CONSERVATION THROUGH CULTIVATION: ECONOMIC, SOCIO ...

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








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







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

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


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







xi









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



northeast Pennsylvania (n = 10 sites) ................................................................... 310



southwest Pennsylvania (n = 17 sites) .................................................................. 311



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.

Scientific name Abbreviation in

this paper

Trade

name @

Medical applications

and uses #

Reported trade

volume range

(kg/yr/dry)

Actaea racemosa

L. ACRA

Black

cohosh

Treatment of menopause

and post-menopausal

symptoms

~259,600-

1,675,100 ^

Caulophyllum

thalictroides

Michx.

CATH Blue cohosh

Promotion of

menstruation; uterine

stimulant

~10,000-18,000 ^

Chamaelirium

luteum (L.) A.

Gray

CHLU False

unicorn Diuretic; uterine tonic ~9,800-14,300

^

Dioscorea villosa

L. DIVI Wild yam

Source of steroidal

hormones;

contraceptive; anti-

inflammatory

~69,600-149,200 ^

Hydrastis

canadensis L. HYCA Goldenseal

Antibiotic; haemostatic;

stomachic, laxative;

mucus membrane tonic

~94,300-583,600 ^

Panax

quinquefolius L. PAQU

American

ginseng Adaptogenic; tonic

~132,500-350,200 &

Phytolacca

americana L. PHAM Poke

Anti-inflammatory;

hypotensive; diuretic;

emetic; anti-rheumatic

~2,200-26,400 §

Sanguinaria

canadensis L. SACA Bloodroot

Antibiotic; anti-plaque

(in toothpastes); animal

feed additive

~58,300-107,100 ^

@ 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

Seeds

per gram

Quantity

needed

(grams)

Cost per

gram

(US$)

Total

cost

(US$)

Quantity

needed

Cost per

root

(US$)

Total cost

(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).

Plant spacing and numbers Years to harvest

@

Yield weights

(dry)

Final

yields

(dry/kg)

Plants/m2

Plants/100

m2 bed

Plants/1,000

m2

From

seed

From

division or

transplant

Per

root

(g)

Roots/kg

Per

100

m2

bed

Per

1,000

m2

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


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:

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)

NPVR

r

C

r

y

yy

ny

yy

n

( ) ( )1 10 0

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,

US$)


US$)


US$)

Mean

price

Min

price

Max

price

Mean

price

Min

price

Max

price

Mean

price

Min

price

Max

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


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

(EH) 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

No stock costs

(NSC) 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

No annual costs

(NAC) 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

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, &

NAC 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

@ 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).

Break even (kg/1000

m2)

Break even (g/per

root)

Yield increase

needed (multipliers) @

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).

Break even (kg/1000

m2)

Break even (g/per

root)

Yield increase

needed (multipliers) @

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



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

only from August 1 through November

30.

To permit reproduction in wild plants since fruit

mature in late summer and early fall.

Only mature ginseng plants with at

least three leaves of five leaflets each

may be harvested and only when the

seeds are red.

To permit plants to reach reproductive maturity and

contribute to population viability. Establishes a

developmental stage class or minimum stage limit for

harvest to take place.

Persons harvesting ginseng plants shall

plant the seeds from the plants in the

immediate vicinity of the collection site

To ensure that local populations do not go extinct

because collectors have removed seeds and sowed them

elsewhere.

A person may not possess harvested,

green ginseng roots between April 1

and August 1 of a calendar year.

To limit collection to a season (August 1-November

30).

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.

Returned Not

returned

Not

deliverableb

Not

applicableb

Totals

Response

rate

(raw)c

Response

rate

(adjusted)d

PA DCNR

dealer

transaction

logs

243 575 125 11 954 25.5% 29.7%

Individual

requests 120 40 1 0 161 79.8% 80.6%

PA DCNR

licensed

dealers

(current and

former)

20 33 11 5 69 29.0% 37.7%

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

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.

30

27

22 15

20

13

19

18

10

21

8

10

12

11

8

6

4

10

6

6

9

2

4 1

3

2

6

1

8

1

2

1

4

2

0

1

1

5

7

3

4

0 1

2

0

0

1

1

1

1

2

0

1

0

2

1 1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

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

1

17

45

97 97

71

27

9

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 90+

Age

Nu

mb

er o

f su

rve

y p

artic

ip

an

ts

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

season

Stage

requirement

Berry ripening

requirement

Vicinity

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 =

113/114) 74 65 92 81 104 91 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)




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


8 KI from Somerset County, Pennsylvania (written communication)



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


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)

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



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.



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.





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.




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


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).

Year

Certified

exports from

PA *

Number of

roots per pound

(dry wt) *

Number of

plants

harvested **

Certified root

exports from

U.S. ***

PA rank (out

of 19 export

states)

Percentage of total

exports from

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

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).

30

4

36

8

19

23

13

20

45

9

14

51

59

39

65

31

12

46

57

27

53

35

63

33

43

1

60

26 40

11

22

6

15

29

55

25

24

49

17

52

32

2

34

44

58

56

61

50

42

38

67

62

66

7

54

3

41

16 10

64

48

18

21

47

37

28

5

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

12

101

78

49

30

13

3 1 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0-1 2-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80

Years planting

Nu

mb

er o

f su

rve

y p

artic

ip

an

ts

Figure 4.2 The length of time survey participants had been planting ginseng in

Pennsylvania (n = 288).

119

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.

37

30

30

26

25

32

27

20

18

25

15

24

14

16

12

11

11

19

10

9

10

4

11

10

10

4

3

4

10

4

7

5

4

2

3

6

5

6

5

1 2

3

3

2

3

1

1

1

1

2 2

1

1

1 1

1 4

1

1

1

3

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

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).

100%

25%

78%

43%

42%

0% 50%

60%

76%

53%

0%

100%

57%

0%

50%

0%

0%

33%

56%

40%

67%

73%

67%

0%

50%

33%

67%

0%

0%

50%

13%

100%

0%

0%

0%

75%

42%

0%

52%

50% 44%

50%

50%

50%

61%

100%

0%

67%

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



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.




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.


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


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


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.


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.

n = 7, 24, 12, 5, 2, 4 (left to right)

n = 2, 21, 31 (left to right)

3.7%

38.9%

57.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

10-100 sq yd 101 sq yd - 2 acres >2 acres

Population area

Perc

en

tag

e o

f sit

es p

er

are

a c

ate

go

ry

13.0%

44.4%

22.2%

9.3%

3.7%

7.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

25-50 51-100 101-250 251-500 501-1000 1001+

Number of plants per area

Perc

en

tag

e o

f stu

dy s

ites

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

Figure 5.2 Counties where ginseng associations were studied in 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.

40°

45´

77°

45´

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

name

Common

name

Percentage

of sites

and (n)

Percentage

of plots

and (n)

ISA variables (refer to footnotes)

Lat Long Prov pH Ca

Acer saccharum

Marshall

Sugar

maple 70 (38) 56 (151) N*** W* AP***

<

5.5**

Fraxinus

americana L. White ash 61 (33) 31 (83) N*** E**

>

3,000**

Tilia americana

L.

American

basswood 59 (32) 31 (84) N**

Liriodendron

tulipifera L.

Tulip-

poplar 48 (26) 27 (74) S*** E* P***

>

5.5***

Prunus serotina

L.

Black

cherry 46 (25) 20 (53) W*** AP***

<

3,000***

Acer rubrum L. Red maple 44 (24) 19 (51) N*** E***

Quercus rubra

L.

Northern

red oak 44 (24) 18 (49) S***

Fagus

grandifolia

Ehrhart

American

beech 43 (23) 14 (38)

Quercus alba L. White oak 25 (14) 9 (24) S*** < 3,000*

Betula lenta L. Black

birch 22 (12) 9 (23) S* E*** P***

Tsuga

canadensis (L.)

Carrière

Eastern

hemlock 22 (12) 6 (16)

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).

Scientific name Common

name

Percentage

of sites

and (n)

Percentage

of plots

and (n)


Lat Long Prov pH Ca

Parthenocissus

quinquefolia (L.)

Planch.

Virginia-

creeper 76 (41) 51 (138) S*** P***

>

5.5**

Lindera benzoin

(L.) Blume Spicebush 56 (30) 41 (111) S*** P***

>

5.5*

Viburnum

acerifolium L.

Maple-

leaved

viburnum

52 (28) 23 (62) S*** P*** >

5.5**

Hamamelis

virginiana L.

Witch-

hazel 52 (28) 22 (60) S** RV*

Toxicodendron

radicans (L.)

Kuntze

Poison-ivy 46 (25) 23 (61) S*** P*** >

5.5**

Ostrya virginiana

(Mill.) K. Koch

Hop-

hornbeam 44 (24) 16 (43) N**

Ribes cynosbati L. Prickly

gooseberry 35 (19) 12 (32) N*** AP***

Vitis spp. Wild grape 35 (19) 11 (30) S**

Acer pensylvanicum

L.

Striped

maple 25 (14) 19 (50) N* RV**

>

3,000*

Sambucus

racemosa L.

Red-

berried

elder

30 (16) 11 (29) N***

Rubus spp. Blackberry 30 (16) 9 (25)





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

name

Common

name

Percentage

of sites

and (n)

Percentage

of plots

and (n)


Lat Long Prov pH Ca

Arisaema

triphyllum (L.)

Schott

Jack-in-the-

pulpit 93 (50) 80 (216) E** > 5.5*

>

3,000*

Polygonatum

pubescens

(Willd.) Pursh

Solomon‘s-

seal 80 (43) 39 (104) P*

>

5.5**

Circaea

canadensis (L.)

Hill

Enchanter‘s-

nightshade 74 (40) 59 (158) S*** P*

Polystichum

acrostichoides

(Michx.) Schott

Christmas

fern 74 (40) 54 (146) N**

Galium

triflorum Michx.

Sweet-

scented

bedstraw

69 (37) 41 (110) N***

Botrychium

virginianum (L.)

Sw.

Rattlesnake

fern 69 (37) 38 (102) E** P***

>

5.5***

>

3,000**

Podophyllum

peltatum L. Mayapple 65 (35) 37 (101) S*** P**

Maianthemum

racemosum

Link.

False

Solomon‘s-

seal

63 (34) 33 (90) S** P*** > 5.5*

Ageratina

altissima (L.)

R.M. King & H.

Robinson

White-

snakeroot 59 (32) 35 (95)

Eurybia

divaricata (L.)

Nesom

White wood

aster 57 (31) 33 (88) N*

>

5.5***

Dryopteris

marginalis (L.)

A. Gray

Marginal

wood fern 54 (29) 34 (92) N***

Persicaria

virginiana (L.)

Gaertner

Jumpseed 52 (28) 31 (83) W*** < 5.5*

Viola pubescens

Aiton

Downy

yellow

violet

52 (28) 26 (71)

Dryopteris

carthusiana

(Vill.) H.P.

Spinulose

wood fern 50 (27) 36 (96) N* W** AP*

<

5.5***

167

Table 5.5 contd.

Osmorhiza

claytonii

(Michx.) C.B.

Clarke

Sweet-

cicely 48 (26) 26 (69)

Actaea

pachypoda

Elliot

Doll‘s-eyes 44 (24) 29 (78) N***

Actaea

racemosa L.

Black

cohosh 43 (23) 30 (80) S*** P*

Dryopteris

intermedia

(Muhl.) A. Gray

Evergreen

wood fern 43 (23) 25 (68) N*** RV*

Galium

circaezans

Michx.

Wild-

licorice 43 (23) 24 (66) E* P***

>

5.5***

Trillium

erectum L.

Purple

trillium 43 (23) 19 (50) N*** AP**

Pilea pumila

(L.) A. Gray Clearweed 41 (22) 24 (64) W*

Collinsonia

canadensis L. Horse-balm 41 (22) 21 (56) S*** P***

>

5.5***

Uvularia

perfoliata L. Bellwort 39 (21) 19 (50)

Geum

canadense Jacq. White avens 39 (21) 14 (38)

Ranunculus

abortivus L.

Small-

flowered

crowfoot

37 (20) 11 (31)

Viola hirsutula

Brainerd

Southern

wood violet 35 (19) 20 (53) S***

Caulophyllum

thalictroides

(L.) Michx.

Blue cohosh 35 (19) 19 (51) N** AP** <

5.5***

Geranium

maculatum L.

Wood

geranium 35 (19) 16 (42) S*** P**

Viola

canadensis L.

Canada

violet 33 (18) 24 (65)

Dioscorea

villosa L. Wild yam 31 (17) 15 (41) S*** P**





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).


name

Percentage

of sites

and (n)

Percentage

of plots

and (n)


Lat Long Prov pH Ca

Rosa multiflora

Thunb. ex Murray

Multiflora

rose 46 (25) 21 (56) P**

<

3,000*

Alliaria petiolata

(M. Bieb.) Cavara

& Grande

Garlic-

mustard 37 (20) 26 (69) E*

Berberis

thunbergii DC

Japanese

barberry 26 (14) 8 (22) P*

>

5.5**

Persicaria

longiseta (Bruijn)

Kitagawa

Low

smartweed 20 (11) 10 (26) S**

Epipactis

helleborine (L.)

Crantz

Bastard

hellebore 19 (10) 6 (17) N***

>

3,000*

Rubus

phoenicolasius

Maxim.

Wineberry 13 (7) 7 (18) S** E*** P*** >

5.5***

Lonicera japonica

Thunb.

Japanese

honeysuckle 7 (4) 2 (6) E** P*** > 5.5*

Prunus avium (L.)

L.

Sweet

cherry 7 (4) 2 (4) E** P***

>

5.5***

>

3,000**

Euonymus alatus

(Thunb.) Siebold

Burning-

bush 6 (3) 2 (5) E* P***

>

5.5**

Ligustrum spp. Privet 6 (3) 2 (4) P**





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

survey respondents and

percent of responses

Number of field plots in

which species occurred (n =

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,

rattleroot

104

14 80 30

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**

North South East West Appalachian

Plateau

Ridge

and

Valley

Piedmont

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

(n = 33)

Ridge and Valley (n =

14) Piedmont (n = 7)

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

Ca (lbs/ac)* 3,191

(2,765)

281 –

16,210

4,872

(6,228)

592 –

41,700

3,968

(2,392)

604 –

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.




Carlson, A.W. 1986. Ginseng: America‘s Botanical Drug Connection to the Orient.


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.





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.


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.




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


PA State Climatologist. 2011. Climate data and summaries for Pennsylvania.

Available on the internet at: http://climate.met.psu.edu/www_prod/ Last


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


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

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

AMERICAN GINSENG IN THE COMMONWEALTH:

A SURVEY OF PENNSYLVANIAN PRACTICE, EXPERIENCE and OPINION

From Nash, 1898

218

□ Current collector □ Current planter □ Current dealer □ Former collector □ Former planter □ Former dealer □ Other (Please explain):__________________________________

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:___________________________ □ □ □ □ 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 :__________________________

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)?

2. To what extent do/did the following contribute to your interest in ginseng (check all)?

3. How have you learned about ginseng (check all that apply)?

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.

219

□ 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?____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

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? ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

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.

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.

220

□ 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: _________________________________________________

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…………….. □ □ □

6. Which of the following activities have you observed leading to the elimination of ginseng from an area (check all that apply)?

7. How often have you done the following to wild ginseng plants (check all)?

221

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…………… □ □ □

Plants Trees Shrubs 1. ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ 2. ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ 3. ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ □ No □ Yes, I own _____ acres (If Yes) Do you have a written forest management plan? □ No □ Yes

8. How useful would the following types of educational support be to you (check all)?

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.

10. Do you own forestland in Pennsylvania (check one)?

222

I have collected ginseng for __________ year(s).

__________________________________________________________________

Very Important Not Important Important Market price………………………….. □ □ □ Availability of plants………………… □ □ □ Financial need………………….…….. □ □ □ Personal enjoyment………………….. □ □ □ Access to forestland………………….. □ □ □ Other: __________________________ □ □ □ □ Every year □ Every few years (2-5 years) □ Rarely (5+ years) □ Whenever I see it

□ Every year □ Every few years (2-5 years) □ Rarely (5+ years) □ Whenever I get there

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?

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)?

14. How often do/did you collect ginseng (check one)?

15. How often do/did you visit the same area to collect ginseng (check one)?

223

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:___________________________ □ □ □ Yes No Private individual lands………………… □ □ Private corporation lands………………. □ □ State forestlands…………………………. □ □ State game lands…………………………. □ □ State park lands………………………….. □ □ Allegheny National Forest……………… □ □ Other (where?):_____________________ Often Occasionally Never Some plants removed……………………. □ □ □ All plants removed………………………. □ □ □

□ No, none of it □ Yes, less than half of it (1-50%) □ Yes, more than half of it (50%+) □ I think so

16. If you have stopped collecting ginseng, how important were the following factors in deciding to quit (check all)?

17. Have you ever collected ginseng from the following lands in Pennsylvania (check all)?

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)?

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)?

224

Green Weight Dry Weight Less than 1 lb…………………………….. □ □ 1-2 lbs………………………………….. …. □ □ 3-5 lbs………………………………….. …. □ □ 6-10 lbs………………………………… …. □ □ Over 10 lbs……………………………. …. □ □ □ No □ Yes

□ 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: _____________________________ □ 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

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)?

21. Have you ever held-over (from one year to the next) roots you collected in a given year (check one)?

22. How much of the root that you collect do you typically sell (check one)?

23. Do you know anyone who is not a resident of Pennsylvania who visits the state to harvest ginseng (check one)?

225

□ 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): __________________________ 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:____________________________ □ □ □

□ 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): ___________________________________

25. How often do you collect the following from Pennsylvania forestlands (check all)?

26. Which of the following would prevent you from growing ginseng rather than collecting it from the wild (check all that apply)?

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)?

226

I have planted ginseng for __________ year(s). __________________________________________________________________ □ In small, uncrowded forest plantings □ In dense forest plantings □ In beds in the forest □ Under artificial shade □ Other (please explain):____________________________ □ Forestlands that I own □ Forestlands that someone-else owns □ Public forest and park lands □ Wherever I find a good location □ Other:____________________________ 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)): _____________________

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?

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)?

30. Where have you planted ginseng (check all that apply)?

31. How much ginseng have you planted over the years and what was the source of the planting stock?

227

□ No □ Yes Recently In the past Never Grandparent …………………………… □ □ □ Parent…………………………………… □ □ □ Family…………………………………... □ □ □ Friends………………………………….. □ □ □ 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:_____________________________ □ □ □ Very Somewhat Not troublesome troublesome a problem Diseases………………………………… □ □ □ Insects……………………………….….. □ □ □ Slugs………………………………….…. □ □ □ Deer……………………………………... □ □ □ Mice, chipmunks, squirrels…..……..… □ □ □ Turkeys…………………………………. □ □ □ Theft of plants………………………….. □ □ □ Seedling establishment…………..……. □ □ □ Other: ____________________________ □ □ □

32. Have you harvested and sold ginseng from your plantings (check one)?

33. Have any of these relations of yours planted ginseng on Pennsylvania forestlands (check all)?

34. If you have stopped planting ginseng, how important were the following factors in deciding to quit (check all)?

35. In your experience, how troublesome are the following factors are in planting and raising ginseng on forestlands in PA (check all)?

228

_____________________________ county (counties)

□ Male □ Female

_____ years of age _____________________________ □ 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)

SECTION 4: INFORMATION ABOUT YOU The following section contains several questions about you.

36. In what county of Pennsylvania do you presently reside?

37. Are you:

38. How old are you?

39. What is your primary occupation?

40. What is your formal educational background (check all that apply)?

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


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


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.


Agree with restriction Disagree with restriction

Collection season dates (currently

Aug. 1-Nov 30) (n = 365) 73% (n = 267) 27% (n = 98)

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. 1

st.

~ (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. 15

th – 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 1

st 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






Plant stage requirement (plants must

have at least three leaves of five

leaflets) (n = 365)

85% (n = 311) 15% (n = 54)



~ (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) 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






Berries must be ripe (berries must be

red when root is harvested) (n = 366)

92% (n = 336) 8% (n = 30)



~ (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) 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






Berries must be planted in the

immediate vicinity of the collection site

(n = 366)

71% (n = 259) 29% (n = 107)

Comments regarding the restriction quoted from survey instrument. Response to the question is


~ (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) 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


~ (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


~ (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


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?

Yes No Not familiar

with form

Do you know anyone (including yourself)

who has had problems with theft of ginseng

from their forestland? (n = 361)

38% (n = 137) 62% (n = 224)

Do you support the use of the ‗harvester

certification‘ form as a way to address

this issue? (n = 350)

34% (n = 119) 40% (n = 141) 26% (n = 90)

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


~ (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


~ (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


~ (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


~ (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


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)


~ 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


How often have you done the following to wild ginseng plants?

Frequently Occasionally Never

Passed over a wild plant; looked too nice

to pick (n = 352) 20% (n = 71) 46% (n = 162) 34% (n = 119)

Pinched off the tops of plants to hide from

others (n = 356) 36% (n = 128) 25% (n = 90) 39% (n = 138)

Broke off the neck of a plant and re-

planted it (n = 343) 21% (n = 72) 27% (n = 92) 52% (n = 179)

Applied fertilizer to improve growth (n =

344) 2% (n = 6) 7% (n = 24) 91% (n = 314)

Removed competing vegetation (n = 344) 10% (n = 35) 36% (n = 122) 54% (n = 187)

Relocated plants threatened by land

development (n = 350) 22% (n = 78) 42% (n = 145) 36% (n = 127)

Transplanted plants for use as seed source

(n = 350) 19% (n = 65) 36% (n = 127) 45% (n = 158)

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


How useful would the following types of educational support be to you?

Useful Somewhat useful Not useful

Brochures, books, videos, internet

(n = 346) 46% (n = 160) 33% (n = 114) 21% (n = 72)

Forest consultants knowledgeable

about ginseng (n = 341) 37% (n = 126) 34% (n = 116) 29% (n = 99)

Educational workshops (n = 338) 25% (n = 85) 39% (n = 133) 36% (n = 120)

Funding for ginseng studies on

private forest-lands (n = 337) 29% (n = 99) 36% (n = 121) 35% (n = 117)

An organization devoted to

Pennsylvania ginseng (n = 335) 40% (n = 133) 36% (n = 122) 24% (n = 80)

Access to Pennsylvania ginseng

dealer and market info (n = 342) 53% (n = 179) 31% (n = 107) 16% (n = 56)

Demonstrations of planting and

other related activities (n = 347) 44% (n = 152) 37% (n = 129) 19% (n = 66)

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,

rattletop, rattleroot 104 14.2%

Indian-turnip, jack-in-the-

pulpit 81 11.1%

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

(unknown) 20 2.7%

Wild sarsaparilla, sarsaparilla,

fool‘s-sang 19 2.6%

Grape, wild grape, grapevine 18 2.5%

Local name for fern

(unknown) 16 2.2%

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,

jewelweed 8 1.1%

White cohosh, doll‘s-eye,

white baneberry 7 1.0%

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


species that you list.‖


Spicebush 55 26.6%

Grape, wild grape, grapevine 48 23.2%

Blackberry 21 10.1%

Striped maple 11 5.3%


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,

shadbush 5 2.4%

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


species that you list.


Maple (generic) 119 17.4%

Oak (generic) 90 13.1%

Tulip poplar, yellow poplar,

poplar 90 13.1%

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%


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


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

(n = 179) 13% (n = 23) 84% (n = 150) 3% (n = 6)

*Standard deviation = 103.7 acres; Mode = 10 acres; Median = 20 acres; Range = 1-700 acres.

263

Appendix J-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


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


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


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?‖

Every year Every few years

(2-5 years)

Rarely

(5+ years)

Whenever I see

it/ Whenever I

get there

Collect *

(n = 341) 62% (n = 211) 28% (n = 96) 7% (n = 22) 3% (n = 12)

Collect from same

area **

(n = 342)

18% (n = 60) 56% (n = 192) 17% (n = 58) 9% (n = 32)


* 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


If you have stopped collecting ginseng, how important were the following factors in

deciding to quit?‖


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


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


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)


~ 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


Does any of the wild ginseng root that you collect originate from seed that you previously

purchased and planted in the forest? (n = 337)

No, none of it Yes, less than half of

it (<50%)

Yes, more than half of

it (>50%) I think so

45% (n = 151) 28% (n = 95) 16% (n = 54) 11% (n = 37)


~ 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


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


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

ginseng (n = 343)** 13% (n = 44) 87% (n = 299)

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)


*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)


~ 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

customers 1% (n = 2) 99% (n = 318)

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

it to a dealer 3% (n = 10) 97% (n = 310)

277

Appendix J-23


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

collection area (n = 77) 84% (n = 65) 16% (n = 12)

Because they own the land (n = 77) 21% (n = 16) 79% (n = 61)

Other* 21% (n = 16)


~ 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


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


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

grow ginseng 67% (n = 229) 33% (n = 113)

I do not own or have access to forestland

suitable for growing ginseng 23% (n = 77) 77% (n = 265)

I do not have the money to invest in

growing ginseng 15% (n = 51) 85% (n = 291)

I enjoy collection and would rather not

try to grow it 20% (n = 69) 80% (n = 273)

I do not know enough about growing

ginseng 12% (n = 40) 88% (n = 302)

There are too many deer in my area to

grow ginseng 8% (n = 27) 92% (n = 315)

It takes too long to grow ginseng 4% (n = 15) 96% (n = 327)

There are too many people who steal

ginseng in my area 17% (n = 59) 83% (n = 283)

Other* 10% (n = 34)


~ 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Have you harvested and sold ginseng from your plantings? (n = 292)

Yes No

52% (n = 153) 48% (n = 139)

289

Appendix J-32


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


If you have stopped planting ginseng, how important were the following factors in

deciding to quit?


