and wilted by Oct 20. Nov there is no stalks visable our area Pa. ~ (No) The berries are not ready to replant in Aug or Sep. ~ (No) Too early Aug. 25 would be a much better date or even Sept 1st. ~ (No) Most seeds are not ripe till Aug 15. ~ (No) Aug 1. is too early in my region. Around the middle of Aug. would be better. ~ (No) It‘s to early berries aren‘t even ripe yet. ~ (No) To early berries not ripe. ~ (No) Seeds not ready till mid/end August unless dry summer or timber removal. ~ (Yes. This is about right. ~ (No) August 1 is to early berries are not ripe yet berries ripen toward the end of the month. ~ (No) Most berries are not ripe by 1 Aug. ~ (No) Should be moved up to mid August. Berries are not red during first half of August. ~ (No) To early as berries are not yet all red in August. Better dates Sept. After Labor Day. ~ (No) This should be zoned. Bedford is ready. But Somerset county usually isn‘t ready till the 2nd or 3rd week of Aug. ~ (No) Allowing 1 or 2 more weeks for berries to ripen. ~ (No) Many cooler, damper years berries do not turn red until 2nd or 3rd week of August. ~ (No) Aug. 1st is to early. Most years Aug. 15th – to Sept 1 would be better. ~ (No) Collecting too early before seed is ripe. 9-1 to 11-30. ~ (No) Aug. 1st a month to early-Most berries are only green or just forming. Aug 1st encourages ill-legal digging of plants not ready to harvest. ~ (No) Too early. ~ (No) Should be Aug 15 ~ (No) It is to early seed is not ripe ~ (No) Open season later – end of Aug to give berries a chance to ripen ~ (No) Seeds need to ripen longer ~ (No) I don‘t think there should be a season because you can plant new ginseng anytime. ~ (Yes) Yes right time. ~ (No) Too many fellows are picking it when they are not ripe ~ (No) Some plants are ready sooner than others. ~ (No) Plants mature and drop leaves and berries earlier in southern portion of state. ~ (No) I don‘t think plants should be harvested before Sept. 1 (or later) to ensure that the seeds are mature and can be replanted. ~ (No) Should be Sept 15 to Nov 15. All your tomatoes don‘t get red at same time, even on same plant. Too much to write here. Plants will ―banana‖ mid Nov. Disrupt, kill whole batch. Too early---berries not ripe until mid-late Sept. I also have problem with fall (early) turkey hunters. The roots up but not red. They dig anyway. The land owner don‘t know he‘s/she‘s getting ripped off. Turkeys as bad as deer down here. People will let anybody hunt to keep them from eating their garden or flowers (not knowing the hunters are digging root, their primary goal. Nice scam).

235 Appendix J-4

Survey instrument results (Question #4, part 2)

Please indicate which of the following restrictions regarding ginseng collection in Pennsylvania you do not agree with by placing a check in the box next to each item. Also, please state why you disagree with the restriction in the space provided.

Agree with restriction Disagree with restriction

Plant stage requirement (plants must have at least three leaves of five 85% (n = 311) 15% (n = 54) leaflets) (n = 365)

Comments regarding the restriction (quoted from survey instrument). Response to the question is given in parentheses:

~ (Yes) Old enough to regenerate (regrow). ~ (No) Plant leaf stage or prong stage may have no effect on age of plant ~ (Yes) Then the roots are ready to be harvested ~ (No) Some plants this size are still too small. Education needed to young harvesters. ~ (No) I have seen plants with two leaves of five leaflets that were very old roots. ~ (No) It should have to grow a little bigger. ~ (Yes) Note: To an experienced collector, you can tell that some plants are only two-prongers but support a rather old and large root. ~ (No) In some situations two-prong are old plants. ~ (No) I don‘t believe that leaf stage is a true indicator of root size. ~ (No) To some extent. Sometimes the stalk is large. ~ (No) Because some plants with two prongs when dug up have a huge root. Others don‘t and are re- planted. ~ (No) I personally believe they should not be harvested under 7-10 years of age. ~ (No) When I find sang I dig according to size of the stock. Tall ginseng stocks often have little root. ~ (No) No one cares and too hard to enforce. ~ (No) I have found many 2-prongers over the years when checked had very old roots. ~ (No) Some 2 prongs have bigger root then 3 or 4 prong. ~ (No) Because it does not always hold true. ~ (No) Due to logging, adult monster root can and does have one set of leaves. ~ (No) Some plants can be 50 years old and never have more than 10 leaves or two prongs. ~ (Yes) Occasionally, plants is a state of decline will have only small top but a large root and be very old. Usually found where the plants are being shaded out. ~ (No) The forest are getting cut you lose a lot of plants. ~ (No) I have checked two prongers in some areas that were 10 to 15 years old or more. The soil did not allow the plants to grow large. ~ (No) Some of the small 3 prongers should not be dug. ~ (No) I don‘t go by that, if the stem is not as big as a pencil don‘t dig it. ~ (No) Plant should have at least 2 prongs or even three would be okay. ~ (No) Should be ―plants must have at least 3 branches‖ allow small plants to mature.

236

Respondent comments contd. (stage requirement):

~ (No) I find plants with two leaves and they are old plants. ~ (No) Plant may only 3 years old - medical value low at this age. ~ (Yes) Sometime a very nice stock may have only one stem or 2 stems. ~ (No) If you have the plants plant, don‘t waste the source. ~ (No) This is good but who can enforce this rule. I know people who pick every plant they find. ~ (No) Number of prongs has limited indication to size and age of root. ~ (No) Plants should be more mature. ~ (No) Sometimes leaves wilt and large roots are not detected. ~ (No) Leave some for seed. ~ (No) I have personally dug many two prong plants that were 10 years old or older. ~ (No) 3 prong w/ 5 leaflets min. ~ (No) In poor soils many smaller plants have long stems and are mature without five leaflets. ~ (No) There are some plants with 2 leaves and could be a large root. ~ (No) Just because a plant has three leaves doesn‘t mean that its mature. I‘ve found two prongers with larger roots and older. ~ (No) Many 3 prong plants roots are too small. Some 2 prong roots (usually found in root ground have very large roots.) ~ (No) Leaves don‘t tell the age of Ginseng. ~ (No) I agree and disagree with this in the affect that I have found very old plants that just haven‘t produced good foliage. One in fact had two prongs and was 34 years old. ~ (No) 10 yrs or older. It is self defeating, most gatherer‘s planters are well up in year, no sense planting. ~ (No) I‘ve dug 70 year old root from a very thin one prong nice little stem as logging puts it to sleep it reawakens later in a 1 prong form and proceeds again. ~ (No) Occasionally old roots in decline will not have three leaves. ~ (No) I‘ve seen 2 prong plants with larger root structures than 3 prong or even 4 prong plants. ~ (No) Plant should be at least a 3 prong plant. ~ (No) Many three prongers are 10 years and over. Everybody will partially dig up plant, counts the neck scars to see if it is 10 years old. ~ (No) Experience has shown in many patches some of the oldest plants are only two leaves of five leaflets due to the plants health receding due to age. ~ (No) I think this is too young of a plant to dig. ~ (No) Not all large root plants have more than 2 leaflets. ~ (No) Better to harvest plants w/ berries only as many two and three prong plants are very small. ~ (No) Three leaves ~ (No) The number of leaves does not always determine the age of the plant. ~ (Yes) OK, although I have dug 4 bangers and 5 banger as big as half a golfball. But I think it is genetic. Some up to my thigh seed pods. Big plants don‘t always mean big root.

237 Appendix J-4

Survey instrument results (Question #4, part 3)

Please indicate which of the following restrictions regarding ginseng collection in Pennsylvania you do not agree with by placing a check in the box next to each item. Also, please state why you disagree with the restriction in the space provided.

Agree with restriction Disagree with restriction

Berries must be ripe (berries must be 92% (n = 336) 8% (n = 30) red when root is harvested) (n = 366)

Comments regarding the restriction (quoted from survey instrument). Response to the question is given in parentheses:

~ (Yes) When dug out the seeds automatically re-plant in the soil. ~ (No) Berries should be returned to area sang is found ~ (Yes) The time when the roots have the necessary ripe berries for planting ~ (No) Dead ripe ~ (No) If you leave the well-developed green berries on the plant they will turn red after you have harvested the root. ~ (Yes) Ensures a future harvest. ~ (No) I have found plants in the past with little or no berries where the root was mature. ~ (No) Even in late Sept if berries are still present some are still green. I feel plants are ready to pick roots as early as mid-July as long as berries are full size, green or red. ~ (Yes) The root will shrink more when berries are green. If you want any ginseng, you better dig when the berries are red and be on. ~ (No) No one cares and too hard to enforce. ~ (No) Should be allowed to harvest after berries have fallen from plant also. ~ (No) If the berries are mature they will reproduce. ~ (Yes) They also should be scattered and covered with leaves. ~ (No) I have planted all berries and occasionally broad-cast planted. Never have any grown to my knowledge. Scarification of seeds necessary I believe. ~ (No) If stock is planted where dug berries will ripen and fall off into loose ground where dug. ~ (No) Berries do not ripen until Sept. I plant stratified seed wherever I dig. Some plants do not berry or are destroyed by animal. ~ (No) Could still be a young plant. ~ (No) Not all berries in an area or even individual seed pods ripen at same time. Access to growing sites may only be a one time event. ~ (No) Berries taken off plants in the first week of August are sometimes green. Put stock in ground with soil around it, berries will ripen up. ~ (Yes) I strongly agree with this. ~ (No) You shouldn‘t be able to hunt when berries are red because it makes it a lot easier to find. The season should be from June 1 to Aug. 1. ~ (No) Some are still green when season comes in. ~ (No) Berries often never ripen in PA.

238

Respondent comments contd. (berry ripening requirement):

~ (No) Sometimes the berries don‘t turn red till September. ~ (No) Because I‘ve planted green berries at right stage that did grow. ~ (No) Because who will know if the berries are red or not. ~ (No) As long as some berries are red, all seeds that were pollinated, even when green will grow, I think. ~ (Yes) To make more plants. ~ (Yes) OK. Common sense. Green, no grow. Diggers will dig them before ready, so no one else gets them. Too much work to come back and find some.

239 Appendix J-4

Survey instrument results (Question #4, part 4)

Please indicate which of the following restrictions regarding ginseng collection in Pennsylvania you do not agree with by placing a check in the box next to each item. Also, please state why you disagree with the restriction in the space provided.

Agree with restriction Disagree with restriction

Berries must be planted in the immediate vicinity of the collection site 71% (n = 259) 29% (n = 107) (n = 366)

Comments regarding the restriction quoted from survey instrument. Response to the question is given in parentheses:

~ (Yes) Because it‘s a prime area for growth. ~ (No) If you can start ginseng gardens (wild) in other suitable habitat with some or all the seeds this creates plant conservation. ~ (No) Areas only a few feet away might not produce good plants or none at all. ~ (Yes) The collection site has been proven to produce the ginseng plants. ~ (Yes) Agree…unless land is to be developed or otherwise disturbed ~ (No) Dead ripe. Not just a little red. Scattered. ~ (No) Not all berries should be put back in same spot or immediate vicinity. Planting of the berries should be spread out to prevent someone from digging 10 plants in one hundred yards to digging 10 plants in a half mile or more! ~ (No) Not always ~ (No) If the land has been timbered move the seeds to a good location. Open woods the sun burns it off. ~ (No) Just depends what you mean by planted. Berries should be planted under leaves if ripe. If berries aren‘t ripe they should be left on the plant. They would then ripe and fall off (like tomato). Berries tend to rot if they are planted in dirt. ~ (No) Some at the site and some spread further. ~ (No) Limits the ability of the collector from establishing new sites. ~ (No) Most should be but others should be planted in other suitable locations. ~ (No) The parent plant produces a toxic that prevents new plants from growing 5‘ or more. ~ (No) If land is going to be stripped for coal all is lost. ~ (No) I‘m not sure how far away ―immediate vicinity‖ is. There are ―close-by‖ posted properties that I have permission to pick on that would help get more plants into the forests. If the collection season is Aug- Nov, then that means the plants are protected and berries ripen so we can propagate the species. Logging companies have no such restrictions! How come? I believe before a ginseng hillside can be logged, a certified picker (that would be me) should be able to go in—harvest seeds and ginseng---and replant elsewhere! ~ (No) Because you can learn more if the study isn‘t always same hillside. ~ (No) I agree with planting but a different method. Seeds do not do as well falling from the plant. Collect, freeze and re-propagate the next year. ~ (No) I think you should spread them throughout the forest.

240

Respondent comments contd. (seed planting requirement):

~ (No) Sometimes the soil is very poor and moving them would help growth. ~ (No) Sometimes ginseng grounds last a lifetime. It doesn‘t have to be planted there. Theres other spots. ~ (No) You should be able to scatter throughout the woods so more could grow in other places. ~ (No) Berries should be replanted but diggers should be able to plant them in areas they see suitable to scatter the species over an area rather than confining them to some areas which may fall prey to greedy harvesters. ~ (No) Some areas I have found large plants and no young plants cannot be found. ~ (No) Can be replanted where other collectors cannot find. ~ (No) No one cares and too hard to enforce. ~ (No) Habitat may be declining and movement is needed. By wind damage or upcoming forest clearing operations. Harvester should use sense in seed dispersal. ~ (No) Would like immediate removed to establish satellite colonies ―in the vicinity of the collection site.‖ ~ (No) I have always felt that most should be planted at collection site as ground is good but also thought a few could be taken to new location to start a new patch thus increasing it. ~ (No) I feel a harvester should be allowed to take 10% to 20% of seed to be planted where there may be none or very few plants. ~ (No) Some sites are being strip mined or striped for housing. ~ (No) Too much of the area I hunt is being stripped or housing developments going in. ~ (No) I like to start patches where there is none. ~ (No) Sometimes its better to plant some seeds at a better location. ~ (No) Some patches are too full thus seed removal is necessary. ~ (No) Poor plants equal poor area, should move seeds. ~ (Yes) Depending on health of plant and area. ~ (Yes) Depending on soil and plant conditions. ~ (No) Some sites reach a successional state where they no longer provide good habitat ex. ―heavy shade‖. ~ (No) Timbering, or strip mining. ~ (No) This is not always practical; you may know the area is to be surface mined or developed. ~ (No) Crop cannot be propagated into other sites in state forest land or state game lands. ~ (No) I agree most should be planted there, but I think you should be able to take some to plant in a new area to start a new patch. ~ (No) Plants are already started and seeds should be spread in other areas. ~ (No) Berries will not grow everywhere without stratifying. ~ (No) I generally agree except when timber is being or will be removed, etc. ~ (No) How would we ever get ginseng growing in new locations - especially native strains. ~ (No) Any suitable growing location in the woods. ~ (No) I have lost patches to roads, houses and etc. So I try to move them to a spot where they are safe. ~ (No) But could be scattered in other area‘s start new patches. ~ (Yes) Sometime I hunt area that are about to be stripped for coal. ~ (No) Plant can be started with suitable site where scarce. ~ (No) The site is to be strip mined or a housing plan to be constructed. ~ (No) Start new beds in appropriate locations. ~ (No) Some habitat is less desirable and much better places to reproduce. ~ (No) Sometimes soil and location are not desirable. ~ (No) Some ground will not allow for proper root growth. ~ (No) Maybe a better idea to move some to other areas in same forest. ~ (No) There are other areas void of ginseng where some of the seeds could be planted. ~ (No) Exception should be made when site is no longer viable. ~ (No) The area may be heavily hunted, or habitat may be in danger of surface mining, development etc. I often plant berries in small areas of ginseng habitat that is not likely to be hunted. ~ (No) I would prefer to use some of the berries at other locations.

