Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 263–284 | Cite as

Maple Sugar Bush Management and Forest Biodiversity Conservation in Eastern Ontario, Canada

Research Paper

Abstract

As in many parts of the world, rural and forest-dependent communities in Ontario are struggling with a variety of economic and demographic challenges. Ontario government ministries are seeking to enhance rural sustainable development while at the same time maintaining forest habitat and preventing forest biodiversity decline. Commercial maple sugar bushes, which in Eastern Ontario are typically family owned and operated, have the potential to play an important role in biodiversity conservation and habitat protection, while at the same time contributing to sustainable development. Existing research has shown the social and economic benefits of small scale maple sugar bushes, but room remains for greater study of the environmental impacts, particularly in terms of forest biodiversity. In this study, woodlot management practices on twenty-two sugar bushes in Eastern Ontario were compared against established forest biodiversity conservation guidelines, using information obtained through detailed interviews with operators. Sugar bush operators reported the presence of many important habitats on their properties. The interview results show that many standard sugar bush management practices are consistent with biodiversity conservation principles. Operators were found to be receptive to biodiversity conservation ideals, and could enhance their contribution to the provincial government’s official biodiversity strategy with additional guidance, incentives, and formal planning. The findings suggest that through sound management and planning, small scale commercial sugar bush operations generally can be made environmentally sustainable, and become important components in broader rural development strategies.

Keywords

Sugar bush Maple syrup Biodiversity conservation Woodlot management Eastern Ontario 