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)


~ 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


In your experience, how troublesome are the following factors in planting and raising

ginseng on forestlands in Pennsylvania?

Very

troublesome

Somewhat

troublesome Not a problem

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


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


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


Wayne 1 <1%

Westmoreland 27 7%

Wyoming 3 1%

York 4 1%

Non-resident 4 1%

No response 6 2%

295

Appendix J-36


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


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


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

degree program) 60 17%

Vocational or trade school 81 22%

College graduate (baccalaureate) 39 11%

Advanced college graduate (above

baccalaureate) 14 4%

*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)


name

Number of

sites present

Percentage

of sites

Number of

plots present

Percentage

of plots

1 Acer saccharum

Marshall Sugar maple 38 69.1 151 55.9

2 Fraxinus americana

L. White ash 33 60.0 83 30.7

3 Tilia americana L. American

basswood 32 58.2 84 31.1

4 Liriodendron

tulipifera L. Tulip-poplar 26 47.3 74 27.4

5 Prunus serotina L. Black cherry 25 45.5 53 19.6

6 Acer rubrum L. Red maple 24 43.6 51 18.9

7 Quercus rubra L. Northern red

oak 24 43.6 49 18.1

8 Fagus grandifolia

Ehrhart

American

beech 23 41.8 38 14.1

9 Quercus alba L. White oak 14 25.5 24 8.9

10 Betula lenta L. Black birch 12 21.8 23 8.5

11 Tsuga canadensis

(L.) Carrière

Eastern

hemlock 12 21.8 16 5.9

12 Quercus velutina

Lam. Black oak 9 16.4 9 3.3

13 Carya glabra (Mill.)

Sweet

Pignut

hickory 8 14.5 14 5.2

14 Carya tomentosa

(Poir.) Nutt.

Mockernut

hickory 7 12.7 11 4.1

15 Quercus montana

Willd. Chestnut oak 7 12.7 9 3.3

16 Juglans nigra L. Black walnut 5 9.1 14 5.2

17

Betula

alleghaniensis

Britton

Yellow birch 5 9.1 12 4.4

18 Carya ovata (Mill.)

K. Koch

Shagbark

hickory 5 9.1 8 3.0

19 Nyssa sylvatica

Marshall Black gum 5 9.1 5 1.9

20 Carya cordiformis

(Wang.) K. Koch

Bitternut

hickory 4 7.3 5 1.9

21 Pinus strobus L. Eastern white

pine 4 7.3 5 1.9

300

22 Ulmus americana L. American

elm 4 7.3 5 1.9

23 Magnolia acuminata

(L.) L.

Cucumber-

tree 4 7.3 4 1.5

24 Prunus avium (L.)

L.* Sweet cherry 4 7.3 4 1.5

25

Populus

grandidentata

Michx.

Big-tooth

aspen 3 5.5 6 2.2

26 Ulmus rubra Muhl. Slippery elm 3 5.5 4 1.5

27 Robinia

pseudoacacia L. Black locust 2 3.6 3 1.1

28 Ailanthus altissima

L.*

Tree-of-

heaven 1 1.8 3 1.1

29 Aesculus glabra

Willd. Ohio buckeye 1 1.8 1 0.4

30 Sassafras albidum

(Nutt.) Nees Sassafras 1 1.8 1 0.4

31 Acer platanoides L.* Norway

maple 1 1.8 1 0.4

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)

Scientific name Common name

Number

of sites

present

Percentage

of sites

Number

of plots

present

Percentage

of plots

1 Parthenocissus quinquefolia

(L.) Planch. Virginia-creeper 41 76 138 51

2 Lindera benzoin (L.) Blume Spicebush 30 56 111 41

3 Viburnum acerifolium L. Maple-leaved

viburnum 28 52 62 23

4 Hamamelis virginiana L. Witch-hazel 28 52 60 22

5 Toxicodendron radicans (L.)

Kuntze Poison-ivy 25 46 61 23

6 Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex

Murray* Multiflora rose 25 46 56 21

7 Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K.

Koch Hop-hornbeam 24 44 43 16

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


302

Appendix K-3

Habitat field studies results: frequency of associated understory herbs (n = 54

sites, 270 plots)

Scientific name Common name

Number of

sites

present

Percentage

of sites

Number of

plots

present

Percentage

of plots

1 Arisaema triphyllum

(L.) Schott

Jack-in-the-

pulpit 50 90.9 216 80.0

2 Polygonatum pubescens

(Willd.) Pursh Solomon‘s-seal 43 78.2 104 38.5

3 Circaea canadensis (L.)

Hill

Enchanter‘s-

nightshade 40 72.7 158 58.5

4 Galium triflorum

Michx.

Sweet-scented

bedstraw 37 67.3 110 40.7

5 Podophyllum peltatum

L. Mayapple 35 63.6 101 37.4

6 Maianthemum

racemosum Link.

False

Solomon‘s-seal 34 61.8 90 33.3

7

Ageratina altissima (L.)

R.M. King & H.

Robinson

White-snakeroot 32 58.2 95 35.2

8 Eurybia divaricata (L.)

Nesom

White wood

aster 31 56.4 88 32.6

9 Persicaria virginiana

(L.) Gaertner Jumpseed 28 50.9 83 30.7

10 Viola pubescens Aiton Downy yellow

violet 28 50.9 71 26.3

11 Osmorhiza claytonii

(Michx.) C.B. Clarke Sweet-cicely 26 47.3 69 25.6

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

14 Galium circaezans

Michx. Wild-licorice 23 41.8 66 24.4

15 Trillium erectum L. Purple trillium 23 41.8 50 18.5

16 Pilea pumila (L.) A.

Gray Clearweed 22 40.0 64 23.7

17 Collinsonia canadensis

L. Horse-balm 22 40.0 56 20.7

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

21

Alliaria petiolata (M.