241

Respondent comments contd. (seed planting requirement):

~ (No) Many times plant site is no longer suitable for seed germination. Plant site may be in danger of development. ~ (No) Some collection sites are being destroyed by new housing, lumbering, etc. Replanting in areas suitable encourages the spreading of good wild ginseng. ~ (No) You could further the production in other areas, a lot of the areas where found are now being built up as housing projects. ~ (No) Often there will be no germination in an old growing site due to too heavy shade. Also a greater chance of disease presence. ~ (No) Disagree. Some to planted in better locations. ~ (No) Some area‘s I dig already need some thinning of plants. ~ (No) If in an area where the habitat will be changed – it may be of benefit to replant in a more hospitable location. ~ (No) Why does it matter where it‘s planted? ~ (No) Open other areas for plant expanse. ~ (No) I save some seeds to introduce into new areas. ~ (No) Half should be planted in area, rest should be used to spread the crop. ~ (No) Would limit you‘re ability to sell surplus (over and above what you would plant locally) seed locally/nationwide. ~ (No) In the past, I have planted half of seeds where I found them and planted the others at new locations. ~ (No) Shangers with experience know many sites that shang seeds seeds can be reintroduced. If this is not done, we cannot spread root back to traditional ranges. ~ (No) It would be better to plant seeds in a large area to increase range. ~ (No) Because it would be nice to replant elsewhere. ~ (No) It does not have to be planted in immediate vicinity just so it is replanted. ~ (No) Usually is ok. But in places with heavy development or deer over-browsing you will get in trouble if you move them/plan them in a safer area. ~ (No) I always plant at the collection area but an area over harvested by other collectors I like to plant in other locations. ~ (No) Because a lot of the sang is being smothered out by ferns and timber being cut. ~ (No) Because I like to get ginseng started in new areas. ~ (No) I would prefer to spread seeds over a larger area. This is why I buy and plants seed yearly. ~ (No) How is immediate vicinity defined? ~ (Yes) Sometimes the area is to be stripped for coal. ~ (No) Some places are scheduled for timbering. ~ (No) In the wild if you just plant the berries after harvest of the plant most of them are not gonna grow because when they fall off the plant they have a little ~ while to dry to where they need to be to grow. ~ (No) If lots of berries – plant some next hill of hollow where sang formerly was or can get started. If coal strip or house development coming in plant and seed elsewhere. ~ (No) I have my own patch and not enough room for all. ~ (No) Some sites are so crowded, it would be better off planting down the trail. ~ (No) Because of timbering and new logging roads. ~ (No) If I can get started somewhere else, why not. ~ (No) If can spread plants to other areas, why not? ~ (No) Large amounts of seed are sometimes harvested and the area won‘t support the quantity of plants that would result. ~ (No) If logging, land clearing or mining, berries must be saved, or plants. Fines imposed on such persons destroying gen seng. ~ (No) I feel not all berries need to be planted at site. By planting some elsewhere expands range. ~ (No) This may not be best if the area is definitely going to be clear but or developed. ~ (No) 50% in immediate vicinity – other 50% planted to establish new patch. ~ (No) I would like some for my own property.

242

Respondent comments contd. (seed planting requirement):

~ (No) In most cases I would agree but the area we live in is so rapidly being developed to housing, to plant in the same area would be throwing the seed away. ~ (No) What happens if they are logging the area you found the ginseng? ~ (No) I should be able to replant berries in areas I know will sustain the plant. ~ (No) Sometimes it is best to plant berries up the hill if its steep ~ (No) Only if collected on public land or private land that your reasonably sure won‘t be developed. ~ (Yes) Yes don‘t take home a big mistake. ~ (No) Sometimes I‘ll trade seed with friends or plant seed out of the local area. ~ (No) If you‘ve planted enough berries in that spot, why not seed a new spot. Also, what if that area is in danger? If the spot will not support ginseng, it should be moved. ~ (Yes) OK, but planting whole top will only produce spider (root with many legs) as a result. Instead of 50 roots you only get one. Less work, put in hole from root but this ―backfires.‖

243 Appendix J-5

Survey instrument results (Question #5)

The Pennsylvania DCNR recently began using a form (titled ‗harvester certification‘) asking collectors to provide personal and landowner contact information. The intent of this initiative is in part to protect private landowners from illegal collection (i.e., theft) on their property. (A) Do you know of anyone (including yourself) who has problems with theft of ginseng from their forestland? (B) Do you support the use of the ‗harvester certification‘ form as a way to address this issue?

Not familiar Yes No with form

Do you know anyone (including yourself) who has had problems with theft of ginseng 38% (n = 137) 62% (n = 224) from their forestland? (n = 361)

Do you support the use of the ‗harvester certification‘ form as a way to address 34% (n = 119) 40% (n = 141) 26% (n = 90) this issue? (n = 350)

Comments regarding the harvester certification form (quoted from survey instrument). Response to the question is given in parentheses:

~ (No) Because most plants found are not in a ginseng plot. There in natural state of growth. ~ (No) Most diggers simply lie as to where its collected so what good are the forms. And I don‘t think it is any of the states business what is dug on private property as long as it is collected in season and three prong or better. The form should only include how much is dug by the collector and what county. ~ (No) There should be a ―ginseng conservation stamp‖ required. ~ (No) It is a waste of time and money. Anyone can lie on any form knowing you cant prove they are. ~ (No) People who are thieves don‘t care. ~ (No) Note: Some private growers should post signs by ginseng patches to let collectors know it is a private patch. Some type of code known only by collectors and growers. Most collectors are honest. Note: getting too many people interested in ginseng could be more harmful to the plant. Note: I do not like the idea of spreading the news about ginseng to people who know nothing of the plant. As long as you are permitted to be on the property and it is not made apparent to you by signs or verbal agreement that you don‘t dig it. ~ (No) You could have buyers to turn down or not buy sang that is too young. ~ (No) Do not like to say where I dig. Its not right to say and have everyone else going to those areas and destroying them. ~ (No) Never had any problems with landowners. You find very few roots on just one landowners. ~ (No). Written permission ~ (No) Keep government out of it. ~ (No) If a person does not ask he will go dig it any way. ~ (Yes) Although people are lying as to where they find it.

244

Respondent comments (certification form) contd.:

~ (No) Information reported by harvesters can be easily falsified and most dealers are also harvesters therefore I am giving them my source of ginseng! Plus, who knows who else is reading these reports! ~ (No) Most pickers view this as intrusive. It is difficult to identify who owns land and most don‘t want to divulge exact locations to big brother. ~ (No) The form asks ―where I harvested ginseng.‖ I have 20 areas! How do I answer that? Form needs some work and needs input by actual dealers and harvesters to be helpful. What do you do with the data? ~ (Yes) But shouldn‘t have to have certificate on body. Must provide within few hours. ~ (No) Educate gatherers to replant. ~ (No) What is the other part of the intent for the harvester certificate? Just get permission from land owners before you go on their property. It works for me. ~ (No) Its location should be kept private. ~ (Yes) Until laws are enacted to make it a felony, its profitable to be a thief in PA. NC has much better laws. ~ (Yes) It might help a little. No one would tell if it got them in trouble. Put up a number of no trespassing signs where you have a lot of ginseng and let people know you‘re a little touchy about ginseng diggers. Ive seen cars parked and put a note on the wind-shield and never seen them. Word gets around, don‘t get caught on him again. ~ (No) A thief isn‘t going to tell the truth anyhow. ~ (No) Too many people see where you pick it and might add more theft. ~ (No) Only to buy. ~ (No) I think their would be problems about truthfulness and confidentiality. ~ (No) Private landowners should be able to police their property. ~ (No) If people are willing to steal from posted private property, people can easily lie on a form requesting location of harvest. ~ (No) If the sang was stolen why would they not lie about where it was taken? I‘m not going to give my hills up signing what county I picked. ~ (No) This form is not useful. ~ (No) No person will truthfully fill the form. Only very poor people harvest and they take all. ~ (No) Police departments have authority to investigate complaints now. DCNR doesn‘t need paperwork on this issue. As a landowner I oppose it since, if it becomes public record, it might attract people to my property or my garden. ~ (No) Having to use one form for each day is a burden as I am retired and may be out many days. One multi-use form would help. The new system is discouraging. ~ (No) If they would steal your shang, then they would also lie as to where dug. ~ (No) I can‘t think of a better way to handle it. ~ (No) Because no one will be truthful. There should not be a harvester certification form. Let it alone. ~ (No) Most people don‘t know what ginseng is. They only want to be assholes about it as some one might make $20 off their property. ~ (No) Exact location not necessary. Township is close enough. I feel the exact location was an invasion of my privacy. Its not illegal to grow ginseng on my property. That‘s my business. Mrs. Goodyear doesn‘t even know what Ginseng looks like. ~ (No) The landowner needs a good Trespassing Law with a stiff fine and or jail time. Most southern states have them and they work very well. ~ (No) The form is absolutely worthless as far as preventing illegal collection. Asking permission is not part of the culture of sang hunting. I am a licensed Ginseng dealer and I know for a fact that nearly everyone puts down the same of a friend or acquaintance on the form. Sang hunting is often somewhat of a clandestine activity. Seldom does anyone ask permission to take a ―walk in the woods‖. Often, diggers don‘t know, or care, whose property the‘re on. ~ (No) Waste of resources, duplication of law. It is already illegal to take from another persons property, plants, minerals, etc. Spend that money on education, or better yet seed, and quit wasting paper and money and bureaucrats!

245

Respondent comments (certification form) contd.:

~ (No) It would be considered too much control. ~ (Yes) Ginseng is in small numbers in most woods so you would have to have a better way to report the harvest. You may be on 50 different properties in a season. ~ (Yes and No) I think it is almost impossible to know where property boundary lines are when walkin. A ridge shang‘en, you might find only 1 or 2 on the permission property and a dozen on someone else. Or even 2 or 3 other property owners. Some out of state. ~ (No) It lets any-one accessible to locate sang. ~ (No) One day per harvest one day for sale (bureaucrats certainly like their paper - don‘t they). I don‘t like the idea of ―pin-pointing‖ where sang was found. Should the landowner give me permission early will he remember in the fall? Would I admit to trespass? Intentional or accidental. Should the harvester go to the courthouse to find out who owns a certain property. What about land owned by non-residents? To obtain permission. ~ (No) Is not working. Landowners are listed that own fields. As long as plant can be sold and has value it is impossible to stop theft in large tracts of public lands. ~ (Yes) I would like to see a guideline much like the Penna. Game Commission uses for hunter-education courses. The harvester would take an education course. Pass a test. Get a certificate and for a small fee get a license. All harvesters would carry license and must get permission to dig the same as a hunter gets permission. There are more ideas to discuss on this system. ~ (No) I don‘t like the requirement to fill out a form for every day you are out. One form to list all days would be better, but I don‘t like the form period. ~ (No) Because the location of Ginseng still will never be verified. It‘s too easy to go around. ~ (No) Listing landowner locations is fruitless. No actual locations are going to be divulged. ~ (No) Coal company lands it hard to get address and somebody to talk about hunting Ginseng. ~ (No) It is a stupid waste of time and taxpayer money. The moron who came up with it should be fired. ~ (Not familiar with the form) I have not collected in a couple of years so I haven‘t used it. ~ (No) This form will stop harvesters from planting seed in the wild completely. ~ (Yes) But have never seen form. ~ (Yes and No) Thiefs still lie about where they dig. ~ (No) Everything we do today has to much paper work and I don‘t think this will help. ~ (No) Most collectors will not put accurate information where harvested. ~ (No) Any restriction or control is violating the sensible, selective diggers choices in harvesting or just- for-fun hunting the plant. ~ (No) At times we can not find the land owner. Also, having permission to hunt, trap, pick mushrooms on a person‘s land stops if you ask to look for ginseng. If a thief finds the patch, he won‘t fill out a form anyways. Do away with the forms. ~ (No) Educate the diggers. ~ (No) Leave as it was. ~ (No) No one need to know where you dig your Ginseng. ~ (No. The government has no business enforcing trespass on private property. Next we will need a harvester form for deer or mushrooms. ~ (No) Most of the ginseng is planted by my-self, wild simulated with permission from the land owner. They are reluctant to fill out and sign the form. ~ (No). I like the idea of protecting landowners, but not one digger is happy with telling others about where to get the Ginseng. This is bad for ginseng dealers. ~ (No) No trespassing signs should be posted and trespassers prosecuted. ~ (No) Because most people won‘t be truthful anyone how sells Ginseng in PA should receive an Educational Brochure about Ginseng with Laws and Regulations, growing and harvesting information. ~ (Yes) The form is a good way to map out the growing range but exact locations of harvest need not be stated. ~ (No) Because I do a lot of walking. And I wow if I come acrost some one‘s patch. If I do I leave it alone. ~ (No) Too many gov‘t forms. They don‘t work anyway. Can be lied on.

246

Respondent comments (certification form) contd.:

~ (No) Most people don‘t tell the truth about where they pick. ~ (No) No form will protect known ginseng patches. ~ (No) Corruption in DCNR would probably result in someone finding and stealing those locations. ~ (No) There is a lot of land in Pa. owned by someone from out of state who is hard to find. When I dig Shang I plant stratified seed and have found that there is more growing now then when I started digging 8 years ago. ~ (No) Landowner do not want name and address taken down. Using just county and township. ~ (Yes and No) I support the form but it should be more liberal concerning strip mining and ownership of property when walking in deep woods and national forest and game lands. ~ (No) There is no way to control Ginseng theft. ~ (No) The only time that a landowner would give permission to go on his land, would be if he had no knowledge of the presence of Ginseng. ~ (No) DNCR should only be concerned with state property, not private property. ~ (Not familiar with form) But thinking I would support it from the intent. ~ (No) The diggers reseed the forests, not the DCNR. I have my own home garden that I raise plants that I take to the forests to plant. My plants are all from local seed. We are not allowed to plant in Game lands. ~ (Not familiar with form) It is the landowner‘s responsibility to control use of there property through current trespass laws. ~ (No) Leave things as they were. Most diggers do not want anyone to know their ginseng places – even on their own land. Most collectors return to areas that their families have used for generations- remote areas – They are about the planet- we have purchased ginseng for over 25 years – Our diggers are mostly 45 years and up. Most are giving it up due to the new requirement. Even those who own their own forestlands are giving it up. ~ (No) How can you get owner‘s permission if you can‘t find out who owns property and no one to contact!! ~ (No) It serves no purpose and is a great nuisance to collectors and dealers. You cannot regulate honesty or the lack of it. ~ (No) Maybe ok for public land, but I feel private land use should not be subject to Pa DCNR involvement. ~ (No) Most harvesters are very secretive about their collection sites. It is unlikely that the certification would be valid and this could put the dealer in a precarious position. While I have no proof, I would venture to say that most harvesters have little interest or knowledge of who owns the property. ~ (No) Most people do not know what it is or even care! Why discourage the ones who love to do it. It is a great recreation shared, friends and family. ~ (No) Pa diggers takes ginseng out state to sell (no paper work). Digger should have to buy license. ~ (No) One more way for gov. to limit your Ginseng crop. Leading to other more rest measures. ~ (No) Uncle Sam is in our business to much already. ~ (No) You do not dig several lbs of wild ginseng in one day. It will not come from on landowner. If someone steals ginseng he is not going to say where he stole it from. ~ (No) Any time the government is involved something wrong will happen. The best way to keep ginseng location a secret into not tell anyone. ~ (No) Reasons are apparent (Location of Ginseng). ~ (No). I think this form is too intrusive from the state. If guys are harvesting from an area w/o permission they will not tell the truth on the form. Most diggers are conscientious people and are actually helping perpetuate the plant by planting seed. If permission is sought on most properties the owner will say no and then no seeds will get replanted. Most landowners/ corporations are clueless about ginseng and how to go about propagating/planting it. ~ (No) Just like deer, the landowner does not own them and being a wild plant the landowner usually doesn‘t know what‘s on his property. ~ (No) Because I collect sang from a dozen or more areas during the year sometimes I forget or don‘t remember where I collected some of it.