References

  1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2007) Canadian maple products: situation and trends 2006–2007. Agriculture and Canada, p 25. http://www4.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/misb/hort/sit/pdf/maple_2006-07_e.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2011
  2. Bland D, Neave P, Hamill S, VanDyke O, Nielsen C (2006) Information report No. 60 c: biodiversity and your Eastern Ontario woodlot. Eastern Ontario Model Forest, KemptvilleGoogle Scholar
  3. Bringer JD, Johnston LH, Brackenridge CH (2004) Maximizing transparency in a doctoral thesis: the complexities of writing about the use of QSR*NVIVO within a grounded theory study. Qual Res 4(2): 247–265Google Scholar
  4. Bryant C, Joseph AE (2001) Canada’s rural population: trends in space and implications in place. Can Geogr 45(1):132–137. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2001.tb01177.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapeskie D (2009) The maple syrup industry in Ontario: answers to commonly asked questions and references. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Farming and Rural Affairs. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/maple.htm. Accessed 10 Dec 2009
  6. Charmaz K (2004) Grounded theory. In: Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy P (eds) Approaches to qualitative research: a readers on theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 496–521Google Scholar
  7. Creighton JH, Baumgartner DM, Blatner K (2002) Ecosystem management and nonindustrial private forest landowners in Washington State, USA. Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 1(1):55–69. doi:10.1007/s11842-002-0005-z Google Scholar
  8. Eastern Ontario CFDC Network Inc (2007) Eastern Ontario CFDC Network Inc. About us. Eastern Ontario CFDC Network Inc. http://www.eodp.ca/aboutuss1.php. Accessed 13 June 2010
  9. EOMF (Eastern Ontario Model Forest) (2006) State of Eastern Ontario’s Forests Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. http://sof.eomf.on.ca/economic_and_social_benefits/economic/Non-Timber_Products/Indicators/maple_syrup/i_maple_syrup_e.htm. Accessed 12 June 2010
  10. Fischer P, Bliss J (2006) Mental and biophysical terrains of biodiversity: conserving oak on family forests. Soc Nat Resour 19:625–643. doi:10.1080/08941920600742393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer P, Bliss J (2009) Framing conservation on private lands: conserving oak in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Soc Nat Resour 22:884–900. doi:10.1080/08941920802314926 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Government of Saskatchewan (N.d.) Caring for natural environments: a biodiversity action plan for Saskatchewan’s future 2004–2009, 2004–2006 progress report. Government of Saskatchewan, p 62. http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=544,543,94,88,Documents&MediaID=221&Filename=Biodiversity+Action+Plan.pdf. Accessed 23 September 2011
  13. Hamill S (2001) Biodiversity indicators for woodland owners. Eastern Ontario Model ForestGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamill S (2002) The observer network: procedures and monitoring manual. Eastern Ontario Model ForestGoogle Scholar
  15. Leniere A, Houle G (2006) Response of herbaceous plant diversity to reduced structural diversity in maple-dominated (Acer saccharum Marsh.) forests managed for sap extraction. For Ecol Manag 231:94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leuty T (2009) Maple syrup. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Farming and Rural Affairs. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/info_maple_syrup.htm. Accessed 24 March 2010
  17. McLeman R (2010) Impacts of population change on vulnerability and the capacity to adapt to climate change and variability: a typology based on lessons from a hard country. Popul Environ 31(5):286–316. doi:10.1007/s11111-009-0087-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nelson JG (2003) Rural sustainability in canada and elsewhere: a historic and civics perspective. Environments 31(2):73–98Google Scholar
  19. Norfolk ALUS (2010) Norfolk ALUS pilot project—alternative land use services. Norfolk ALUS. http://www.norfolkalus.com/. Accessed 18 April 2011
  20. Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (2011) The path we share, a Natural Resources Strategy for Nova Scotia 2011–2020. Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, p 80. http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/strategy/pdf/Strategy_Strategy.pdf Accessed 23 September 2011
  21. OLA (Ontario Landowners Association) (2010) About us—Ontario Landowners Association (OLA) Protecting private landowners rights in Ontario. Ontario Landowners Association. http://www.ontariolandowners.ca/index.php?p=1_4_About-Us. Accessed 7 June 2011
  22. OMAFRA (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs) (2010a) Rural Economic Development (RED) Program. OMAFRA. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/rural/red/. Accessed 13 June 2010
  23. OMAFRA (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs) (2010b) The farm property class tax rate program questions and answers. OMAFRA. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/policy/ftaxbac.htm. Accessed 22 March 2010
  24. OMMAH (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing) (2004) Strong rural communities—working together for success: Ontario’s rural plan. OMMAH, p 16. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/rural/rural_plan/downloads/rural_plan.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2011
  25. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) (2005) Protecting what sustains us: Ontario’s biodiversity strategy. OMNR, p 44. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@biodiversity/documents/document/mnr_e000066.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2010
  26. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) (2011) Species at risk in Ontario (SARO) List. OMNR. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html. Accessed 17 May 2011
  27. OMSPA (Ontario Maple Syrup Producers’ Association) (2010) OMSPA—Ontario Maple Syrup Producers’ Association—farm gate sales of Maple Syrup Products. OMSPA. http://www.ontariomaple.com/index.php?action=display&cat=31&area=LAN&do=search. Accessed 2 May 2010
  28. ORRSC (Ontario Rural Research and Services Committee) (2007) 2006 Annual report to Ontario Agricultural Services Coordinating Committee, p 14. http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/ser/10316645//2006.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2011
  29. Raymond L, Olive A (2008) Landowner beliefs regarding biodiversity protection on private property: an Indiana case study. Soc Nat Resour 21(6):483–497. doi:10.1080/08941920801905203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sander-Regier R, McLeman R, Brklacich M, Woodrow M (2010) Planning for climate change in Canadian rural and resource-based communities. Environments 37(1):35–57Google Scholar
  31. Sentesy S (2008) A place in time: the natural resources of Lanark County. Land Stewardship Council of Lanark County, p 134. http://www.lanarkstewardshipcouncil.ca/pdf/A%20Place%20in%20Time.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2010
  32. Smit B, Brklacich M (1989) Sustainable development and the analysis of rural systems. J Rural Stud 5(4):405–414. doi:10.1016/0743-0167(89)90066-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Statistics Canada (2009) Population, urban and rural, by province and territory. Statistics Canada. http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo62g-eng.htm. Accessed 30 May 2010
  34. Troughton MJ (1995) Presidential address: rural Canada and Canadian rural geography—an appraisal. Can Geogr 39(4):290–305. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.1995.tb00420.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vanclay JK (2007) How to foster good husbandry of private native forests. Small Scale For 6:205–218. doi:10.1007/s11842-007-9010-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whitney GG, Upmeyer MM (2004) Sweet trees, sour circumstances: the long search for sustainability in the North American maple products industry. For Ecol Manag 200(13):313–333. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations