Common Ground: Mapping Agroforestry Installments Across New England A Capstone Project In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Professional Studies of Natural Resources and the Environment By Morgan Pratt August 2024 © 2024 Morgan Pratt 2 Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the farmers, included in this report, who are committed to caring for the landscapes on which they live. Ms. Meghan Giroux, Ms. Jess Reid and Mr. Rand Hagenstein also made this project possible by allowing me to contribute these maps towards the efforts of Interlace Commons Incorporated. I would like to thank Dr. Stephen Morreale for his guidance through all matters and Mr. William Hegman for his short-notice GIS assistance. Thank you to my family and friends, whom I love dearly! 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Interlace Commons Incorporated ..................................................................................................7 Agroforestry: An Introduction .......................................................................................................8 Materials ........................................................................................................................................9 Map Information .........................................................................................................................10 Site Maps.................................................................................................................................11-19 Forest Type Maps....................................................................................................................20-25 Canopy Cover Maps................................................................................................................26-29 Watershed and Slope Maps......................................................................................................30-33 Water Table and Flood Maps..................................................................................................34-36 Distance Maps ........................................................................................................................37-40 References................................................................................................................................41-46 4 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Distribution of farms participating in Interlace Commons SARE Research and Education Grant across New England..........................................................................................................7 2. Montague, MA farm soil types and farmland classification...................................................12 3. Shelburne, MA farm soil type................................................................................................13 4. Piermont, NH farm soil type and prime farmland classification............................................14 5. Tunbridge, VT soil type and unique site features...................................................................15 6. Lancaster, NH farm soil type.................................................................................................16 7. Hartland, VT farm soil type and agriculturally important soil classification.........................17 8. Seekonk, MA farm soil type and soil drainage......................................................................18 9. Weathersfield, VT farm soil type...........................................................................................19 10. Lancaster, NH farm forest type...........................................................................................21 11. Weathersfield, VT farm forest type......................................................................................22 12. Montague, MA farm forest type..........................................................................................23 13. Shelburne, MA farm forest type...........................................................................................24 14. Seekonk, MA farm forest type and prime farmland classification.......................................25 15. Seekonk, MA farm canopy cover.........................................................................................27 16. Lancaster, NH farm canopy cover.......................................................................................28 17. Weathersfield, VT farm canopy cover and flooding frequency............................................29 18. Montague, MA watersheds and cultivated lands.................................................................31 19. Hartland, VT farm slope degree...........................................................................................32 20. Shelburne, MA farm watersheds and slope..........................................................................33 21. Shelburne, MA farm drainage class and depth to water table..............................................35 22. Tunbridge, VT farm flooding frequency and depth to water table.......................................36 23. Travel time from the Shelburne, MA farm to slaughter houses across New England...........38 24. Travel time from the Piermont, NH farm to urban areas and slaughter houses across New England.....................................................................................................................................39 25. Travel time to major urban areas from the Seekonk, MA farm...........................................40 5 LIST OF TABLES 1. Definitions of agroforestry used by Interlace Commons..........................................................8 2. Farm locations included in the SARE Research and Education Grant with associated