247

Respondent comments (certification form) contd.:

~ (No) I think the state should leave it the way it was. Ginseng diggers are slowly fading away. ~ (No) Thieves do not pay attention to paper work. They have no principles. ~ (No) I don‘t believe there is a problem. Everyone should ask first. Most land owners do not want to be listed and are reluctant to have names and address on these forms. Myself included. ~ (No) I liked it the way it was. Most landowners know who‘s on their property anyway. ~ (No) Like myself, I know I wouldn‘t like everyone to know were I am digging. ~ (No) This form only hurts the honest person. I believe most harvesters are not going to give the correct info anyway. No one wants other people to know where they get their root. I do not pick very much of the plants I find and the dealer I go to has a lot of friends that do. I don‘t want them to know where I go. ~ (No) Nobody is gonna tell where they got it any way. Make so that you have to buy permits to hunt ginseng for each county then they could at least tell what county it came from. ~ (No response) Make trespass laws tough in PA. (Like some West. States). PA Game or Fish Com too Lax on this issue. They would lose license revenues if private property was protected as it should be! ~ (No response) I doubt if it can stop theft. Its just another form of Gov. intervention. ~ (No) An outlaw is an outlaw. A ―certification‖ is not going to stop them. ~ (No) It is completely ignored by most diggers. Written permission would be much better. ~ (No response) Just don‘t want everybody else to know the good spots. ~ (No) Coal companies, timber companies, developers, and most landowners could care less about the weeds on their property. With the price for Ginseng going up DCNR is looking to get their fingers in the pot. ~ (No) A pain in the butt! Few if any people are truthful on this form! ~ (No) You are insinuating that wild ginseng is not wild. Deer, fish and game do not belong to landowner, neither does wild ginseng. ~ (No) Don‘t see how it will help. ~ (No) Gen seng grows wild on your property. It is not yours just because, it‘s God‘s and don‘t ever forget that unless you‘re a simulator or a stupid cultivator. It‘s God‘s too use. It‘s like locking your door a thief kick it in. ~ (No) ―Liars certification‖ As a ginseng dealer, I can assure you these forms are worthless. Much of the information on the form is fabricated. ~ (Not familiar with form) It sounds like something I would not support if it would divulge contact information. ~ (No) Because the government will find a way to make money off of this, driving out the small hunter. ~ (No) Does nothing but require more use of paper. Another example of government intervention. ~ (No) No trespassing signs should be enough. The form is an inconvenience. Die-hard, ethical collectors won‘t give-up their areas for fear some ‗Gold-digger‘ will ruin it. ~ (No) Most people will not reveal where they harvest their plants, even if they fill out a piece of paper. We must think of another method. ~ (No) Forms to easy to lie – good for honest people only. ~ (No) Sounds like a way for the state to make money. ~ (No) No one gives the location of there patches. (Everybody lies). ~ (No) Too personal – gives government and others too much information. A lot of woods I planted (seeded) 30 years ago – seem like to walk them even if not harvesting. ~ (No) Most people will not tell anybody the exact location of harvest. People I know consider the location sacred/top secret. ~ (No) A form cannot stop trespassers from entering your land. ~ (No) I would not did sang anywhere without permission. I‘m sure 99% of answers on forms are lies. ~ (No) It‘s nobody business where I dig my ginsing – especially DCNR. The ginsing plant is so hard to find!! Why tell anyone else where you found it?? ~ (No) Most collectors are not truthful about their collecting locations create a regulation that requires collectors to have written permission to harvest ginseng on private property

248

Respondent comments (certification form) contd.:

~ (No) Most people think there ginseng is being stolen but I‘m willing to bet its not. Deer are who most people should be blaming. I learned this by putting my cam tracker near one of my patches I thought people were taking. ~ (No) Because people can lie. ~ (No) There is no way to stop thieves in a wooded area. People just need to be more careful where they farm their own ginseng and be aware of who travels on their property. ~ (Not familiar with form). You have to draw the line on how restrictive ginseng hunting is to be. This is way over the line! ~ (No) I didn‘t need a form for 65 years. ~ (No) The person who steals/harvests illegally isn‘t going to honestly fill out a form, much the same as a criminal doesn‘t legally acquire a firearm. The restrictions and forms only infringe on the person that follows the law. It becomes a burden on the honest person, NOT the thief or criminal. ~ (Not familiar with form). Might be a good idea but most diggers won‘t care. Roots and poaching is their bread and butter. They don‘t have anything else. Have had a few gun muzzles stuffed up my nose (on my own property). When I started stuffing a gun muzzle up their nose they quit digging (stealing) root and poaching. So the plants are coming back but it might be 50-100 years. The plants have doubled in 15 years (wild) but flip-flopped on opposite sides of hills from before. It has reversed itself for survival. Common sense if given some ―thunk.‖

249 Appendix J-6

Survey instrument results (Question #6)

Which of the following activities have you observed leading to the elimination of ginseng from an area?

Yes No

Timber removal (n = 349) 68% (n = 238) 32% (n = 111)

Herbicide applications on forestlands (n = 349) 13% (n = 45) 87% (n = 304)

Surface mining (n = 349) 48% (n = 167) 52% (n = 182)

Land development (n = 349) 66% (n = 230) 34% (n = 119)

Deer browsing (n = 349) 25% (n = 87) 75% (n = 262)

Competition from other plants (n = 349) 23% (n = 79) 77% (n = 270)

Collection by diggers (n = 349) 60% (n = 208) 40% (n = 141)

Harvest out of season (n = 208) 61% (n = 126) 39% (n = 82)

Not planting seed from harvested plants (n = 208) 54% (n = 113) 46% (n = 95)

Harvest before berries are ripe (n = 208) 77% (n = 160) 23% (n = 48)

Harvest of young plants (n = 208) 75% (n = 155) 25% (n = 53)

Harvest of too many plants in an area (n = 208) 74% (n = 154) 26% (n = 54)

Other* 8% (n = 31)

*Other reasons provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ If you also replant the bud it will grow and produce more berries ~ Gas well sites and roads ~ Moles/animal damage ~ Voles/mice/moles tunneling destroys roots, opens them to predators. I had an entire woodland planting destroyed and have observed it in wild populations ~ I feel turkeys are a big reason why ginseng is not as plentiful because they are breaking the plants off of the root and eating the berries ~

250

Other reasons provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument) contd.:

~ Changes in habitat from lots of mulch and food to the disappearance of ground cover, shade, cycle of black berry plants, etc., also an ever changing soil conditions (pH) (moisture) depleted nutrients ~ Gas wells and gas well roads ~ Wild turkeys, shrews and moles ~ Every year I lose some good areas to developments, etc. ~ House‘s being built and wiping out entire patches ~ Gas well locations ~ State roads ~ Turkeys ~ Acid rain ~ Gas wells ~ Timber removal is by far the largest destroyer thousands and thousands times worse ~ None of the above ~ Rodents eat a lot of ripe berries ~ Rodents eat a lot of planted seed. However, planted has more of a chance to germinate. 18 months after its planted ~ Laws of collection cause people to harvest all they can find so they don‘t have to trespass again ~ Voles/mole, in some areas (my area) are a bigger problem than deer ~ Highway building in inappropriate locations ~ Recreational activity (hiking, mountain bikes, etc.) ~ Collectors moving young plants to there own private area ~ Severe droughts (no seeds) ~ Theft ~ Selling to buyers who don‘t reject root as too small and illegal. One buyer grinds roots up and sells it in barrels. No way to know what size the root was. Don‘t have to certify (no whole root). Drives it to NY (no license). NY exports it legally without permits and licenses (loop hole). Nobody broke any laws ~ PA state has stripped a excellent spot for wild ginseng in the Winslow hill location of Elk Co. And they bulldozed a large patch off of Hicks Run to put a stupid fence up to grow trees ~ Wild turkey, slugs (feeding activity) ~

Additional comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

Timber removal:

~ Not normally. Should make better after a few years ~ Not a problem, if not clear cut ~ To a point. If clear cut yes. If no, it can help ~ To a certain point ~ This totally decimates beautiful forest areas and ginseng for many, many years! ~ Plant will come back when trees have grown sufficiently for shade ~ Only when clear cut. New growth is too dense, no sunlight ~ I have seen logging, housing developments and surface mining destroy area after area over the years where ginseng, goldenseal etc. were growing. Many of them in the last few years ~ These two (w/ land development) are the absolute biggest problem in PA ~ Only if ―totally removed‖ – heavy or clear cutting I have found does not eliminate ginseng ~ Helpful in my opinion ~ Long time before re-growth ~ Timbering does not lead to the elimination of sang but it sure thins it due to sunlight getting in and allowing other plants to crowd it out ~ As chopping become thick, Quite often timber removal protects sang. Or sometimes the timber employees take it all out when sawing the timber off! ~ In this order! Timber removal, Surface mining, Land development and Deer browsing ~

Surface mining:

~ Definitely. It has ruined a lot in my area ~ These are the only 2 (w/ land development) which can eliminate sang. All of the others just slow up the process for a while ~ I have seen logging, housing developments and surface mining destroy area after area over the years where ginseng, goldenseal etc. were growing. Many of them in the last few years ~ In this order! Timber removal, Surface mining, Land development and Deer browsing ~

Land development:

~ By far the biggest problem in York County ~ These two (w/ timber removal) are the absolute biggest problem in PA ~ I have seen logging, housing developments and surface mining destroy area after area over the years where ginseng, goldenseal etc. were growing. Many of them in the last few years ~ These are the only 2 (w/ surface mining) which can eliminate sang. All of the others just slow up the process for a while ~ When I was a kid Monroeville was nothing but corn, cows, woods, a saw mill and a mink farm. We used to get sang the size of carrots where Monroeville mall is now ~ In this order! Timber removal, Surface mining, Land development and Deer browsing ~

251

Additional comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument) contd.:

Deer browsing:

~ Deer do browse but plants still produce after browsing. The next year the plant continues to grow ~ Deer are the leading factor in eliminating ginseng. And they prefer to heavily browse companion plants and trees…hard maple, ash, basswood, etc. ~ I don‘t think this kills the plant in the short term ~ Some, in areas ~ In this order! Timber removal, Surface mining, Land development and Deer browsing ~

Competition from other plants:

~ Wild ferns will smother it out ~ Ferns can choke it out ~ Not much in my area ~ Mile-a-minute is the worst – especially after logging ~ Briars – after they finally die off – leaving very nice shang patch ~ And turkeys ~ Paw paw shades ginseng terribly ~

Collection by diggers:

~ Picked to early ~ They are dug by unlawful diggers from emergence in spring until frost! ~ All plants should have minimum of 3 stems with 5 leaflets each before harvesting ~ Would take minimum 20 years to get stable population recovery ~ I don‘t know what other diggers do as ginseng diggers are very secretive. I only know 2 other diggers and they and I want ginseng to prosper and we always plant the berries ~ Collectors not buying seed to replenish patches ~ Ripeness date problem ~ There are slobs, just like slob hunters. We need to have some policing of harvesters ~ This is probably one of the least problems ~ This has the least impact. But apparently is the cheapest and easiest variable to control. Herbicide and fern population/infestation is the worst problem. Of course total shade reduction too ~ Don‘t make people like myself giving up on growing because of the government stealing the root that declines ~

252 Appendix J-7

Survey instrument results (Question #7)

How often have you done the following to wild ginseng plants?

Frequently Occasionally Never

Passed over a wild plant; looked too nice 20% (n = 71) 46% (n = 162) 34% (n = 119) to pick (n = 352)

Pinched off the tops of plants to hide from 36% (n = 128) 25% (n = 90) 39% (n = 138) others (n = 356)

Broke off the neck of a plant and re- 21% (n = 72) 27% (n = 92) 52% (n = 179) planted it (n = 343)

Applied fertilizer to improve growth (n = 2% (n = 6) 7% (n = 24) 91% (n = 314) 344)

Removed competing vegetation (n = 344) 10% (n = 35) 36% (n = 122) 54% (n = 187)

Relocated plants threatened by land 22% (n = 78) 42% (n = 145) 36% (n = 127) development (n = 350)

Transplanted plants for use as seed source 19% (n = 65) 36% (n = 127) 45% (n = 158) (n = 350)

Comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

―Passed over a wild plant; looked too nice to pick:‖

~ Not if it was mature ~ Except by size ~ I leave the small ones and some of the big for continuous seeding. Every patch different ~

―Pinched off the tops of plants to hide from others:‖

~ Good idea on small plants or medium ~ Only after they had dropped their berries or I removed them. Never before or with green berries still on them ~ You would not have seeds on them plants ~ When the plant gets broken from the root, the plant seems to die off. It takes up to 3 years for a seed to sprout and up to 5 years for some plants to have berries ~ Best to lay matted leaves over left stalk to hide and let die naturally ~

―Broke off the neck of a plant and re-planted it:‖

~ Always ~ Always ~ Accidental ~ It ruined sale value and a lot didn‘t grow anyway but I tried it ~ No success ~ Does not work well ~ Berries are better here ~ I was told this wouldn‘t work by an old digger ~

253

Comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument) contd.:

Before new laws took effect ~ I have always replanted a neck which had a ―quill‖ or numerous feeder roots attached but I have been told that roots without necks cannot legally be sold? ~ Harvested plants only ~ Does not work well ~ If connected to a smaller side root ~ Always ~

―Applied fertilizer to improve growth:‖

~ Wouldn‘t want to risk killing ~ If you force a plant to live, then it would not grow there wild ~

―Removed competing vegetation:‖

~ If you force a plant to live, then it would not grow there wild ~

―Relocated plants threatened by land development:‖

~ Illegal ~ Usually too late ~ Consol ripping whole county woods apart. DCNR doesn‘t seem to care. Thousands of acres down the crapper ~ The only reason I picked what I did last year is because they were timbering ~

―Transplanted plants for use as seed source:‖

~ I also froze seed with gibberellic acid to hasten germination ~ 3 or 4 prongers ~ Only if plants and habitat in danger ~ On property in gardens to put back in the woods (Johnny Appleseed kind of thing). After plants are healthy. Germinate at a higher rate in gardens than in the wild. Same plant seeds, same property—No disease. There used to be laws that seeds could not be transplanted from one side of a road, stream or powerline. This was so that diseased seed would not spread to other plants, which is why it grows in patches from other patches. ―Sang‖ is a damn intelligent plant. They stay down for 3-4 weeks later than goldenseal which is already up (as of March 29). This is April 2nd. It is going to go down in the teens for the next few days and snow. Might kill ―seal.‖ Maybe this is why it is harder to come by (Although I have much). I have noticed if it grows on the frost side (used to cold) it will survive but it will not on sunny side where earth warms/cools to quickly ~

254 Appendix J-8

Survey instrument results (Question #8)

How useful would the following types of educational support be to you?