Bieb.) Cavara & Grande

*

Garlic-mustard 20 36.4 69 25.6

22 Prenanthes sp. Rattlesnake root 20 36.4 41 15.2

23 Ranunculus abortivus L. Small-flowered

crowfoot 20 36.4 31 11.5

24 Viola hirsutula Brainerd Southern wood

violet 19 34.5 53 19.6

25

Caulophyllum

thalictroides (L.)

Michx.

Blue cohosh 19 34.5 51 18.9

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

32 Viola blanda Willd. Sweet white

violet 16 29.1 46 17.0

33 Viola rostrata Pursh Long-spurred

violet 16 29.1 38 14.1

34 Laportea canadensis

(L.) Wedd. Wood nettle 16 29.1 37 13.7

35 Mitella diphylla L. Bishop‘s-cap 15 27.3 27 10.0

36 Disporum lanuginosum

(Michx.) G. Nicholson Yellow mandarin 14 25.5 34 12.6

37 Osmorhiza longistylis

(Torr.) DC Aniseroot 13 23.6 36 13.3

38 Maianthemum

canadense Desf.

Canada

mayflower 13 23.6 30 11.1

39 Aralia nudicaulis L. Wild sarsaparilla 13 23.6 27 10.0

40 Erythronium

americanum Ker Gawl. Yellow trout-lily 12 21.8 48 17.8

41 Dicentra canadensis

(Goldie) Walp. Squirrel-corn 12 21.8 45 16.7

42 Galium aparine L. Bedstraw 12 21.8 42 15.6

43 Tiarella cordifolia L. Foamflower 12 21.8 28 10.4

44 Anemone acutiloba

(DC) G. Lawson Liverleaf 12 21.8 26 9.6

45 Anemone americana Liverleaf 12 21.8 24 8.9

304

(DC) H. Hara

46 Hydrophyllum

virginianum L.

Virginia

waterleaf 11 20.0 29 10.7

47 Persicaria longiseta

(Bruijn) Kitagawa* Low smartweed 11 20.0 26 9.6

48 Amphicarpa bracteata

(L.) Fernald Hog-peanut 11 20.0 20 7.4

49

Thalictrum thalictroides

(L.) A.J. Eames & B.

Boivin

Rue anemone 11 20.0 19 7.0

50 Medeola virginiana L. Indian

cucumber-root 11 20.0 16 5.9

51 Sanguinaria canadensis

L. Bloodroot 10 18.2 33 12.2

52 Phryma leptostachya L. Lopseed 10 18.2 22 8.1

53 Polygonatum biflorum

(Walter) Elliott Solomon‘s-seal 10 18.2 21 7.8

54 Ranunuculus recurvatus

Poir.

Hooked

crowfoot 10 18.2 18 6.7

55 Epipactis helleborine

(L.) Crantz* Bastard hellebore 10 18.2 17 6.3

56 Cardamine concatenata

(Michx.) Sw. Toothwort 9 16.4 30 11.1

57 Cardamine diphylla

(Michx.) Wood

Two-leaved

toothwort 9 16.4 32 11.9

58 Impatiens capensis

Meerb. Jewelweed 9 16.4 32 11.9

59 Trillium grandiflorum

(Michx.) Salisb.

Large-flowered

trillium 9 16.4 19 7.0

60 Viola rotundifolia

Michx.

Round-leaved

violet 9 16.4 19 7.0

61 Mitchella repens L. Partridge-berry 9 16.4 14 5.2

62 Phytolacca americana

L. Pokeweed 9 16.4 14 5.2

63 Claytonia caroliniana

Michx.

Carolina spring-

beauty 8 14.5 35 13.0

64 Cryptotaenia

canadensis (L.) DC Honewort 8 14.5 17 6.3

65 Allium tricoccum Aiton Ramps 7 12.7 22 8.1

66 Solidago flexicaulis L. Zigzag

goldenrod 7 12.7 17 6.3

67 Sanicula trifoliata E.P.

Bicknell

Large-fruited

sanicle 7 12.7 14 5.2

68 Sedum ternatum Michx. Wild stonecrop 6 10.9 19 7.0

305

69 Oxalis acetosella L. Northern wood-

sorrel 6 10.9 15 5.6

70 Potentilla simplex

Michx.

Old-field

cinquefoil 6 10.9 11 4.1

71 Fallopia cilinodis

(Michx.) Holob

Fringed

bindweed 6 10.9 10 3.7

72 Panax trifolius L. Dwarf ginseng 6 10.9 9 3.3

73 Uvularia sessilifolia L. Bellwort 6 10.9 9 3.3

74 Geranium robertianum

L. Herb-robert 5 9.1 15 5.6

75 Thalictrum dioicum L. Early meadow-

rue 5 9.1 6 2.2

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

79 Hackelia virginiana (L.)

I.M. Johnston Beggar‘s-lice 4 7.3 7 2.6

80 Hydrastis canadensis L. Goldenseal 4 7.3 7 2.6

81

Desmodium glutinosum

(Muhl. ex Willd.) A.W.

Wood

Sticky tick-

clover 4 7.3 7 2.6

82 Symplocarpus foetidus

(L.) Salisb. ex Nutt. Skunk-cabbage 4 7.3 6 2.2

83 Pyrola elliptica Nutt. Shinleaf 4 7.3 4 1.5

84

Symphyotrichum

prenanthoides (Muhl. ex

Willd.) Nesom

Zig-zag aster 4 7.3 4 1.5

85 Circaea alpina L. Enchanter‘s-

nightshade 3 5.5 7 2.6

86 Galium lanceolatum

Torr. Wild-licorice 3 5.5 7 2.6

87 Geum sp. Avens 3 5.5 7 2.6

88 Hydrophyllum

canadense L.

Canadian

waterleaf 3 5.5 7 2.6

89

Sanicula odorata (Raf.)

K.M. Pryer & L.R.