agroforestry practice, and maps included in report.....................................................................9 6 Interlace Commons: SARE Research and Education Grant Interlace Commons was founded by Meghan Giroux, MSc, in 2016. Since its inception, staff have designed and implemented agroforestry practices all over New England. Currently operating out of Bristol, Vermont, Interlace Commons staff traveled to farms to plant alley cropping, forest farming, and silvopasture systems between the months of May to October 2024. This was made possible by a SARE Research and Education Grant. Agroforestry in New England remains an actively growing sector across the region, though organizations or companies which have the capacity to plan, design, and implement these systems may be few and far between. Interlace Commons is one such non- profit and the farm case studies included in this document serve as part of a deliverable for the SARE Research and Education Grant anticipated for submission in Fall 2024. Participating farms are listed by location to maintain confidentiality throughout this report. Figure 1. Distribution of farms participating in Interlace Commons SARE Research and Education Grant (‘24) across New England. Three farms are located in Vermont, two in New Hampshire, and three in Massachusetts (Figure 1). As of August 17, 2024, all concept plans at each farm location had been successfully installed by Interlace Commons with the exception of the forest farming site located in Weathersfield, VT, which is planned to be planted out in fall 2024. 7 Agroforestry systems (i.e., growing trees and crops together) have their origins in hunter gatherer communities in Amazonia and are practiced today worldwide (Miller and Nair 2006). This remains consistent across the literature as agroforestry systems have been traditionally practiced and managed by indigenous communities (Chamberlain et al. 2009; Dagar and Tewari 2017; Miller and Nair 2006). According to Smith et al. (2022), roughly 20% of all farms across Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire have at least one agroforestry practice on site. Hawaii, has the third highest percentage of farms, with at least one agroforestry practice on site, at 4.7% (Smith et al. 2022). While issues of survey language and lack of cohesive public understanding of specific agroforestry practices were highlighted by Lehtinen (2023) as a limitation of the Smith et al. (2022) study, the statistics displaying the status of agroforestry implementation across New England is relevant and of interest in the context of this report. The three agroforestry practices discussed in this report include alley cropping, silvopasture, and forest farming. Definitions used for each practice are displayed in Table 1. Agroforestry: An Introduction Agroforesty Practice Definition Source Alley Cropping “The intentional planting of trees with crops, using rows of trees and/or shrubs in a spatial arrangement to create alleys where the crops are grown. This includes orchard intercropping, annual intercrops, and alley coppice.” Interlace Commons Inc.* Silvopasture “Silvopasture is a management system that intentionally combines trees with forages and livestock in the same land unit. In pasture conversion to silvopasture, trees are intentionally planted in fields or pastures and managed with the integration of livestock.” Interlace Commons Inc.* Forest Farming “Forest farming is the cultivation of shade-tolerant crops grown under the protection of a tree canopy that is often modified and managed to provide appropriate growing conditions. This can include mushroom cultivation as well as the growing of forest botanicals.” Interlace Commons Inc.* Table 1. Definitions of agroforestry used by Interlace Commons. *Interlace Commons (2024), shared document with author, 15 June 2024. 8 Farm Location Agroforesty Practice Maps Montague, MA Alley Cropping Site, Forest Type, Watershed Shelburne, MA Silvopasture Site, Depth to Water Table, Forest Type, Watershed and Slope, Distance Seekonk, MA Forest Farming Site, Forest Type, Canopy Cover, Distance Lancaster, NH Forest Farming Site, Forest Type, Canopy Cover Piermont, NH Silvopasture Site, Distance Tunbridge, VT Silvopasture Site, Flooding Frequency Wethersfield, VT Forest Farming Site, Forest Type, Canopy Cover Hartland, VT Alley Cropping Site, Slope Table 2. Farm locations included in the Interlace Commons SARE Research and Education Grant with associated agroforestry practice, and maps included in report. MATERIALS 9 MAP INFORMATION The site maps included in this report are intended to assist Interlace Commons and each farm owner’s understanding of soil type on each farm and planting site. This allows for consideration of soil properties which may factor into site suitability for each agroforestry system being implemented. Additionally, site maps made for each farm offer opportunity for observation of other important factors including state agriculturally important soil classifications, prime farmland classifications, wetland types, water features, conserved/protected lands, and soil drainage conditions within the farm boundaries. Forest type maps were made for multiple farms in order to better understand the forest composition surrounding a planting site. Canopy cover maps were made for farm sites where forest farming practices were implemented. This includes two mushroom log yards and one ginseng (Panax spp.) planting. Canopy cover is an important consideration in forest farming systems, such as the ones planned by Interlace Commons, as shaded/dark conditions may increase mushroom production rate as well as significantly effect ginseng establishment (Al Mamun et al. 2021; Sheban et al. 2022). Watershed and slope maps were made for