Useful Somewhat useful Not useful

Brochures, books, videos, internet 46% (n = 160) 33% (n = 114) 21% (n = 72) (n = 346)

Forest consultants knowledgeable 37% (n = 126) 34% (n = 116) 29% (n = 99) about ginseng (n = 341)

Educational workshops (n = 338) 25% (n = 85) 39% (n = 133) 36% (n = 120)

Funding for ginseng studies on 29% (n = 99) 36% (n = 121) 35% (n = 117) private forest-lands (n = 337)

An organization devoted to 40% (n = 133) 36% (n = 122) 24% (n = 80) Pennsylvania ginseng (n = 335)

Access to Pennsylvania ginseng 53% (n = 179) 31% (n = 107) 16% (n = 56) dealer and market info (n = 342)

Demonstrations of planting and 44% (n = 152) 37% (n = 129) 19% (n = 66) other related activities (n = 347)

Comments provided by respondents (quoted from the survey instrument):

~ Would like to locate dealer and rule out the middle man ~ Part of problem…not useful (reference to forest consultants) ~ Somewhat useful. Except it would promote more digging (reference to brochures, books, etc.) ~ Not useful. More taxes (reference to funding for ginseng studies) ~ Great Idea!! (reference to an organization) ~ All useful - to help get others interested in ginseng growing ~ Some of these may only increase pressure on plant ~ Already have family knowledge from grandfather, father ~ No more gov. funded projects on private prop. ~ No time to attend (reference to workshops) ~ No electric. 12 volt solar ~ Opening up ―Pandora‘s Box.‖ More rooters, less root ~ If controlled and not abused. Hard to do (reference to funding for studies) ~ Very good idea. Stop the import of seed that may be contaminated or bogus in some way (and root). ―Get rich quickers‖ who don‘t care about the plant (reference to an organization) ~ Only for those trying to help (reference to ginseng dealer and market info) ~ We learn something new every day. I will/can learn a lot from you folks ~

255 Appendix J-9

Survey instrument results (Question #9, plants)

List three plants that you consider most useful for identifying ginseng habitat in Pennsylvania. Please provide as many common or scientific names as you know for each species that you list.

Number of times listed Percent of total listings

Black cohosh, rattleweed, 104 14.2% rattletop, rattleroot

Indian-turnip, jack-in-the- 81 11.1% pulpit

Cohosh (generic) 62 8.5% Goldenseal 59 8.1% Blue cohosh 54 7.4% Ferns (generic) 42 5.8% Mayapple 41 5.6% Bloodroot 38 5.2% Maidenhair fern 38 5.2% Local name for plant 20 2.7% (unknown) Wild sarsaparilla, sarsaparilla, 19 2.6% fool‘s-sang

Grape, wild grape, grapevine 18 2.5% Local name for fern 16 2.2% (unknown) Wild ginger 14 1.9% Baneberry (generic) 12 1.6% Nettles (generic) 12 1.6% Don‘t know the names 9 1.2% Bethroot, trillium 8 1.1%

256

Christmas fern 8 1.1% Rattlesnake fern 8 1.1% Touch-me-not, waterweed, 8 1.1% jewelweed White cohosh, doll‘s-eye, 7 1.0% white baneberry Solomon‘s-seal 5 0.7% Pokeweed, inkweed 4 0.5% Blackberry 3 0.4% Poison-ivy 3 0.4% Red cohosh, red banberry 3 0.4% Stoneroot 3 0.4% Virginia-creeper 3 0.4% Whitetop, white snakeroot 3 0.4% Brake fern 2 0.3% Lady fern 2 0.3% Lady-slipper orchid 2 0.3% Violet (generic) 2 0.3% Wood fern 2 0.3% Colt‘s-foot 1 0.1% False Solomon-seal 1 0.1% Green briars 1 0.1% Ground corn, squirrel-corn 1 0.1% New York fern 1 0.1% Queen-Anne‘s-lace 1 0.1% Ramps 1 0.1% Saint John‘s-wort 1 0.1% Showy orchis 1 0.1% Skunk cabbage 1 0.1% Spignet, spikenard 1 0.1%

257

Sweet anise 1 0.1% Virginia snakeroot 1 0.1% Wild blueberry 1 0.1% Wild geranium 1 0.1%

Totals 730 100%

258 Appendix J-9

Survey instrument results (Question #9, shrubs)

List three shrubs that you consider most useful for identifying ginseng habitat in Pennsylvania. Please provide as many common or scientific names as you know for each species that you list.‖

Number of times listed Percent of total listings

Spicebush 55 26.6% Grape, wild grape, grapevine 48 23.2% Blackberry 21 10.1% Striped maple 11 5.3% Don‘t know the names 9 4.3% Wild rose, multiflora rose 8 3.9% Witch-hazel 8 3.9% Local name (unknown) 7 3.4% Mountain laurel 6 2.9% Dogwood 5 2.4% Maple-leaf viburnum 5 2.4% Serviceberry, juneberry, 5 2.4% shadbush Barberry 4 1.9% Elderberry (generic) 4 1.9% Gooseberry 4 1.9% Hop hornbeam, ironwood 2 1.0% Hazelnut 1 0.5% Hydrangea 1 0.5% Paw paw 1 0.5% Red elderberry 1 0.5% Redbud 1 0.5%

259

Totals 207 100%

260 Appendix J-9

Survey instrument results (Question #9, trees)

List three trees that you consider most useful for identifying ginseng habitat in Pennsylvania. Please provide as many common or scientific names as you know for each species that you list.

Number of times listed Percent of total listings

Maple (generic) 119 17.4% Oak (generic) 90 13.1%

Tulip poplar, yellow poplar, 90 13.1% poplar

Cherry, black cherry 88 12.8% Ash, white ash 66 9.6% Beech 61 8.9% Sugar maple, hard maple 34 5.0% Basswood 24 3.5% Hardwoods ―no evergreens‖ 16 2.3% Hickory (generic) 11 1.6% Pine (generic) 9 1.3% Butternut 7 1.0% Black walnut 6 0.9% Don‘t know the names 6 0.9% Elm (generic) 5 0.7% Local name (unknown) 5 0.7% Red oak 5 0.7% Apple, crabapple 4 0.6% Birch (generic) 4 0.6% Softwoods 4 0.6% Cucumber tree 3 0.4%

261

Dogwood 3 0.4% Hemlock 3 0.4% Locust 3 0.4% Sassafras 3 0.4% Striped maple, moosewood 3 0.4% Paw paw 2 0.3% White oak 2 0.3% Black oak 1 0.1% Hornbeam 1 0.1% Mountain ash 1 0.1% Persimmon 1 0.1% Pignut hickory 1 0.1% Quaking aspen 1 0.1% Red maple 1 0.1% Redbud 1 0.1% White birch 1 0.1%

Totals 685 100%

262 Appendix J-10

Survey instrument results (Question #10)

Do you own forestlands in Pennsylvania? If yes, (a) how many acres and (b) do you have a written forest management plan?

Yes No No response

Percent owning forestland (n = 369) 49% (n = 179) 50% (n = 186) 1% (n = 4)

Acreage (mean)* (n = 179) 60.8 acres Not applicable 3% (n = 11)

Have written forest management plan 13% (n = 23) 84% (n = 150) 3% (n = 6) (n = 179)

*Standard deviation = 103.7 acres; Mode = 10 acres; Median = 20 acres; Range = 1-700 acres.

263 Appendix J-11

Survey instrument results (Question #11)

How many years have you been active at ginseng collection (n = 347)?

Mean 25

Mode 20

Minimum 0

Maximum 78

Standard deviation 17

No response or not a collector 22

Comments provided by respondents (quoted from the survey instrument):

~ Off and on ~ Lifetime. I don‘t hunt ginseng anymore. Haven‘t for 25 years. I tend to my own on my land ~ Off and on ~ Some years just a half dozen roots ~ Started as a boy with old time hunters ~ I used to live in Ohio and I hunted it for 25 years, then I moved to PA ~ I have collected 3 roots in the last 5 years from wild populations ~ Off and on: sometimes we don‘t for 10 years or more ~ Less those years between 1935 and 1957 when ginseng was of little value and I served in the army World War II ~ Digging only every 5 to 10 years ~ 30 years, off and on ~ None since 1985, when my father died ~ On and off ~ Just learning ~ I‘ve picked it very few of those 47 years ~ Maybe more ~

264 Appendix J-12

Survey instrument results (Question #12)

In which county or counties of Pennsylvania have you collected ginseng? (n = 850).

n % of responses

Adams 2 <1% Alleghany 24 3% Armstrong 37 4% Beaver 13 1%

Bedford 46 5%

Berks 12 1%

Blair 19 2%

Bradford 18 2%

Bucks 4 <1%

Butler 32 4%

Cambria 35 4%

Cameron 11 1%

Centre 9 1%

Chester 1 <1%

Clarion 10 1%

Clearfield 29 3%

Clinton 6 <1%

Columbia 1 <1%

Crawford 7 <1%

Dauphin 3 <1%

265

Survey question #12 results contd.

Elk 11 1%

Erie 8 1%

Fayette 46 5%

Forest 6 <1%

Franklin 6 <1%

Fulton 3 <1%

Greene 35 4%

Huntingdon 18 2% Indiana 43 5% Jefferson 25 3% Lackawanna 3 <1% Lancaster 6 <1% Lawrence 8 1% Lebanon 3 <1% Lehigh 6 <1% Luzerne 2 <1% Lycoming 3 <1% McKean 29 3% Mercer 8 1% Mifflin 4 <1% Monroe 1 <1% Montgomery 2 <1% Northampton 3 <1% Perry 7 <1% Pike 1 <1% Potter 41 5%

266

Survey question #12 results contd. Snyder 2 <1% Somerset 64 8% Susquehanna 9 1% Tioga 21 3% Venango 8 1% Warren 13 1% Washington 21 3% Wayne 3 <1% Westmoreland 50 6% Wyoming 6 <1% York 6 <1%

267 Appendix J-13

Survey instrument results (Question #13)

Which of the following factors are/were important to you in deciding whether to collect ginseng in a given year?

Very important Important Not important

Market price (n = 316) 24% (n = 76) 38% (n = 119) 38% (n = 121)

Availability of plants (n = 313) 45% (n = 142) 38% (n = 119) 17% (n = 52)

Financial need (n = 298) 10% (n = 31) 20% (n = 58) 70% (n = 209)

Personal enjoyment (n = 342) 83% (n = 283) 15% (n = 50) 2% (n = 9)

Access to forestland (n = 305) 43% (n = 130) 37% (n = 112) 21% (n = 63)

Other* (n = 51) 84% (n = 43) 16% (n = 8)

*Other factors provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ Wet spring and summer ~ Time to collect ~ Time ~ Exercise ~ We walk through forestland just for exercise and just to see what‘s there ~ Mainly as a hobby. Ginseng hunting is a challenge ~ Addicted to the hunt ~ Teaching grandkids ~ Signs of other hunters in the area ~ Medicinal value ~ I harvest all large plants over seven years old ~ Love to hunt it…a day or so in a year ~ Out of medicine ~ Love the outdoors ~ It‘s great recreation ~ Available time ~ Enjoying wilderness, exercise ~ Permission of landowner ~ Weather conditions ~ Scouting for hunting ~ Weather, drought ~ Personal physical endurance ~ Normal temperatures for plant growth ~ Enjoying wildlife and beauty ~ Like to be in the woods ~ Health ~ Save from destruction, transplant to safe area ~ Temperature too hot ~ Drought ~ Love to be out in woods ~ Walking for exercise ~ To help others ~ Available free time ~ Season condition (too hot etc.) ~ Transplanting ~ Weather/free time ~ Time off work ~ Like to be in woods ~ Personal use ~ Research/observation ~

268 Appendix J-14

Survey instrument results (Questions #14 and 15)

How often do/did you collect ginseng?‖ and ―How often do/did you visit the same area to collect ginseng?‖

Whenever I see Every few years Rarely Every year it/ Whenever I (2-5 years) (5+ years) get there

Collect * 62% (n = 211) 28% (n = 96) 7% (n = 22) 3% (n = 12) (n = 341)

Collect from same area ** 18% (n = 60) 56% (n = 192) 17% (n = 58) 9% (n = 32) (n = 342)

Comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

* Frequency:

~ Once, twice or three times, 2-6 hours at a time ~ I just started ~ Some years I pinch ~ After so many years I skip a year or so ~ Just started ~ Only as a hobby ~ I like to see it grow. I try spreading the berries ~ But some years very little ~ I plant seeds at every site ~ When possible ~ Except 1935 to 1957 ~ But rotate places one year and hunt section A, then next year B and don‘t hunt A until following year ~ Observe known locations May-Oct ~ I look for ginseng every year. Just to replant the berries. I rarely pull a root ~ Collected last few years and before when I was younger ~ Depended on work ~

** Frequency from same area:

~ To check for bigger plants only that were looked over in grape vines. Mostly go to new areas to see if its there ~ I go back and look for growth ~ To check areas. Keep plants safe and record info ~ Just to check the area ~ Might be only 6-8 oz. ~ Determined somewhat by competition ~ To plant berries ~ Visual contact 3- 4 times per year ~ 5 to 6 years ~ To look around more than harvest crop growth ~ We never hunted the same area more than once a year ~ To check on the ones I left ~ I try to visit all my areas every year. Not necessarily to dig ~ Try to check every year to see if my way of doing things works. May not dig, but always legal root. Leave the small and some of the big or mediums. Always have root. Most folks take all the big and mediums, then wait 3-5 years to go back to that spot. Small plants will not grow as well, if at all, if big plants not around (mother and child thing). Chemicals from big plants flow down hill (like seed to small plants). Take ―momma,‖ baby‘s screwed. Like humans, nutrients from seed, root, stem, leaves, bleed into soil. ―Babies‖ comforted even in sleep in winter. As odd as it sounds, it works ~

269 Appendix J-15

Survey instrument results (Question #16)

If you have stopped collecting ginseng, how important were the following factors in deciding to quit?‖

Very important Important Not important

Lack of available ginseng (n = 130) 48% (n = 62) 23% (n = 30) 29% (n = 38)

Lack of interest (n = 110) 14% (n = 16) 25% (n = 27) 61% (n = 67)

Lack of time (n = 127) 35% (n = 44) 32% (n = 41) 33% (n = 42)

Lack of access to forestland (n = 122) 37% (n = 45) 25% (n = 31) 38% (n = 46)

Physically unable to collect (n = 126) 39% (n = 49) 13% (n = 17) 48% (n = 60)

Conservation concerns (n = 115) 39% (n = 45) 40% (n = 46) 21% (n = 24)

Too much regulatory hassle (n = 115) 34% (n = 39) 22% (n = 25) 44% (n = 51)

Other* (n = 8) 88% (n = 7) 12% (n = 1)

*Other reasons provided by respondents, quoted from survey instrument:

~ Crybabies ~ I haven‘t totally quit but have cut way down to about 3 trips per year ~ Crop rotation, as in not going to same ginseng patch every year ~ Price not very stable, then nothing is, I also trap ~ Keep putting too many rules on everything you do in life ~ Loss of my father, my hunting buddy ~ Can‘t find any ~ Too many crybaby landowners thinking they own God‘s property; wild gen seng is free from God ~

270 Appendix J-16

Survey instrument results (Question #17)

Have you ever collected ginseng from the following lands in Pennsylvania?