Phillippe

Yellow-flowered

sanicle 3 5.5 7 2.6

90 Galearis spectabilis (L.)

Raf. Showy orchis 3 5.5 6 2.2

91 Sanicula sp. Sanicle 3 5.5 5 1.9

92 Dicentra cucullaria (L.)

Bernh.

Dutchman‘s-

breeches 3 5.5 4 1.5

93 Solidago sp. Goldenrod 3 5.5 4 1.5

306

94 Trientalis borealis Raf. Starflower 3 5.5 4 1.5

95 Agrimonia rostellata

Wallr.

Woodland

agrimony 3 5.5 3 1.1

96 Aralia racemosa L. Spikenard 3 5.5 3 1.1

97 Aristolochia serpentaria

L.

Virginia

snakeroot 3 5.5 3 1.1

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

101 Solidago caesia L. Bluestem

goldenrod 2 3.6 6 2.2

102 Corydalis flavula (Raf.)

DC

Yellow

fumewort 2 3.6 5 1.9

103 Desmodium nudiflorum

(L.) DC

Naked-flowered

tick-trefoil 2 3.6 5 1.9

104 Fragaria vesca L. Sow-teat

strawberry 2 3.6 4 1.5

105 Phlox divaricata L. Wild blue phlox 2 3.6 4 1.5

106 Oxalis violacea L. Violet wood-

sorrel 2 3.6 3 1.1

107 Agrimonia gryposepala

Wallr. Agrimony 2 3.6 3 1.1

108 Agrimonia sp. Agrimony 2 3.6 2 0.7

109

Cardamine

pensylvanica Muhl. ex

Willd.

Pennsylvania

bittercress 2 3.6 2 0.7

110

Cypripedium

parviflorum Salisb. var.

pubescens (Willd.)

Correll

Yellow lady‘s-

slipper 2 3.6 2 0.7

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

115 Packera aurea (L.)

W.A. Weber & Á. Löve Golden ragwort 2 3.6 2 0.7

116 Clintonia umbellulata

(Michx.) Morong

Speckled wood-

lily 1 1.8 3 1.1

117 Persicaria perfoliata

(L.) H. Gross*

Mile-a-minute

weed 1 1.8 3 1.1

307

118 Cynoglossum

virginianum L. Wild comfrey 1 1.8 2 0.7

119 Goodyera pubescens

(Willd.) R. Br.

Downy

rattlesnake-

plantain

1 1.8 2 0.7

120 Zizia aurea (L.) W.D.J.

Koch

Golden-

alexander 1 1.8 2 0.7

121 Anemone quinquefolia

L. Wood anemone 1 1.8 1 0.4

122 Aplectrum hyemale

(Muhl. ex Willd.) Butt. Puttyroot 1 1.8 1 0.4

123 Arabis canadensis L. Sicklepod 1 1.8 1 0.4

124

Arabis laevigata (Muhl.

ex Willd.) Poir. var.

laevigata

Smooth

rockcress 1 1.8 1 0.4

125 Asclepias exaltata L. Tall milkweed 1 1.8 1 0.4

126 Bidens vulgata Greene Beggar-ticks 1 1.8 1 0.4

127 Campanula americana

L. Tall bellflower 1 1.8 1 0.4

128 Cardamine angustata

O.E. Schulz Toothwort 1 1.8 1 0.4

129

Cardamine bulbosa

(Schreb. ex Muhl.)

Britton, Stearns &

Poggenb.

Bittercress 1 1.8 1 0.4

130 Chelidonium majus L.* Greater

celandine 1 1.8 1 0.4

131 Eurybia macrophylla

(L.) Cass. Bigleaf aster 1 1.8 1 0.4

132 Fallopia convolvulus

(L.) Á. Löve* Black bindweed 1 1.8 1 0.4

133 Lobelia inflata L. Indian-tobacco 1 1.8 1 0.4

134 Lysimachia quadrifolia

L.

Whorled

loosestrife 1 1.8 1 0.4

135 Potentilla canadensis L. Cinquefoil 1 1.8 1 0.4

136 Ranunculus hispidus

Michx. Hairy buttercup 1 1.8 1 0.4

137 Rumex obtusifolius L.* Bitter dock 1 1.8 1 0.4

138 Saxifraga virginiensis

Michx. Early saxifrage 1 1.8 1 0.4

139 Streptopus roseus

Michx. Rose mandarin 1 1.8 1 0.4

140 Thalictrum pubescens

Pursh Tall meadow-rue 1 1.8 1 0.4

141 Tussilago farfara L.* Coltsfoot 1 1.8 1 0.4

308

142

Valerianella

chenopodiifolia (Pursh)

DC

Goose-foot corn-

salad 1 1.8 1 0.4

143

Waldsteinia

fragarioides (Michx.)

Tratt.

Barren-

strawberry 1 1.8 1 0.4


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).

County pH P (lbs/ac) K (lbs/ac) Ca (lbs/ac) Mg

(lbs/ac) O.M. (%) Texture

Butler 4.8 ± 0.1 82 ± 25 175 ± 20 1,096 ±

297 168 ± 38 5.8 ± 0.6 Loam

Cameron 4.9 ± 0.2 115 ± 39 245 ± 57 2,683 ±

1,159 326 ± 114 9.4 ± 4.6 Loam

Cameron 6.0 ± 0.7 70 ± 14 228 ± 77 6,065 ±

1,604 672 ± 257 8.5 ± 3.3

Sandy

clay loam

Centre 5.3 ± 0.4 59 ± 18 270 ± 57 3,026 ±

1,515 268 ± 70 8.1 ± 2.9 Loam

Centre 5.9 ± 0.5 147 ± 49 187 ± 51 7,669 ±

3,132 610 ± 352

14.4 ±

14.3

Loamy

sand

Elk 4.6 ± 0.2 365 ± 219 241 ± 67 2,205 ±

857 183 ± 59 10.8 ± 4.3 Loam

Forest 4.6 ± 0.1 455 ± 181 191 ± 53 706 ± 279 114 ± 45 6.3 ± 1.8 Loam

Jefferson 5.1 ± 0.3 543 ± 291 149 ± 61 2,222 ±

932 206 ± 74 10.4 ± 1.6 Loam

McKean 4.5 ± 0.2 60 ± 18 205 ± 21 1,380 ±

600 182 ± 58 6.4 ± 1.2 Loam

McKean 4.6 ± 0.2 199 ± 130 279 ± 79 2,425 ±

456 250 ± 53 7.3 ± 1.9 Loam

Mercer 5.4 ± 0.6 182 ± 102 204 ± 75 3,282 ±

1,295 400 ± 159 8.7 ± 5.2

Sandy

loam

Warren 5.3 ± 0.5 38 ± 10 194 ± 9 3,278 ±

846 729 ± 247 8.4 ± 3.3

Sandy

clay loam

Warren 5.2 ± 0.4 214 ± 51 364 ± 144 3,483 ±

1,733 365 ± 159 9.2 ± 3.1 Clay loam

Warren 4.5 ± 0.2 258 ± 50 223 ± 89 2,086 ±

1,141 221 ± 104

13.2 ±

10.3 Loam

Combined 5.0 ± 0.6 199 ± 187 225 ± 81 2,972 ±

2,181 335 ± 240 9.1 ± 5.5

* n = 70 for pH, nutrients and organic matter (O.M.); n = 14 for particle size analysis (i.e., texture).