farm owners who were especially interested in better understanding where their farm was in the watershed system. These maps help to visualize farm locations within a wider radius, understand watershed boundaries and other relevant information. Water table and flood maps help to visualize depth to water table and flooding frequency within two silvopasture planting sites. This allows for an understanding of site suitability for various species planted as well as highlights flooding risk for a given site. Distance maps assist in understanding travel time to slaughter houses, for farms who raise livestock and utilize these services. They are also intended to identify proximity to urban areas for one farm where a mushroom log yard was recently implemented. This helps to visualize access to larger markets for the farms new forest farming product. It is not the intention of the author that these maps should be used for other purposes outside of the use of Interlace Commons and collaborating entities. ArcGIS® software by Esri was used for the creation of all maps included in this report. 10 SITE MAPS 11 Figure 2. Montague, MA farm soil types and farmland classification. Soil types in the Montague, MA alley cropping site include Agawam fine sandy loam and Sudbury sandy loam (Figure 2). Agawam series soils are understood to have good drainage while soils of Sudbury series have more moderate drainage characteristics (Soil Survey Staff 2024). Common pawpaw (Asimina triloba L.), one of the species planted at this site, has preference for adequate drainage though may also be able to tolerate and potentially thrive in areas which experience periodic flooding (Pomper and Layne 2010). Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa Michx.) and elderberry (Sambucus nigra L.), other species planted in this alley cropping system, may also share this preference for soil drainage classification, making this an ideal location for these species to be planted within the farm boundary (Pandelea et al. 2021; Rayburn et al. 2018). 12 Figure 3. Shelburne, MA farm soil type. Fine sandy loams are understood to be ideal soils for black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) growth, a species planted at this silvopasture site (Ponder 2004; Williams 1990). Additionally, the planting site is located on farmland of statewide importance, indicating it is optimal for forage production and other agricultural uses, making it ideal for continued pasture utilization. 13 Figure 4. Piermont, NH farm soil type and prime farmland classification. The Windsor loamy sand located at the Piermont, NH silvopasture site is an ideal soil type for mulberry species (Morus alba L.), one of the species planted (Rahman and Hoque 2007). This roadside planting site will simultaneously help to combat increasing temperatures and drought, by offering eventual shade to grazing livestock, while also creating a visually pleasing tree line along the side of the road. 14 Figure 5. Tunbridge, VT soil type and unique site features. The steep contours, along the Tunbridge, VT farm parcel, make the small plateau ideal for the silvopasture planting site from a topographic perspective (Figure 5). Additionally, fine sandy loam soils located on the planting site are suitable for the establishment and success of black walnut trees, such as those planted in this silvopasture system (Ponder 2004). 15 Figure 6. Lancaster, NH farm soil type. Road access is an important consideration when choosing placement for a mushroom log yard for ease of access at harvest and management. Additionally, when compared to other areas of the farm parcel, the site chosen avoids mushroom log yard placement in steep slope areas which may be harder to access. While there are adapted approaches to setting up a mushroom log yard on a slope (i.e., lean-to method), a standard criss-cross method is suitable for more level terrain such as has been implemented in this location (Hill 1999). 16 Figure 7. Hartland, VT farm soil type and agriculturally important soil classification. 17 Figure 8. Seekonk, MA farm soil type and soil drainage. 18 Figure 9. Weathersfield, VT farm soil type within farm boundary. 19 FOREST TYPE MAPS 20 Figure 10. Lancaster, NH farm forest type. The surrounding hardwood forests at the Lancaster, NH farm, allows for greater potential to harvest mushroom logs from these stands, as hardwood is favored by shiitake (Chamberlain et al. 2009). Further, sugar maple logs used in mushroom cultivation are understood to increase yield of shiitake mushrooms as compared to other hardwood species (Bruhn et al. 2009). 21 Figure 11. Weathersfield, VT farm forest type. The ginseng forest farming site being planned for the Weathersfield, VT farm may be influenced by forest type within the farm boundary as well. Ginseng plant condition may deteriorate if exposed to too much light and therefore species composition and total amount of sunlight filtering to the canopy floor should be considered in site selection (Sheban et al. 2022). 22 Figure 12. Montague, MA farm forest type. Figure 13 displays the alley cropping planting site in Montague, MA which allows us to see the non-forested area where the alley cropping system was implemented as well as consider site suitability as it relates to other features such as bedrock locations and estimated habitats of rare wildlife. The placement of this Interlace Commons planting site optimizes the combination of these factors. 23 Figure 13. Shelburne, MA farm forest type. 24 Figure 14. Seekonk, MA farm forest type and prime farmland classification. 