Yes No

Private individual lands (n = 341) 96% (n = 326) 4% (n = 15)

Private corporation lands (n = 301) 52% (n = 156) 48% (n = 145)

State forestlands (n = 292) 29% (n = 86) 71% (n = 206)

State game lands (n = 287) 19% (n = 54) 81% (n = 233)

State park lands (n = 281) 11% (n = 30) 89% (n = 251)

Allegheny National Forest (n = 272) 7% (n = 18) 93% (n = 254)

*Comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ State forestlands and game lands - not since 1980 ~ Land ownership is no barrier to a sang hunter ~ With owner permission ~ Law forbids (in reference to state lands) ~ With permission from landowner ~ Never on State or Parks ~ They (state) try to say they own God‘s Gen seng only God owns ~ Property or political boundaries are very little deterrent or concern to a sang hunter ~

271 Appendix J-17

Survey instrument results (Question #18)

How often have you returned to an area where ginseng occurs to find someone else removed some or all of the plants?

Often Occasionally Never

Some plants removed (n = 334) 29% (n = 96) 59% (n = 198) 12% (n = 40)

All plants removed (n = 313) 13% (n = 42) 45% (n = 141) 42% (n = 130)

*Comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ Or not coming up that year for shade-reasons, etc. ~ Rarely ~ May be deer not people ~ Removed seeds ~ (Occasionally for both) If some gone, 4 legged. If all gone, 2 legged ~

272 Appendix J-18

Survey instrument results (Question #19)

Does any of the wild ginseng root that you collect originate from seed that you previously purchased and planted in the forest? (n = 337)

Yes, less than half of Yes, more than half of No, none of it I think so it (<50%) it (>50%)

45% (n = 151) 28% (n = 95) 16% (n = 54) 11% (n = 37)

*Comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ Because I plant most of the areas I go to ~ I always try to establish new plant with the ripe seed ~ I always hated people who dug before the berries are ripe. I use to hunt sang 30 years ago and carried a small bottle to put seeds in. When I found a good spot I planted the berries to help other people. Keep ginseng alive today ~ I have never purchased seed. However, I have planted many pounds of seed in the wild that originated from my cultivated plants ~ Never purchased seed ~ Planted for seed stock ~ I take seed from my cultivated plants ~ But for 3 years I have been planting seed ~ I never purchased any seed ~ Still a few years to wait ~ Very small percentage ~ None of my seeds have ever come up ~ Never purchased seeds ~ All seed I bought or planted never grew ~ 2% approximately ~ Not that I know of ~ Not purchased ~ From berries I planted ~ Not from purchased, from reseeding ~ I also plant roots every year ~

273 Appendix J-19

Survey instrument results (Question #20)

When you collect, approximately how many pounds (lbs) of ginseng do you normally dig in a year? (n = 338)

Yes No

Less than 1 lb. 36% (n = 121) 64% (n = 217)

1-2 lbs. 45% (n = 152) 55% (n = 186)

3-5 lbs. 17% (n = 56) 83% (n = 282)

6-10 lbs. 1% (n = 4) 99% (n = 334)

Over 10 lbs. 2% (n = 6) 98% (n = 332)

274 Appendix J-20

Survey instrument results (Questions #21 and 23)

Have you ever held-over (from one year to the next) roots you collected in a given year? Do you know anyone who is not a resident of Pennsylvania who visits the state to harvest ginseng and if so where do they sell the root?

Yes No

Has held-over roots from one year to next (n = 346)* 61% (n = 212) 39% (n = 134)

Knows someone who visits Pennsylvania to harvest 13% (n = 44) 87% (n = 299) ginseng (n = 343)**

Where out-of-state harvesters sell root (n = 44):

In Pennsylvania 32% (n = 14) 68% (n = 30)

In another state 30% (n = 13) 70% (n = 31)

They don‘t sell it 0% (n = 0) 100% (n = 44)

I don‘t know 48% (n = 21) 52% (n = 23)

Comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

*Holding over roots from one year to next:

~ No, some people do ~ Still have dry root from 20 years ago ~ Often ~ But seldom ~ To use personally ~ Don‘t you have to register by law? ~ Always replanted ~ Including one 67 year old root ~ But very few ~ Very few ~ Must get certified. Long drive (Laughlintown). Highest price Jan-Feb. Hold over March 31. Buyers get ―squirrelly‖ in March ~

**Know someone who visits Pennsylvania to harvest ginseng:

~ Warren County is next to NY state. Many collectors come from there ~ Not of your business. Keep government out of it ~ State boundaries are no deterrent to a sang hunter ~ Out of staters should be required to purchase an out of state license ~ Don‘t know them personally but saw them in the woods and saw the license plate on their cars ~ Back in the 1960‘s ~ State lines are little or no deterrent to a sang hunter ~ I don‘t know, NY, OH, WV, MD. Same as deer hunting or poaching, nobody stops them. You will also see KY and TN but rare. Crossing state lines is a ―no-no‖ but either they don‘t know or care ~

275 Appendix J-21

Survey instrument results (Question #22, part A)

How much of the root that you collect do you typically sell? (n = 342)

None, I keep it all for myself or a friend 7% (n = 23)

Some, but I keep most for myself or a friend 6% (n = 22)

Most, but I keep a little for myself or a friend 39% (n = 132)

All of it 48% (n = 165)

Comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ All sold. Except for small neck root I replant ~ I send it do a dealer that my deceased uncle used to send it to ~ My uncle was a bachelor and he did this for a hobby. It was just a small patch. It gave him something to do besides his garden which he planted on my property also ~ Sell very little ~ Almost all of my wild root I collect is transplanted ~ I have not sold any in 6 yrs ~ PA law has a few ―grey‖ spots in it. You can give it away but not sell to anyone without a license, buyer records, etc ~

276 Appendix J-22

Survey instrument results (Question #22, part B)

If you sold root, who did you sell the root to? (n = 320)

Yes No

A dealer 95% (n = 303) 5% (n = 17)

Nobody, I am a dealer 3% (n = 9) 97% (n = 311)

Someone that I know who uses it 5% (n = 15) 95% (n = 305)

Someone that I know who sells it locally to 1% (n = 2) 99% (n = 318) customers

Someone that I know who makes products out of it 1% (n = 2) 99% (n = 318)

A ‗middle man‘ (friend, work-mate, etc.) who sells 3% (n = 10) 97% (n = 310) it to a dealer

277 Appendix J-23

Survey instrument results (Question #24)

Do you have an agreement with any other ginseng collectors in your area to not dig ginseng root from a particular forestland (n = 343)

Yes No

22% (n = 77) 78% (n = 266)

If yes, why?

So we don‘t dig root from each other‘s 84% (n = 65) 16% (n = 12) collection area (n = 77)

Because they own the land (n = 77) 21% (n = 16) 79% (n = 61)

Other* 21% (n = 16)

*Other reasons provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ Because we planted some there for seed ~ I don‘t dig from his spots unless he is present and he doesn‘t dig from my spots unless I‘m present ~ Attempt to allow maturity ~ We own the land ~ To assure root will be there ~ To protect a depleting area ~ Friendship ~ So patches can grow so our grandchildren can harvest ~ So that if has a chance to re populate ~ I am very protective of this plant and I have no idea why ~ For our future generations use ~ Because the landowner cries like a baby or arrests you ~ Its my land ~ We planted together ~ Old know rooters don‘t ―pinch‖ another rooters patch. You may wander on it without knowing that one of their ―hidy holes.‖ Its unwritten credibility. Your trusted (to a point). The old rooters don‘t get violent with each other because they know you wouldn‘t have done it on purpose. In fact, its rest and joke time. Just don‘t go back. If you ―pinch‖ on purpose, then it can and will get ugly. Usually young punks that need quick drug money ~

278 Appendix J-24

Survey instrument results (Question #25)

How often do you collect the following from Pennsylvania forestlands?

Often Occasionally

Blackberries/blueberries (n = 331) 31% (n = 103) 56% (n = 187)

Wild mushrooms (n = 317) 32% (n = 102) 44% (n = 139)

Wild leek/ramps (n = 303) 15% (n = 45) 44% (n = 132)

Goldenseal (n = 304) 9% (n = 26) 38% (n = 115)

Sassafras (n = 299) 6% (n = 17) 35% (n = 104)

Bloodroot (n = 293) 3% (n = 9) 24% (n = 69)

Black cohosh (n = 293) 5% (n = 15) 21% (n = 61)

Maple syrup (n = 290) 6% (n = 16) 16% (n = 47)

Blue cohosh (n = 285) 2% (n = 7) 15% (n = 43)

May apple (n = 284) 1% (n = 3) 16% (n = 46)

Ground-pine or club-moss (n = 287) 1% (n = 4) 14% (n = 39)

Lady-slipper orchid (n = 280) < 1% (n = 1) 3% (n = 9)

Slippery elm (n = 279) < 1% (n = 1) 3% (n = 8)

Other (n = 30) 67% (n = 20) 33% (n = 10)

Other items collected:

~ Bittersweet ~ Witch hazel ~ Flowering dogwood ~ Nuts ~ Raspberry ~ Wine berry ~ Cranes bill ~ Elderberry ~ Wild yam ~ Stone root ~ Firewood ~ Virginia snakeroot ~ Solomon-seal ~ Wild ginger ~ Black raspberries ~ Elderberries ~ Walnuts ~ Huckleberries ~ Witch hazel seeds ~ Joe-pye root ~ Virginia snake root ~ Wild strawberries ~ Apples ~ Wild honey ~ Tree seeds ~ Hellebore ~ Jack in the pulpit ~ Teaberry ~ Wild apples ~ Raspberries ~ Tree fungus ~ Deer tongue/salad ~

279 Appendix J-25

Survey instrument results (Question #26)

Which of the following would prevent you from growing ginseng rather than collecting it from the wild? (n = 342)

Yes No

Nothing would prevent me from trying to 67% (n = 229) 33% (n = 113) grow ginseng

I do not own or have access to forestland 23% (n = 77) 77% (n = 265) suitable for growing ginseng

I do not have the money to invest in 15% (n = 51) 85% (n = 291) growing ginseng

I enjoy collection and would rather not 20% (n = 69) 80% (n = 273) try to grow it

I do not know enough about growing 12% (n = 40) 88% (n = 302) ginseng

There are too many deer in my area to 8% (n = 27) 92% (n = 315) grow ginseng

It takes too long to grow ginseng 4% (n = 15) 96% (n = 327)

There are too many people who steal 17% (n = 59) 83% (n = 283) ginseng in my area

Other* 10% (n = 34)

*Other reasons provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ Foresters depleting the hardwood ~ Only reason would be if I got too sick to do it ~ I thought you wasn‘t aloud to grow ginseng on your own property ~ Excessive bureaucracy ~ If I lost interest ~ Would be willing to grow some but enjoy the hobby of hunting and finding ~ Mole and deer damage is constant ~ Over-regulation ~ Getting old I‘m 61 ~ The termination of a wild season ~ I would still prefer wild! ~ State Regulations ~ Timbering of forest land ~ Diseases. Once in your garden, it will completed destroy the rest. Must start over again ~ Time ~ Loggers would come in and destroy it ~ Dry weather and too much sun on our side of the mountain ~ Lack of time ~ Soon there will be taxes on growing or selling, nothing will be free ~ Health Reasons ~ Age. No longer able to collect or grow ~ Tried and Failed ~ Health ~ The moles are such a problem in some places that they will tunnel and eat half the ginseng transplants in an area ~ Never had much luck in growing it ~ I have friends that has tried to grow ginseng and they haven‘t had

280 much luck ~ Old age ~ Problems with moles/voles and water borne fungal blights ~ Do not know were to buy seed from ~ Assholes destroying it through government allowing them by cutting right of ways on my property where existing right of way was elsewhere ~ Theft has been my biggest problem in growing ginseng. Other growers that I know have experienced similar problems ~ I need proper and scientific planting instructions. I plant 100‘s of berries every year with very little yield. Why? ~ It takes too long, age at present 70 ~

**Comments provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ I wish I had the proper land to grow ginseng. I really enjoy hunting it and watching it grow in areas. It keeps getting hard to find ~ Deer = big problem ~ I plant 1 lb. of seed every year on private ground ~ I‘ve grown it 3 times in cultivated gardens and had it stolen all three times. Cops could give a damn…kind of funny to them ~ I have one property that all the ginseng is stolen. I still try to help it by planting any berries I see, put brush over it, pinch leaves off if I can find any ~ We have a very high deer density. I have seen very little evidence that deer browse on ginseng. They do step on it and break it ~ Have planted and will continue to do so but I think deer browsing is the main factor leading to very limited success ~ I do not know of any deer that eats seng. Maybe once in a great while ~ Nothing bothers gin seng such as deer or other animals except turkey scratch ~ Deer = This is becoming a problem ~ I would grow it for the enjoyment, not to sell ~ I would grow it in a wild state ~ I grow sang but enjoy the hunt ~ I have always re- seeded areas that I have dug ~ I only make a small arbor to watch and gather seeds ~ I‘ve planted seed that I bought in the forest to keep sang around. Also from my plants that I have at my house ~ I always broke the root off with some sprouts left on the stem and plant the plant back in the ground along with the berries ~

281 Appendix J-26

Survey instrument results (Question #27)

How many years have you been active at planting ginseng (n = 288)?

Mean 18.7

Mode 20

Minimum 1

Maximum 78

Standard deviation 14.2

No response or not a collector 81

282 Appendix J-27

Survey instrument results (Question #28)

In which county or counties of Pennsylvania have you planted ginseng? (n = 548).

n % of responses

Adams 1 <1% Alleghany 12 2% Armstrong 27 5% Beaver 10 2%

Bedford 26 5%

Berks 4 <1%

Blair 11 2%

Bradford 19 4%

Bucks 1 <1%

Butler 25 5%

Cambria 20 4%

Cameron 10 2%

Centre 4 <1%

Chester 1 <1%

Clarion 10 2%

Clearfield 15 3%

Clinton 2 <1%

Crawford 5 1%

Dauphin 2 <1%

Elk 11 2%

283

Survey question #28 results contd.

Erie 4 <1%

Fayette 30 6%

Forest 3 <1%

Greene 18 3%

Huntingdon 10 2% Indiana 25 5% Jefferson 14 3% Juniata 3 <1% Lackawanna 3 <1% Lancaster 5 1% Lawrence 4 <1% Lebanon 2 <1% Lehigh 6 1% Luzerne 1 <1% Lycoming 4 <1% McKean 24 5% Mercer 10 2% Monroe 1 <1% Montgomery 1 <1% Northampton 1 <1% Northumberland 1 <1% Perry 4 <1% Pike 1 <1% Potter 32 6% Schuylkill 2 <1% Somerset 37 7% Sullivan 3 <1%

284

Survey question #28 results contd. Susquehanna 3 <1% Tioga 16 3% Venango 7 1% Warren 9 2% Washington 11 2% Wayne 1 <1% Westmoreland 30 6% Wyoming 1 <1% York 5 1%

285 Appendix J-28

Survey instrument results (Question #29)

Which of the following best describe how you have planted ginseng in Pennsylvania? (n = 290)

Yes No

In small, un-crowded forest plantings 77% (n = 224) 23% (n = 66)

In dense forest plantings 39% (n = 112) 61% (n = 178)

In beds in the forest 31% (n = 89) 69% (n = 201)

Under artificial shade 12% (n = 34) 88% (n = 256)

Other* 8% (n = 24) 92% (n =266)

*Other arrangements provided by respondents (quoted from the survey instrument):

~ Plant seeds from harvested plants ~ Plant berries from harvested crop ~ My deceased uncle planted a small patch in a small crowded forest which I own. It comes up here and there. When the berries are red I pick them ~ Berries from harvested plants at location ~ In the wild ~ Whenever I see a plant with red berries I plant them ~ Just berries from the plants ~ I plant my red berries ~

286 Appendix J-29

Survey instrument results (Question #30)

Where have you planted ginseng? (n = 292)

Yes No

Forestlands that someone-else owns 72% (n = 210) 28% (n = 82)

Forestlands that I own 56% (n = 162) 44% (n = 130)

Wherever I find a good location 52% (n = 152) 48% (n = 140)

Public forest and park lands 27% (n = 78) 73% (n = 214)

Other* 7% (n = 21) 93% (n = 272)

*Other locations provided by respondents (quoted from the survey instrument):

~ Same locations where I collect ~ Home ~ Places less likely to be found by other hunters ~ Safe land ~ Where it grows ~ Property that I lease for growing ginseng ~ Small home patch ~ County parks ~ State game lands ~ Home ~ Back yard under pines ~ Same spot that I dig out the ginseng ~ Leased lands ~ Where I pick I replant! ~ In woods ~ I have tried a few under my deck as well ~ Where found ~ Where I can hide it ~ From Butler to Potter, most of the Northwestern counties. I plant seed while trout fishing and hunting in fall. I put a few seeds any were I think it will grow. Most places I never check to see how it did ~ Plant ginseng in 4 counties ~

287 Appendix J-30

Survey instrument results (Question #31)

What was the source of your ginseng planting stock over the years? (n = 277)

Forestlands in Pennsylvania that someone else owns 62% (n = 172)

A commercial supplier * 45% (n = 125)

Forestlands in Pennsylvania that I own 39% (n = 109)

Public forest and park lands in Pennsylvania 21% (n = 57)

*Commercial supplier locations listed by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ Pennsylvania (n = 47) ~ Wisconsin (n = 43) ~ New York (n = 11) ~ Ohio (n = 7) ~ West Virginia (n = 6) ~ North Carolina (n = 6) ~ Michigan (n = 5) ~ British Columbia (n = 3) ~ Tennessee (n = 3) ~ Virginia (n = 3) ~ Maryland (n = 3) ~ Illinois (n = 3) ~ Missouri (n = 2) ~ Minnesota (n = 2) ~ Kentucky (n = 2) ~ Iowa (n = 2) ~ Vermont (n = 1) ~ Massachusetts (n = 1) ~

288 Appendix J-31

Survey instrument results (Question #32)

Have you harvested and sold ginseng from your plantings? (n = 292)

Yes No

52% (n = 153) 48% (n = 139)

289 Appendix J-32

Survey instrument results (Question #33)

Have any of the following relations of yours planted ginseng on Pennsylvania forestlands?

Recently In the past Never

Grandparent (n = 206) 2% (n = 4) 37% (n = 76) 61% (n = 126)

Parent (n = 232) 7% (n = 17) 36% (n = 83) 57% (n = 132)

Family (n = 224) 23% (n = 51) 27% (n = 62) 50% (n = 111)

Friends (n = 237) 36% (n = 85) 36% (n = 85) 28% (n = 67)

290 Appendix J-33

Survey instrument results (Question #34)

If you have stopped planting ginseng, how important were the following factors in deciding to quit?

Very important Important Not important

Lack of financial return (n = 89) 12% (n = 11) 12% (n = 11) 76% (n = 67)

Deer browsing (n = 93) 14% (n = 13) 20% (n = 19) 66% (n = 61)

Difficulties with plant disease (n = 85) 17% (n = 14) 22% (n = 19) 61% (n = 52)

Lack of time (n = 93) 27% (n = 25) 35% (n = 33) 38% (n = 35)

Personal health problems (n = 97) 33% (n = 32) 17% (n = 17) 50% (n = 48)

Problems with theft (n = 100) 22% (n = 29) 19% (n = 25) 35% (n = 46)

State involvement in trade (n = 96) 38% (n = 37) 17% (n = 16) 45% (n = 43)

Other (n = 14)* 86% (n = 12) 14% (n = 2)

*Other reasons provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ Lost interest ~ Moles ~ Turkey problems ~ Mice or Moles ~ Wife ~ Did not grow or browsed ~ Unsuccessful crop ~ Forest conditions. Acid rain has turned many areas in to solid fern patches ~ Nothing came up ~ Loss of father ~ Lack of seed establishment ~ Plant Ginseng when I can get to PA ~ Moles/voles ~ Loss of habitat ~ Too many deer ticks ~ When I couldn‘t buy seed ~ Trouble getting a seed to grow ~ Moved to unsuitable area ~ The location I tried did not work out---plants died or were rotten ~ Cry babies about their property ~ Assholes and government ~

291 Appendix J-34

Survey instrument results (Question #35)

In your experience, how troublesome are the following factors in planting and raising ginseng on forestlands in Pennsylvania?

Very Somewhat Not a problem troublesome troublesome

Diseases (n = 234) 16% (n = 37) 35% (n = 81) 49% (n = 116)

Insects (n = 228) 7% (n = 15) 40% (n = 91) 53% (n = 122)

Slugs (n = 226) 10% (n = 23) 32% (n = 71) 58% (n = 132)

Deer (n = 247) 20% (n = 49) 46% (n = 113) 34% (n = 85)

Mice, chipmunks, squirrels (n = 241) 32% (n = 76) 41% (n = 99) 27% (n = 66)

Turkeys (n = 239) 21% (n = 51) 37% (n = 89) 42% (n = 99)

Theft of plants (n = 243) 31% (n = 76) 29% (n = 71) 40% (n = 96)

Seedling establishment (n = 233) 19% (n = 44) 43% (n = 100) 38% (n = 89)

Other* (n = 23) 87% (n = 20) 13% (n = 3)

*Other problems provided by respondents (quoted from survey instrument):

~ Moles ~ Selection of proper bed sites ~ Voles/moles ~ Very difficult for plants to reach 6 years of age ~ Strip-mining, gas well locations, development ~ Lack of rain ~ Voles ~ Drought conditions ~ Development and timber removal ~ Unknown - possibly acid rain ~ Suitable soil ~ Loggers ~ Failure of crop ~ Site suitability ~ Forest conditions ~ Getting access to private forestland ~ Moles, voles, mice ~ Competition from non-native plants: wild garlic or French garlic ~ Forestry practices ~ Government logging ~ Weather ~ State involvement ~ Severe droughts ~ Dry weather (extreme) ~ Nematodes ~ Timber removal ~

292 Appendix J-35

Survey instrument results (Question #36)

In which county of Pennsylvania do you currently reside? (n = 369).

n % of respondents

Adams 1 <1% Alleghany 8 2% Armstrong 19 5% Beaver 9 2%

Bedford 15 4%

Berks 2 <1%

Blair 4 1%

Bradford 10 3%

Butler 21 6%

Cambria 18 5%

Cameron 1 <1%

Centre 2 <1%

Clarion 3 1%

Clearfield 8 2%

Clinton 2 <1%

Crawford 1 <1%

Cumberland 2 <1%

Dauphin 1 <1%

Elk 4 1%

Erie 1 <1%

293

Survey question #36 results contd.

Fayette 22 6%

Franklin 1 <1%

Greene 10 3%

Huntingdon 6 2% Indiana 20 6% Jefferson 12 3% Lackawanna 2 <1% Lancaster 5 1% Lawrence 1 <1% Lehigh 7 2% Luzerne 2 <1% Lycoming 1 <1% McKean 10 3% Mercer 8 2% Mifflin 1 <1% Monroe 1 <1% Montgomery 1 <1% Northampton 1 <1% Perry 4 1% Potter 13 4% Schuylkill 2 <1% Somerset 30 8% Susquehanna 6 2% Tioga 11 3% Venango 2 <1% Warren 6 2% Washington 6 2%

294

Survey question #36 results contd. Wayne 1 <1% Westmoreland 27 7% Wyoming 3 1% York 4 1% Non-resident 4 1% No response 6 2%

295 Appendix J-36

Survey instrument results (Questions #37 and 38)

Gender and age of survey respondents (n = 369).

n % of respondents

Male 355 96% Female 14 4%

Age:

Mean 53

Standard deviation 14

Mode 50

Minimum 18

Maximum 95 18-40 year olds 63 17% 40-60 year olds 194 53% 61+ year olds 112 30%

296 Appendix J-37

Survey instrument results (Question #39)

Primary occupation of survey respondents (n = 361).

n % of respondents

Blue collar 193 54% White collar 23 6% Retired 109 30% Other 31 9% Unemployed 5 1%

*Occupations listed by respondents (prior to coding for the above categories):

~ Custodian P.A. Dot ~ Machine operator ~ Security officer/Trapper-predator hunter ~ Welder ~ Sales and marketing professional ~ Park ranger (retired) ~ Railroad (retired) ~ Forester ~ Carpenter ~ Disabled ~ Carpenter ~ Electrician ~ Housewife ~ Electrician ~ Mason ~ Plasterer ~ Truck driver ~ Operator ~ Production supervisor ~ Logging and sawmill work ~ Forester ~ Medical laboratory technologist ~ Disabled ~ Security officer ~ Unemployed (recently had back surgery) ~ Auto body man ~ Custodian ~ Forester ~ Semi-retired ~ Laborer ~ Truck driver ~ Laborer ~ Disabled ~ Grinder ~ Tool and die maker (trapper as a hobby) ~ Coal miner ~ State trooper ~ Carpenter ~ Quarry operator ~ Retired (retail manager) ~ Retired (High school mathematics teacher) ~ Fabricating ~ Self- employed ~ Insurance broker ~ Construction worker ~ Union laborer ~ Tree service ~ Radiation Protection Supervisor ~ Toolmaker/farmer ~ Don‘t have any right now. Last occupation was equipment operator. Had a very small nursery; dug up some trees and shrubs every year, sold some x- mas trees. Right now I am a tree farmer when time allows me. I like to work for myself ~ Retired school teacher/current Christmas tree grower ~ Mechanic ~ Painter ~ Self-employed ~ Disabled ~ Cave manager ~ Maintenance ~ Laborer ~ Forester ~ Technician ~ Self-employed plastering ~ Rental property owner ~ Sales and service representative ~ Electrician ~ Auto mechanic (disabled) ~ Boilermaker ~ Disabled (heart problem) ~ Laborer ~ Conservation officer ~ Retired from construction and farming ~ Self employed ~ Student ~ Laborer ~ Disabled ~ Buyer ~ Disabled ~ Self employed HVAC tech ~ Small farmer ~ Laborer ~ Construction/Golf course superintendent ~ Mechanical tech, woodworking equipment ―Industrial‖ ~ Managerial ~ Labor ~ Park ranger ~ Maintenance ~ Salesman ~ Landscaper ~ Electrician ~ Laborer ~ Steelworker: rail car builder ~ Consulting forester ~ Carpenter ~ Manager ~ Retired - Hunter, fisherman and trapper ~ Technician ~ Steel worker ~ Farming and factory work ~ Grad student ~ Laborer ~ Clerk ~ Factory worker ~ Disabled ~ Health & safety professional ~ Correction officer ~ Machinist, equipment operator ~ Retired banker ~ Forester ~ Weigh master, Source technician ~ Environmental engineer ~ Steel worker ~ Leather and ginseng dealer ~ Highway design and construction (now retired) ~ Laborer ~ Locksmith ~ Student ~ Labor ~ Laborer ~ Die repairer ~ Teacher ~ Health professional ~ Tree farmer ~ Logger, sawmill owner ~ Labor ~ High School Teacher/Landscaper ~ Construction ~ Millwright/Welder ~ Arborist/Landscaper ~ Miner ~ Light construction and landscaping ~ Retired pipeline welder ~ Heavy equipment operator ~ Tree cutter/logger ~ Forester ~ Meat cutter/hide buyer ~ Park manager ~ Physician ~ Clerk ~ Retired wood cutting ~ Restaurant manager ~ steelworker ~

297

Occupations listed by respondents contd.:

Retired Social worker ~ Carpenter ~ Electrical engineer ~ Housekeeper ~ Rawhide and fur dealer now, dairy farming for many years ~ Machinist ~ Housewife ~ Retired steelworker ~ State corrections officer ~ Management ~ Veterinarian ~ Registered nurse ~ Labor and farm ~ Mechanic ~ Water dept. head ~ Freelance writer ~ Teaching people how to garden using basically organic methods ~ Office administrator ~ Truck driver ~ Applicator ~ Retired mine mechanic ~ Wood work ~ Retired, builder ~ Weaver, homemaker, home schooler ~ Forester ~ Farming ~ Contracting ~ Power plant operator ~ Construction ~ Forester ~ Self employed saw mill operator ~ Retired engineer ~ Mason ~ Sales ~ Dealer in ginseng, furs and antiques ~ Care giver ~ Teacher ~ Union Labor ~ Forester ~ Coal mine surveyor (deep mining) ~ Quality assurance ~ Laborer ~ Self employed ~ Laborer ~ Carpenter ~ Construction laborer ~ Steel worker ~ Installing gas pipe lines ~ Farmer ~ Retired, U.S.P.S. ~ Law enforcement officer ~ Laboratory technician ~ Truck driver ~ Dairy worker/ Deer farmer (whitetail) ~ Laborer ~ Boiler maintenance ~ Truck driver ~ Repairman ~ Logging ~ Beef and hog ~ Union labor ~ Mechanic ~ Carpenter ~ Self employed ~ Logger ~ Insulator ~ U.S. Military ~ Student ~ Township supervisor ~ Stone mason ~ Carpentry ~ Oil refinery ~ Retired coal miner ~ Forman at nursery and self employed ~ Welder and store owner ~ Phone guy ~ Plumber ~ Laborer ~ State correctional officer ~ Welder ~ Forester/Surveyor ~ Forester ~ Labor ~ Landscaper ~ Heavy equip. operator ~ Self-employed ~ Environmental field technician (consultant) ~ Welder ~ Retired park ranger: currently self employed: dealer in raw furs, hides, medicinal roots and tree seeds ~ Construction ~ Supervisor ~ Laborer ~ Clerk ~ Corrections officer ~ Remodeling contractor ~ Steel worker ~ Mechanical contractor ~ Service tech HVAC ~ Carpenter ~ Retired steel laborer ~ Construction ~ Trucker ~ Retired educator ~ Design technician ~ Maintenance repairman ~ Machinist (retired) ~ Coal miner ~ Excavation ~ Self-employed timber buyer ~ Sales ~ Painter ~ Laborer, former coal miner ~ Electrical tech ~ Bending glass ~ Laborer ~ Farmer ~ Equip operator ~ Laborer/material handler ~ Grape farmer ~ Farm ~ Retired painter ~ Labor State Parks ~ Teacher ~ Chef ~ Carpenter ~

298 Appendix J-38

Survey instrument results (Question #40)

Education backgrounds of survey respondents (n = 361)*.

n % of responses

Less than high school 33 9%

High school graduate 240 67%

Some college (but did not complete 60 17% degree program)

Vocational or trade school 81 22%

College graduate (baccalaureate) 39 11%

Advanced college graduate (above 14 4% baccalaureate)

*Note:

The percentage of high school graduates who completed a survey may be under-represented since some individuals apparently misunderstood this question and indicated only their highest level of education. For example, some survey respondents indicated that they had completed college or vocational/trade school but not high school. While the assumption could be made that those who had a college degree had also received a high school degree this could be misleading since only 9% of survey respondents indicated a ―less than high school‖ educational background. The remaining 25% of respondents who did not indicate having completed high school may have received a General Education Development Diploma (G.E.D.) which was not included as a response option for the question. Rather than make assumptions, survey data were coded exactly as they were received. Consequently, the percentages above do not tally to 100% and are probably at least to some degree inaccurate.