25 CANOPY COVER MAPS 26 Figure 15. Seekonk, MA farm canopy cover. Figures 15, 16, and 17 are all farm sites where forest farming agroforestry projects were planned. The farm located in Seekonk, MA (Figure 15) and Lancaster, NH (Figure 16) show mushroom log yards locations designed and placed by Interlace Commons. When grown in wood, species including shiitake have a preference for shade, making increased canopy cover ideal for mushroom log yard placement within the farm boundary (Kalenius 2022). Wind protection and indirect lighting may also be ideal for mushroom cultivation and contributes to the benefits of selecting a site with greater canopy cover (Bruhn and Hall 2008; Kalenius 2022). 27 Figure 16. Lancaster, NH farm canopy cover. 28 Figure 17. Weathersfield, VT farm canopy cover and flooding frequency. A site for a ginseng planting at the farm located in Weathersfield, VT, has not yet been designed or implemented. Light levels dropping to 65.4% may be suitable for ginseng seedling growth indicating the importance of understanding canopy cover’s contribution to the amount of direct sunlight and shade conditions reaching a planting site (Sheban et al. 2022). 29 WATERSHED AND SLOPE MAPS 30 Figure 18. Montague, MA watersheds and cultivated lands. The Montague, MA farm, where an alley cropping system was planted by Interlace Commons, is already a thriving apiary. Figure 18 displays the farm location as it relates to cultivated land, which has increased potential for landowner herbicide and pesticide use, due to its land use classification. Pesticides, which may drift several miles from the field on which they are sprayed, are known to be extremely harmful to honey bees and cause mortality (Wilson et al. 1949). This map allows for the visualization of the possible distribution of land where these chemicals might be more likely to be applied across watershed boundaries. 31 Figure 19. Hartland, VT farm slope degree. Figure 19 provides a visualization of the steep slopes within the boundaries of the Hartland, VT farm. These slopes contributed to the site selection of the alley cropping system which was planted on relatively level ground showing a slope between 0-9 degrees, as compared to the higher degree slopes across the rest of the farm land. 32 Figure 20. Shelburne, MA farm watersheds and slope. The farm owners in Shelburne, MA were especially cognizant of the environmental impact of their farm as it concerns runoff from grazing goats and pigs. Figure 20 shows the farm’s location which is close to the bank of the Deerfield river within the Deerfield watershed. These waters will flow into the Connecticut river, which then releases into the Long Island Sound, an estuary of the Atlantic Ocean. Beneficial effects of implementing a silvopasture systems may include decreased water runoff and improved water quality, which is aligned with farm owner’s goals at this location (Fike et al. 2017; Nair et al. 2005). 33 WATER TABLE AND FLOOD MAPS 34 Figure 21. Shelburne, MA farm drainage class and depth to water table. The relatively shallow depth of the water table becomes advantageous for the species planted at this silvopasture site, such as willow and black walnut, due to the roots’ ability to access this water even through dry periods (Booth et al. 2012). The well drained soils help to prevent anaerobic soil conditions and may also contribute to an increased diameter of black walnut trees, such as those planted at this site, by up to 6.6 cm (Booth et al. 2012; Williams 1990). 35 Figure 22. Tunbridge, VT farm flooding frequency and depth to water table. Drainage and flooding frequency are important aspects of site suitability analysis for black walnut, one of the species included in the silvopasture planting implemented in Tunbridge, VT (Schultz and DeLoach III 2004). Naturally, black walnut may be found in bottomlands, making the stream side area a satisfactory planting site (Schultz and DeLoach III 2004). 36 DISTANCE MAPS 37 Figure 23. Travel time from the Shelburne, MA farm to slaughter houses across New England. The farm located in Shelburne, MA is responsible for the transportation of their animals to slaughter. Figure 23 shows the distances from the farm site to slaughter houses across New England. Lewis and Peters (2012) highlight the difficulties New England livestock producers face in accessing slaughter house and processing facilities, as the time to transport livestock to these facilities can be notable and economically inefficient. 38 Figure 24. Travel time from the Piermont, NH farm to urban areas and slaughter houses across New England. 39 Figure 25. Travel time to major urban areas from the Seekonk, MA farm. The mushroom log yard installed at the Seekonk, MA farm offers an exciting new product with the potential for sale or distribution. Average annual value of exported mushrooms from the United States between 2009 and 2013, grown as non timber forest products, was $12,957 (Frey et al. 2019). The farm's close proximity (<1 hour driving distance) to multiple urban areas provides opportunity for farmers to access gourmet restaurant markets (Chamberlain et al. 2009; Frey et al. 2023). 40 REFERENCES Al Mamun MR, Deb I, Hridoy T, Soeb MJA, Shammi S (2021) Effects of different lighting conditions on growth, yield and nutrient content of white oyster mushroom in vertical farm. European Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences 3:61–67 Booth DT, Cox SE, Simonds G, Sant ED (2012) Willow cover as a stream-recovery indicator under a conservation grazing plan. Ecological Indicators 18:512–519 Bruhn J, Hall M (2008) Growing Shiitake Mushrooms in an Agroforestry Practice. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry. 12 p Bruhn J, Mihail J, Pickens J (2009) Forest farming of shiitake mushrooms: An integrated evaluation of management practices. Bioresource Technology 100:6472–6480 Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. Bedrock Lithology. January, 2004. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. Elevation Contours (1:5,000). June, 2003. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. Hydrography (1:100,000). December, 2019. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. Major Ponds and Major Streams. December, 2019. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. Major Watersheds. June, 2000. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000). December, 2019. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. MassDEP Wetlands (2005). December, 2017. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. MassGIS-MassDOT Roads. December, 2023. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. NEHRP Soil Classifications. May, 2023. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. New England Boundaries. September, 2007. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. NHESP Certified Vernal Pools. August, 2021. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. NHESP Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife. August, 2021. 41 Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. NHESP Natural Communities. May, 2024. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare Species. August, 2021. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. Prime Forest Land. January, 2013. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. Property Tax Parcels. July, 2024. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. Soils SSURGO-Certified NRCS. November, 2021. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. Surficial Geology (1:250,000). October, 1999. Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. 2016 Land Cover/Land Use. May, 2019. Chamberlain JL, Mitchell D, Brigham T, Hobby T, Zabek L, Davis J (2009) Forest farming practices. Pages 219-255 in Garret G, ed. North American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Dagar JC, Tewari VP (2017) Evolution of agroforestry as a modern science. Pages 13-90 in Dagar JC, Tewari VP, eds. Agroforestry: Anecdotal to Modern Science. Singapore: Springer. Fike JH, Downing AK, Munsell JF, Frey GE, Mercier K, Pent GJ, Teutsch CD, Daniel J, Fisher KJ, Adams M (2017) Creating Silvopastures – Some Considerations When Planting Trees into Pastures. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension. 8 p Frey GE, Alexander SJ, Chamberlain JL, Blatner KA, Coffin AW, Barlow RJ (2019) Markets and market values of nontimber forest products in the United States: A review, synthesis, and identification of future research needs. Journal of Forestry 117:613–631 Frey GE, Chamberlain JL, Jacobson MG (2023) Producers, production, marketing, and sales of non-timber forest products in the United States: A review and synthesis. Agroforestry Systems 97:355–368 Hill DB (1999) Farming exotic mushrooms in the forest. United States Department of Agriculture National Agroforestry Center Rep 12. 5 p Justice, D., A.K. Deely, and F. Rubin. 2016. Land cover and land use classification for the State of New Hampshire, 1996-2001. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1305 Kalenius R (2022) Mushroom Cultivation in Temperate Agroforestry: Potential Agroforestry Practices, Growing Methods, and Native Edible Saprophytes to Sweden. Independent project in biology. Alnarp, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 40 p 42 http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1305 Lehtinen EA (2023) Key Factors Related to Agroforestry Adoption in Vermont. Doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia. 50 p Lewis CB, Peters CJ (2012) A capacity assessment of New England’s large animal slaughter facilities as relative to meat production for the regional food system. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 27:192–199 Mabee, S.B., M.A. Pontrelli, C.C. Duncan, W.P. Clement, 2023, Updated NEHRP soil classification map of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map 23-01. 3 maps, 1:125,000 scale, ESRI GIS shapefile, metadata, 106-page report. Map data copyrighted OpenStreetMap contributors and available from https://www.openstreetmap.org MassGIS (Bureau of Geographic Information), Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOTSS. Miller RP, Nair PR (2006) Indigenous agroforestry systems in Amazonia: from prehistory to today. Agroforestry Systems 66:151–164 Nair P, Bannister M, Nair V, Alavalapati J, Ellis E, Jose S, Long A (2005) Silvopasture in south-eastern United States: More than just a new name for an old practice. Pages 72-82 in Proceedings of an International Congress on Silvopastoralism and Sustainable Management. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. New Hampshire Geographically referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (NH GRANIT). Esri geometry polygon: NH Parcel Mosaic – Polygons. NH Department of Revenue Administration, 2024. New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (NH GRANIT). Esri geometry polygon: Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for New Hampshire. New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (NH GRANIT). Map/table: New Hampshire Conservation/Public Lands. Earth Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire, 2024. New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (NH GRANIT). Vector digital data: New Hampshire Stream Order Dataset. Earth Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire, 2022. New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (NH GRANIT). Vector digital data: NH DOT Roads. NH Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning & Community Assistance, 2024. NRCS GeoSpatial Data Gateway, Earth Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire, 2020. Pandelea G, Calinescu MF, Cristina I (2021) The influence of some composts on the growth and fruiting processes in the species Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Elliot. U.P.B. Sci. Bull 83: 101-112 Pomper KW, Layne DR (2010) The North American pawpaw: Botany and horticulture. Horticultural Reviews 31:349–382 43 https://www.openstreetmap.org/ Ponder F (2004) Soils and nutrition management for black walnut. Pages 71-76 in Proceedings of the 6th Walnut Council Research Symposium. Lafayette, IN: United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. Rahman MA, Hoque MA (2007) Morus alba Linn. Project thesis. Khulna, Bangladesh: Khulna University. 