299 Appendix K-1

Habitat field studies results: frequency of associated overstory trees (n = 54 sites, 270 plots)

Common Number of Percentage Number of Percentage Scientific name name sites present of sites plots present of plots

Acer saccharum 1 Sugar maple 38 69.1 151 55.9 Marshall Fraxinus americana 2 White ash 33 60.0 83 30.7 L. American 3 Tilia americana L. 32 58.2 84 31.1 basswood Liriodendron 4 Tulip-poplar 26 47.3 74 27.4 tulipifera L. 5 Prunus serotina L. Black cherry 25 45.5 53 19.6

6 Acer rubrum L. Red maple 24 43.6 51 18.9 Northern red 7 Quercus rubra L. 24 43.6 49 18.1 oak Fagus grandifolia American 8 23 41.8 38 14.1 Ehrhart beech 9 Quercus alba L. White oak 14 25.5 24 8.9

10 Betula lenta L. Black birch 12 21.8 23 8.5 Tsuga canadensis Eastern 11 12 21.8 16 5.9 (L.) Carrière hemlock Quercus velutina 12 Black oak 9 16.4 9 3.3 Lam. Carya glabra (Mill.) Pignut 13 8 14.5 14 5.2 Sweet hickory Carya tomentosa Mockernut 14 7 12.7 11 4.1 (Poir.) Nutt. hickory Quercus montana 15 Chestnut oak 7 12.7 9 3.3 Willd. 16 Juglans nigra L. Black walnut 5 9.1 14 5.2 Betula 17 alleghaniensis Yellow birch 5 9.1 12 4.4 Britton Carya ovata (Mill.) Shagbark 18 5 9.1 8 3.0 K. Koch hickory Nyssa sylvatica 19 Black gum 5 9.1 5 1.9 Marshall Carya cordiformis Bitternut 20 4 7.3 5 1.9 (Wang.) K. Koch hickory Eastern white 21 Pinus strobus L. 4 7.3 5 1.9 pine

300

American 22 Ulmus americana L. 4 7.3 5 1.9 elm Magnolia acuminata Cucumber- 23 4 7.3 4 1.5 (L.) L. tree Prunus avium (L.) 24 Sweet cherry 4 7.3 4 1.5 L.* Populus Big-tooth 25 grandidentata 3 5.5 6 2.2 aspen Michx. 26 Ulmus rubra Muhl. Slippery elm 3 5.5 4 1.5 Robinia 27 Black locust 2 3.6 3 1.1 pseudoacacia L. Ailanthus altissima Tree-of- 28 1 1.8 3 1.1 L.* heaven Aesculus glabra 29 Ohio buckeye 1 1.8 1 0.4 Willd. Sassafras albidum 30 Sassafras 1 1.8 1 0.4 (Nutt.) Nees Norway 31 Acer platanoides L.* 1 1.8 1 0.4 maple 32 Celtis occidentalis L. Hackberry 1 1.8 1 0.4

* Denotes a non-native exotic species.

301 Appendix K-2

Habitat field studies results: frequency of associated mid and understory trees, shrubs and vines (n = 54 sites, 270 plots)

Number Number Percentage Percentage Scientific name Common name of sites of plots of sites of plots present present

Parthenocissus quinquefolia 1 Virginia-creeper 41 76 138 51 (L.) Planch.

2 Lindera benzoin (L.) Blume Spicebush 30 56 111 41 Maple-leaved 3 Viburnum acerifolium L. 28 52 62 23 viburnum 4 Hamamelis virginiana L. Witch-hazel 28 52 60 22 Toxicodendron radicans (L.) 5 Poison-ivy 25 46 61 23 Kuntze Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex 6 Multiflora rose 25 46 56 21 Murray* Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. 7 Hop-hornbeam 24 44 43 16 Koch 8 Ribes cynosbati L. Prickly gooseberry 19 35 32 12

9 Vitis spp. Wild grape 19 35 30 11

10 Acer pensylvanicum L. Striped maple 16 30 50 19

11 Sambucus racemosa L. Red-berried elder 16 30 29 11

12 Rubus spp. Blackberry 16 30 25 9

13 Berberis thunbergii DC* Japanese barberry 14 26 22 8

14 Rubus occidentalis L. Black raspberry 11 20 15 6

* Denotes a non-native exotic species.

302 Appendix K-3

Habitat field studies results: frequency of associated understory herbs (n = 54 sites, 270 plots)

Number of Number of Percentage Percentage Scientific name Common name sites plots of sites of plots present present Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the- 1 50 90.9 216 80.0 (L.) Schott pulpit Polygonatum pubescens 2 Solomon‘s-seal 43 78.2 104 38.5 (Willd.) Pursh Circaea canadensis (L.) Enchanter‘s- 3 40 72.7 158 58.5 Hill nightshade Galium triflorum Sweet-scented 4 37 67.3 110 40.7 Michx. bedstraw Podophyllum peltatum 5 Mayapple 35 63.6 101 37.4 L. Maianthemum False 6 34 61.8 90 33.3 racemosum Link. Solomon‘s-seal Ageratina altissima (L.) 7 R.M. King & H. White-snakeroot 32 58.2 95 35.2 Robinson Eurybia divaricata (L.) White wood 8 31 56.4 88 32.6 Nesom aster Persicaria virginiana 9 Jumpseed 28 50.9 83 30.7 (L.) Gaertner Downy yellow 10 Viola pubescens Aiton 28 50.9 71 26.3 violet Osmorhiza claytonii 11 Sweet-cicely 26 47.3 69 25.6 (Michx.) C.B. Clarke

12 Actaea pachypoda Elliot Doll‘s-eyes 24 43.6 78 28.9

13 Actaea racemosa L. Black cohosh 23 41.8 80 29.6 Galium circaezans 14 Wild-licorice 23 41.8 66 24.4 Michx. 15 Trillium erectum L. Purple trillium 23 41.8 50 18.5 Pilea pumila (L.) A. 16 Clearweed 22 40.0 64 23.7 Gray Collinsonia canadensis 17 Horse-balm 22 40.0 56 20.7 L. 18 Viola spp. Violet 22 40.0 56 20.7

19 Uvularia perfoliata L. Bellwort 21 38.2 50 18.5

20 Geum canadense Jacq. White avens 21 38.2 38 14.1

303

Alliaria petiolata (M. 21 Bieb.) Cavara & Grande Garlic-mustard 20 36.4 69 25.6 * 22 Prenanthes sp. Rattlesnake root 20 36.4 41 15.2 Small-flowered 23 Ranunculus abortivus L. 20 36.4 31 11.5 crowfoot Southern wood 24 Viola hirsutula Brainerd 19 34.5 53 19.6 violet Caulophyllum 25 thalictroides (L.) Blue cohosh 19 34.5 51 18.9 Michx. 26 Geranium maculatum L. Wood geranium 19 34.5 42 15.6

27 Viola canadensis L. Canada violet 18 32.7 65 24.1

28 Impatiens sp. Jewelweed 18 32.7 49 18.1

29 Dioscorea villosa L. Wild yam 17 30.9 41 15.2

30 Sanicula canadensis L. Canadian sanicle 17 30.9 41 15.2

31 Asarum canadense L. Wild ginger 17 30.9 39 14.4 Sweet white 32 Viola blanda Willd. 16 29.1 46 17.0 violet Long-spurred 33 Viola rostrata Pursh 16 29.1 38 14.1 violet Laportea canadensis 34 Wood nettle 16 29.1 37 13.7 (L.) Wedd. 35 Mitella diphylla L. Bishop‘s-cap 15 27.3 27 10.0

Disporum lanuginosum 36 Yellow mandarin 14 25.5 34 12.6 (Michx.) G. Nicholson Osmorhiza longistylis 37 Aniseroot 13 23.6 36 13.3 (Torr.) DC Maianthemum Canada 38 13 23.6 30 11.1 canadense Desf. mayflower 39 Aralia nudicaulis L. Wild sarsaparilla 13 23.6 27 10.0

Erythronium 40 Yellow trout-lily 12 21.8 48 17.8 americanum Ker Gawl.

Dicentra canadensis 41 Squirrel-corn 12 21.8 45 16.7 (Goldie) Walp.

42 Galium aparine L. Bedstraw 12 21.8 42 15.6

43 Tiarella cordifolia L. Foamflower 12 21.8 28 10.4

Anemone acutiloba 44 Liverleaf 12 21.8 26 9.6 (DC) G. Lawson 45 Anemone americana Liverleaf 12 21.8 24 8.9

304

(DC) H. Hara Hydrophyllum Virginia 46 11 20.0 29 10.7 virginianum L. waterleaf Persicaria longiseta 47 Low smartweed 11 20.0 26 9.6 (Bruijn) Kitagawa* Amphicarpa bracteata 48 Hog-peanut 11 20.0 20 7.4 (L.) Fernald Thalictrum thalictroides 49 (L.) A.J. Eames & B. Rue anemone 11 20.0 19 7.0 Boivin Indian 50 Medeola virginiana L. 11 20.0 16 5.9 cucumber-root

Sanguinaria canadensis 51 Bloodroot 10 18.2 33 12.2 L.

52 Phryma leptostachya L. Lopseed 10 18.2 22 8.1 Polygonatum biflorum 53 Solomon‘s-seal 10 18.2 21 7.8 (Walter) Elliott Ranunuculus recurvatus Hooked 54 10 18.2 18 6.7 Poir. crowfoot Epipactis helleborine 55 Bastard hellebore 10 18.2 17 6.3 (L.) Crantz* Cardamine concatenata 56 Toothwort 9 16.4 30 11.1 (Michx.) Sw.

Cardamine diphylla Two-leaved 57 9 16.4 32 11.9 (Michx.) Wood toothwort Impatiens capensis 58 Jewelweed 9 16.4 32 11.9 Meerb. Trillium grandiflorum Large-flowered 59 9 16.4 19 7.0 (Michx.) Salisb. trillium Viola rotundifolia Round-leaved 60 9 16.4 19 7.0 Michx. violet 61 Mitchella repens L. Partridge-berry 9 16.4 14 5.2 Phytolacca americana 62 Pokeweed 9 16.4 14 5.2 L. Claytonia caroliniana Carolina spring- 63 8 14.5 35 13.0 Michx. beauty Cryptotaenia 64 Honewort 8 14.5 17 6.3 canadensis (L.) DC 65 Allium tricoccum Aiton Ramps 7 12.7 22 8.1 Zigzag 66 Solidago flexicaulis L. 7 12.7 17 6.3 goldenrod Sanicula trifoliata E.P. Large-fruited 67 7 12.7 14 5.2 Bicknell sanicle 68 Sedum ternatum Michx. Wild stonecrop 6 10.9 19 7.0

305

Northern wood- 69 Oxalis acetosella L. 6 10.9 15 5.6 sorrel Potentilla simplex Old-field 70 6 10.9 11 4.1 Michx. cinquefoil Fallopia cilinodis Fringed 71 6 10.9 10 3.7 (Michx.) Holob bindweed 72 Panax trifolius L. Dwarf ginseng 6 10.9 9 3.3

73 Uvularia sessilifolia L. Bellwort 6 10.9 9 3.3 Geranium robertianum 74 Herb-robert 5 9.1 15 5.6 L. Early meadow- 75 Thalictrum dioicum L. 5 9.1 6 2.2 rue 76 Impatiens pallida Nutt. Pale jewelweed 4 7.3 13 4.8

77 Claytonia virginica L. Spring-beauty 4 7.3 10 3.7

78 Galium sp. Bedstraw 4 7.3 8 3.0 Hackelia virginiana (L.) 79 Beggar‘s-lice 4 7.3 7 2.6 I.M. Johnston 80 Hydrastis canadensis L. Goldenseal 4 7.3 7 2.6 Desmodium glutinosum Sticky tick- 81 (Muhl. ex Willd.) A.W. 4 7.3 7 2.6 clover Wood Symplocarpus foetidus 82 Skunk-cabbage 4 7.3 6 2.2 (L.) Salisb. ex Nutt. 83 Pyrola elliptica Nutt. Shinleaf 4 7.3 4 1.5 Symphyotrichum 84 prenanthoides (Muhl. ex Zig-zag aster 4 7.3 4 1.5 Willd.) Nesom Enchanter‘s- 85 Circaea alpina L. 3 5.5 7 2.6 nightshade Galium lanceolatum 86 Wild-licorice 3 5.5 7 2.6 Torr. 87 Geum sp. Avens 3 5.5 7 2.6 Hydrophyllum Canadian 88 3 5.5 7 2.6 canadense L. waterleaf Sanicula odorata (Raf.) Yellow-flowered 89 K.M. Pryer & L.R. 3 5.5 7 2.6 sanicle Phillippe Galearis spectabilis (L.) 90 Showy orchis 3 5.5 6 2.2 Raf. 91 Sanicula sp. Sanicle 3 5.5 5 1.9 Dicentra cucullaria (L.) Dutchman‘s- 92 3 5.5 4 1.5 Bernh. breeches 93 Solidago sp. Goldenrod 3 5.5 4 1.5

306

94 Trientalis borealis Raf. Starflower 3 5.5 4 1.5 Agrimonia rostellata Woodland 95 3 5.5 3 1.1 Wallr. agrimony 96 Aralia racemosa L. Spikenard 3 5.5 3 1.1 Aristolochia serpentaria Virginia 97 3 5.5 3 1.1 L. snakeroot

98 Viola striata Aiton Striped violet 3 5.5 3 1.1

99 Galeopsis tetrahit L.* Hemp nettle 3 5.5 3 1.1

100 Aquilegia canadensis L. Wild columbine 2 3.6 6 2.2 Bluestem 101 Solidago caesia L. 2 3.6 6 2.2 goldenrod Corydalis flavula (Raf.) Yellow 102 2 3.6 5 1.9 DC fumewort Desmodium nudiflorum Naked-flowered 103 2 3.6 5 1.9 (L.) DC tick-trefoil Sow-teat 104 Fragaria vesca L. 2 3.6 4 1.5 strawberry 105 Phlox divaricata L. Wild blue phlox 2 3.6 4 1.5 Violet wood- 106 Oxalis violacea L. 2 3.6 3 1.1 sorrel Agrimonia gryposepala 107 Agrimony 2 3.6 3 1.1 Wallr. 108 Agrimonia sp. Agrimony 2 3.6 2 0.7 Cardamine Pennsylvania 109 pensylvanica Muhl. ex 2 3.6 2 0.7 bittercress Willd. Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. var. Yellow lady‘s- 110 2 3.6 2 0.7 pubescens (Willd.) slipper Correll 111 Desmodium sp. Tick-trefoil 2 3.6 2 0.7

112 Houstonia caerulea L. Bluets 2 3.6 2 0.7

113 Monotropa uniflora L. Indian-pipe 2 3.6 2 0.7

114 Obolaria virginica L. Pennywort 2 3.6 2 0.7 Packera aurea (L.) 115 Golden ragwort 2 3.6 2 0.7 W.A. Weber & Á. Löve Clintonia umbellulata Speckled wood- 116 1 1.8 3 1.1 (Michx.) Morong lily

Persicaria perfoliata Mile-a-minute 117 1 1.8 3 1.1 (L.) H. Gross* weed

307

Cynoglossum 118 Wild comfrey 1 1.8 2 0.7 virginianum L. Downy Goodyera pubescens 119 rattlesnake- 1 1.8 2 0.7 (Willd.) R. Br. plantain Zizia aurea (L.) W.D.J. Golden- 120 1 1.8 2 0.7 Koch alexander Anemone quinquefolia 121 Wood anemone 1 1.8 1 0.4 L. Aplectrum hyemale 122 Puttyroot 1 1.8 1 0.4 (Muhl. ex Willd.) Butt.