59 p Rayburn AP, Rogner M, Frank P (2018) Abundance and distribution of blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) on lower cache creek: Implications for adaptive floodplain management. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 16:1-14 Schultz EB, DeLoach III WM (2004) Site suitability and economic aspects of black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) in Mississippi. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 28:123–131 Sheban KC, Woodbury DJ, Duguid MC (2022) Importance of environmental factors on plantings of wild-simulated American ginseng. Agroforestry Systems 96:147–160 Smith MM, Bentrup G, Kellerman T, MacFarland K, Straight R, Ameyaw, Lord (2022) Agroforestry extent in the United States: a review of national datasets and inventory efforts. Agriculture 12:1-17 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online. Accessed [07/21/2024] – USDA. Tang, H., L. Ma, A.J. Lister, J. O'Neil-Dunne, J. Lu, R. Lamb, R.O. Dubayah, and G.C. Hurtt. 2021. LiDAR Derived Biomass, Canopy Height, and Cover for New England Region, USA, 2015. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1854 U.S. Bureau of the Census. TIGER/Line: Primary and secondary roads state-based shapefile. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 2019. U.S. Geological Survey, 2008, National Forest Type Dataset, Conterminous U.S. and Alaska Forest Type Mapping Using Forest Inventory and Analysis Data (published 2008), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/forest_type/ U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TBJ250870 (published 20170728), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TBJ250872 (published 20170728), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TBJ252870 (published 20170510), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TBJ252872 (published 20170728), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery 44 https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1854 https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/forest_type/ https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Lidar Point Cloud NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK304930 (published 20170220), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Lidar Point Cloud NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK304929 (published 20170220), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Lidar Point Cloud NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK304927 (published 20170220), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK304930 (published 20170510), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK304929 (published 20170510), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK304927 (published 20170728), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK303932 (published 20170728), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK303930 (published 20170510), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK303929 (published 20170728), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK303927 (published 20170510), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK301930 (published 20170728), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK301929 (published 20170510), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, USGS Original Project Resolution NH_Connecticut_River_2015 19TCK301927 (published 20170728), accessed August 05, 2024 at URL https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI). Esri Geometry Polygon: Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 2023. 45 https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI). Raster digital data: ElevationDEM_DEMHF0p7M2016. VCGI, 2018. Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI). Raster digital data: Slope (%) generated from DEM data in the VCGI Lidar Program archive of the same resolution, i.e., resolution class "RESCLASS". VCGI, 2018. Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI). Shapefile: Vermont priority streams and rivers. VCGI, 2011. Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI). Vector digital data: CadastralConserved_PROTECTEDLND. VCGI, 2021. Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI). Vector digital data: GeologicSoils_SOAG. Natural Resource Conservation Service County Soil Survey Data. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2022. Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI). Vector digital data: Nitrate Leaching Index based upon SSURGO soils. VT Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 2008. Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI). Vector digital data: Vermont Parcel Data. VCGI, 2018. Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI). Vermont Vernal Pool Atlas (VPAtlas.org) - Pool Visits. VCGI, 2023. Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI). VT Data - NRCS top 20 soils attributes and documentation. VCGI, 2023. Williams RD (1990) Juglans nigra L. black walnut. Pages 391-399 in Burns RM, Honkala HH, eds. Silvics of North America, Hardwoods. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. Wilson WT, Sonnet PE, Stoner A (1949) Pesticides and honey bee mortality. Agriculture Handbook 335:129-140. 46