123 Arabis canadensis L. Sicklepod 1 1.8 1 0.4 Arabis laevigata (Muhl. Smooth 124 ex Willd.) Poir. var. 1 1.8 1 0.4 rockcress laevigata 125 Asclepias exaltata L. Tall milkweed 1 1.8 1 0.4

126 Bidens vulgata Greene Beggar-ticks 1 1.8 1 0.4 Campanula americana 127 Tall bellflower 1 1.8 1 0.4 L. Cardamine angustata 128 Toothwort 1 1.8 1 0.4 O.E. Schulz Cardamine bulbosa (Schreb. ex Muhl.) 129 Bittercress 1 1.8 1 0.4 Britton, Stearns & Poggenb. Greater 130 Chelidonium majus L.* 1 1.8 1 0.4 celandine Eurybia macrophylla 131 Bigleaf aster 1 1.8 1 0.4 (L.) Cass. Fallopia convolvulus 132 Black bindweed 1 1.8 1 0.4 (L.) Á. Löve* 133 Lobelia inflata L. Indian-tobacco 1 1.8 1 0.4 Lysimachia quadrifolia Whorled 134 1 1.8 1 0.4 L. loosestrife 135 Potentilla canadensis L. Cinquefoil 1 1.8 1 0.4 Ranunculus hispidus 136 Hairy buttercup 1 1.8 1 0.4 Michx. 137 Rumex obtusifolius L.* Bitter dock 1 1.8 1 0.4 Saxifraga virginiensis 138 Early saxifrage 1 1.8 1 0.4 Michx. Streptopus roseus 139 Rose mandarin 1 1.8 1 0.4 Michx. Thalictrum pubescens 140 Tall meadow-rue 1 1.8 1 0.4 Pursh 141 Tussilago farfara L.* Coltsfoot 1 1.8 1 0.4

308

Valerianella Goose-foot corn- 142 chenopodiifolia (Pursh) 1 1.8 1 0.4 salad DC Waldsteinia Barren- 143 fragarioides (Michx.) 1 1.8 1 0.4 strawberry Tratt.

* Denotes a non-native exotic species.

309 Appendix L-1

Habitat field studies results: average (and standard deviation) pH, fertility levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in northwest Pennsylvania (n = 14 sites).

Mg County pH P (lbs/ac) K (lbs/ac) Ca (lbs/ac) O.M. (%) Texture (lbs/ac) 1,096 ± Butler 4.8 ± 0.1 82 ± 25 175 ± 20 168 ± 38 5.8 ± 0.6 Loam 297 2,683 ± Cameron 4.9 ± 0.2 115 ± 39 245 ± 57 326 ± 114 9.4 ± 4.6 Loam 1,159 6,065 ± Sandy Cameron 6.0 ± 0.7 70 ± 14 228 ± 77 672 ± 257 8.5 ± 3.3 1,604 clay loam 3,026 ± Centre 5.3 ± 0.4 59 ± 18 270 ± 57 268 ± 70 8.1 ± 2.9 Loam 1,515 7,669 ± 14.4 ± Loamy Centre 5.9 ± 0.5 147 ± 49 187 ± 51 610 ± 352 3,132 14.3 sand 2,205 ± Elk 4.6 ± 0.2 365 ± 219 241 ± 67 183 ± 59 10.8 ± 4.3 Loam 857 Forest 4.6 ± 0.1 455 ± 181 191 ± 53 706 ± 279 114 ± 45 6.3 ± 1.8 Loam 2,222 ± Jefferson 5.1 ± 0.3 543 ± 291 149 ± 61 206 ± 74 10.4 ± 1.6 Loam 932 1,380 ± McKean 4.5 ± 0.2 60 ± 18 205 ± 21 182 ± 58 6.4 ± 1.2 Loam 600 2,425 ± McKean 4.6 ± 0.2 199 ± 130 279 ± 79 250 ± 53 7.3 ± 1.9 Loam 456 3,282 ± Sandy Mercer 5.4 ± 0.6 182 ± 102 204 ± 75 400 ± 159 8.7 ± 5.2 1,295 loam 3,278 ± Sandy Warren 5.3 ± 0.5 38 ± 10 194 ± 9 729 ± 247 8.4 ± 3.3 846 clay loam 3,483 ± Warren 5.2 ± 0.4 214 ± 51 364 ± 144 365 ± 159 9.2 ± 3.1 Clay loam 1,733 2,086 ± 13.2 ± Warren 4.5 ± 0.2 258 ± 50 223 ± 89 221 ± 104 Loam 1,141 10.3 2,972 ± Combined 5.0 ± 0.6 199 ± 187 225 ± 81 335 ± 240 9.1 ± 5.5 2,181 * n = 70 for pH, nutrients and organic matter (O.M.); n = 14 for particle size analysis (i.e., texture).

310 Appendix L-2

Habitat field studies results: average (and standard deviation) pH, fertility levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in northeast Pennsylvania (n = 10 sites).

Ca Mg County pH P (lbs/ac) K (lbs/ac) O.M. (%) Texture (lbs/ac) (lbs/ac) 2,618 ± Bradford 5.1 ± 0.2 45 ± 16 139 ± 27 467 ± 134 9.0 ± 3.3 Loam 1,022 5,070 ± Sandy Lackawanna 5.0 ± 0.3 259 ± 64 391 ± 99 469 ± 130 18.2 ± 3.3 1,160 loam 2,653 ± Luzerne 5.4 ± 0.5 94 ± 45 168 ± 77 272 ± 131 11.0 ± 5.1 Clay loam 1,793 11,326 ± Sullivan 6.7 ± 0.4 51 ± 19 210 ± 132 505 ± 121 19.2 ± 8.8 Clay loam 3,800 8,355 ± 22.5 ± Sandy Sullivan 5.6 ± 0.4 52 ± 7 260 ± 51 571 ± 139 2,493 18.2 clay loam 1,979 ± Susquehanna 4.6 ± 0.3 209 ± 117 324 ± 108 293 ± 87 12.0 ± 2.4 Loam 665 6,516 ± Tioga 5.6 ± 0.3 252 ± 46 328 ± 71 620 ± 243 14.2 ± 5.6 Loam 2,508 5,178 ± Tioga 5.4 ± 0.4 102 ± 46 272 ± 29 611 ± 205 9.9 ± 3.8 Loam 2,234 3,287 ± Union 5.6 ± 0.4 38 ± 8 266 ± 93 438 ± 235 5.9 ± 1.6 Clay loam 1,322 7,608 ± Sandy Wayne 6.1 ± 0.7 97 ± 66 193 ± 66 485 ± 121 19.9 ± 7.8 1,765 loam 5,459 ± Combined 5.5 ± 0.7 120 ± 96 255 ± 106 473 ± 186 14.2 ± 8.6 3,438 * n = 50 for pH, nutrients and organic matter (O.M.); n = 10 for particle size analysis (i.e., texture).

311 Appendix L-3

Habitat field studies results: average (and standard deviation) pH, fertility levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in southwest Pennsylvania (n = 17 sites).

Ca Mg County pH P (lbs/ac) K (lbs/ac) O.M. (%) Texture (lbs/ac) (lbs/ac) 1,534 ± Allegheny 4.8 ± 0.3 357 ± 170 196 ± 32 171 ± 87 8.4 ± 3.4 Loam 778 1,707 ± Allegheny 5.1 ± 0.2 110 ± 29 214 ± 84 199 ± 72 3.9 ± 0.6 Loam 650 Beaver 4.4 ± 0.1 70 ± 34 161 ± 5 923 ± 351 169 ± 35 4.8 ± 1.5 Clay loam

Beaver 4.7 ± 0.3 46 ± 11 186 ± 52 829 ± 239 228 ± 146 4.9 ± 1.3 Silt loam 3,101 ± Bedford 4.8 ± 0.3 435 ± 148 256 ± 70 391 ± 216 7.3 ± 2.6 Loam 1,639 4,815 ± Sandy Cambria 5.3 ± 0.7 42 ± 9 193 ± 30 737 ± 449 9.0 ± 1.4 2,219 loam Fayette 4.5 ± 0.2 37 ± 15 158 ± 42 495 ± 140 130 ± 58 5.7 ± 0.4 Loam 2,195 ± Greene 5.1 ± 0.2 67 ± 24 256 ± 72 288 ± 95 4.3 ± 1.1 Loam 1,298 4,863 ± Greene 5.8 ± 0.5 110 ± 43 342 ± 97 456 ± 166 7.9 ± 3.4 Loam 1,232 2,311 ± Sandy Huntingdon 5.4 ± 0.4 77 ± 39 159 ± 28 256 ± 60 6.6 ± 3.5 958 loam 20,593 ± Sandy Huntingdon 7.3 ± 0.4 38 ± 11 318 ± 154 774 ± 223 14.0 ± 8.4 16,059 loam 2,956 ± Sandy Indiana 5.2 ± 0.4 718 ± 512 295 ± 105 304 ± 124 14.6 ± 8.1 1,472 loam 1,587 ± Somerset 4.9 ± 0.1 37 ± 6 398 ± 53 236 ± 83 10.6 ± 2.1 Clay loam 738 3,219 ± Washington 5.3 ± 0.7 48 ± 24 261 ± 140 416 ± 323 5.1 ± 1.9 Clay loam 2,652 2,796 ± Washington 5.3 ± 0.4 48 ± 8 339 ± 128 288 ± 100 4.5 ± 0.5 Silt loam 758 Washington 4.7 ± 0.2 30 ± 5 206 ± 60 768 ± 377 143 ± 53 4.2 ± 0.7 Clay loam 2,119 ± Sandy Westmoreland 4.8 ± 0.3 31 ± 28 260 ± 120 294 ± 96 14.5 ± 2.5 1,017 loam 3,342 ± Combined 5.1 ± 0.7 135 ± 222 247 ± 104 322 ± 242 7.7 ± 4.8 5,816 * n = 85 for pH, nutrients and organic matter (O.M.); n = 17 for particle size analysis (i.e., texture).

312 Appendix L-4

Habitat field studies results: average (and standard deviation) pH, fertility levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in southeast Pennsylvania (n = 13 sites).

Mg County pH P (lbs/ac) K (lbs/ac) Ca (lbs/ac) O.M. (%) Texture (lbs/ac) 2,652 ± Sandy Berks 5.6 ± 0.3 205 ± 162 236 ± 29 442 ± 101 12.6 ± 3.7 725 loam 3,294 ± Sandy Berks 6.1 ± 0.2 64 ± 28 190 ± 25 387 ± 31 4.2 ± 0.5 371 loam 5,403 ± Berks 6.0 ± 0.4 46 ± 17 342 ± 75 406 ± 103 9.9 ± 2.1 Loam 2,139 5,769 ± Sandy Berks 6.3 ± 0.3 129 ± 100 388 ± 75 858 ± 193 14.5 ± 7.2 1,729 loam 1,732 ± Chester 6.0 ± 0.8 35 ± 13 336 ± 200 595 ± 357 5.1 ± 0.8 Loam 772 2,004 ± Cumberland 5.0 ± 0.2 83 ± 17 241 ± 58 307 ± 131 11.5 ± 3.9 Loam 1,072 5,836 ± 1,246 ± Lancaster 6.5 ± 0.4 36 ± 29 411 ± 44 13.0 ± 4.8 Loam 1,807 306 3,943 ± Lancaster 6.3 ± 0.6 21 ± 5 341 ± 209 992 ± 944 5.1 ± 2.0 Loam 3,737 1,866 ± Lebanon 5.4 ± 0.4 49 ± 19 185 ± 80 364 ± 202 7.5 ± 2.0 Loam 1,081 5,086 ± Sandy Lehigh 6.4 ± 0.1 275 ± 128 381 ± 42 611 ± 166 13.6 ± 4.4 1,464 loam 1,191 ± Sandy Mifflin 5.0 ± 0.3 47 ± 14 223 ± 44 226 ± 81 7.2 ± 2.4 361 clay loam 3,733 ± Sandy Mifflin 5.2 ± 0.5 133 ± 25 199 ± 69 276 ± 101 13.2 ± 6.7 2,215 loam 4,870 ± Sandy Perry 5.2 ± 0.3 376 ± 184 184 ± 46 309 ± 86 18.2 ± 7.6 1,289 loam 3,705 ± Sandy Combined 5.7 ± 0.6 118 ± 130 280 ± 116 538 ± 416 10.6 ± 5.7 2,213 loam * n = 65 for pH, nutrients and organic matter (O.M.); n = 13 for particle size analysis (i.e., texture).

313 Curriculum Vita for Eric Burkhart

Formal education

2011 Ph.D. Forest Resources. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2002 M.S. Horticulture. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1999 B.A. General studies (economic botany/ethnobotany). Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID. 1993-95 Anthropology. Community College of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA.

Teaching and research interests/expertise

Plant husbandry, agroforestry, economic botany/ethnobotany, horticulture, non-timber forest products, field botany.

Research experience

2009-2011 Principal Investigator. Specialty forest products, Shaver‘s Creek Environmental Center, Pennsylvania State University. 2002-2008 Research assistant. Agroforestry/specialty forest products, Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Michael Jacobson, supervisor. 1999-2002 Research assistant. Vegetable and herb crops, Pennsylvania State University. Dr. William Lamont, Jr., supervisor. 1997-1999 Herbarium intern. Ray J. Davis Herbarium, Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello. Dr. Karl Holte, supervisor. 1998 Research assistant. Plant use and agricultural practices in Rio Coco, Nicaragua. Idaho State University. Dr. Anthony Stocks, supervisor.