310

Appendix L-2


levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in northeast


County pH P (lbs/ac) K (lbs/ac) Ca

(lbs/ac)

Mg


Bradford 5.1 ± 0.2 45 ± 16 139 ± 27 2,618 ±

1,022 467 ± 134 9.0 ± 3.3 Loam

Lackawanna 5.0 ± 0.3 259 ± 64 391 ± 99 5,070 ±

1,160 469 ± 130 18.2 ± 3.3

Sandy

loam

Luzerne 5.4 ± 0.5 94 ± 45 168 ± 77 2,653 ±

1,793 272 ± 131 11.0 ± 5.1 Clay loam

Sullivan 6.7 ± 0.4 51 ± 19 210 ± 132 11,326 ±

3,800 505 ± 121 19.2 ± 8.8 Clay loam

Sullivan 5.6 ± 0.4 52 ± 7 260 ± 51 8,355 ±

2,493 571 ± 139

22.5 ±

18.2

Sandy

clay loam

Susquehanna 4.6 ± 0.3 209 ± 117 324 ± 108 1,979 ±

665 293 ± 87 12.0 ± 2.4 Loam

Tioga 5.6 ± 0.3 252 ± 46 328 ± 71 6,516 ±

2,508 620 ± 243 14.2 ± 5.6 Loam

Tioga 5.4 ± 0.4 102 ± 46 272 ± 29 5,178 ±

2,234 611 ± 205 9.9 ± 3.8 Loam

Union 5.6 ± 0.4 38 ± 8 266 ± 93 3,287 ±

1,322 438 ± 235 5.9 ± 1.6 Clay loam

Wayne 6.1 ± 0.7 97 ± 66 193 ± 66 7,608 ±

1,765 485 ± 121 19.9 ± 7.8

Sandy

loam

Combined 5.5 ± 0.7 120 ± 96 255 ± 106 5,459 ±

3,438 473 ± 186 14.2 ± 8.6


311

Appendix L-3


levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in southwest


County pH P (lbs/ac) K (lbs/ac) Ca

(lbs/ac)

Mg


Allegheny 4.8 ± 0.3 357 ± 170 196 ± 32 1,534 ±

778 171 ± 87 8.4 ± 3.4 Loam

Allegheny 5.1 ± 0.2 110 ± 29 214 ± 84 1,707 ±

650 199 ± 72 3.9 ± 0.6 Loam

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

Bedford 4.8 ± 0.3 435 ± 148 256 ± 70 3,101 ±

1,639 391 ± 216 7.3 ± 2.6 Loam

Cambria 5.3 ± 0.7 42 ± 9 193 ± 30 4,815 ±

2,219 737 ± 449 9.0 ± 1.4

Sandy

loam

Fayette 4.5 ± 0.2 37 ± 15 158 ± 42 495 ± 140 130 ± 58 5.7 ± 0.4 Loam

Greene 5.1 ± 0.2 67 ± 24 256 ± 72 2,195 ±

1,298 288 ± 95 4.3 ± 1.1 Loam

Greene 5.8 ± 0.5 110 ± 43 342 ± 97 4,863 ±

1,232 456 ± 166 7.9 ± 3.4 Loam

Huntingdon 5.4 ± 0.4 77 ± 39 159 ± 28 2,311 ±

958 256 ± 60 6.6 ± 3.5

Sandy

loam

Huntingdon 7.3 ± 0.4 38 ± 11 318 ± 154 20,593 ±

16,059 774 ± 223 14.0 ± 8.4

Sandy

loam

Indiana 5.2 ± 0.4 718 ± 512 295 ± 105 2,956 ±

1,472 304 ± 124 14.6 ± 8.1

Sandy

loam

Somerset 4.9 ± 0.1 37 ± 6 398 ± 53 1,587 ±

738 236 ± 83 10.6 ± 2.1 Clay loam

Washington 5.3 ± 0.7 48 ± 24 261 ± 140 3,219 ±

2,652 416 ± 323 5.1 ± 1.9 Clay loam

Washington 5.3 ± 0.4 48 ± 8 339 ± 128 2,796 ±

758 288 ± 100 4.5 ± 0.5 Silt loam

Washington 4.7 ± 0.2 30 ± 5 206 ± 60 768 ± 377 143 ± 53 4.2 ± 0.7 Clay loam

Westmoreland 4.8 ± 0.3 31 ± 28 260 ± 120 2,119 ±

1,017 294 ± 96 14.5 ± 2.5

Sandy

loam

Combined 5.1 ± 0.7 135 ± 222 247 ± 104 3,342 ±

5,816 322 ± 242 7.7 ± 4.8


312

Appendix L-4


levels and physical characteristics of soils associated with ginseng in southeast


County pH P (lbs/ac) K (lbs/ac) Ca (lbs/ac) Mg


Berks 5.6 ± 0.3 205 ± 162 236 ± 29 2,652 ±

725 442 ± 101 12.6 ± 3.7

Sandy

loam

Berks 6.1 ± 0.2 64 ± 28 190 ± 25 3,294 ±

371 387 ± 31 4.2 ± 0.5

Sandy

loam

Berks 6.0 ± 0.4 46 ± 17 342 ± 75 5,403 ±

2,139 406 ± 103 9.9 ± 2.1 Loam

Berks 6.3 ± 0.3 129 ± 100 388 ± 75 5,769 ±

1,729 858 ± 193 14.5 ± 7.2

Sandy

loam

Chester 6.0 ± 0.8 35 ± 13 336 ± 200 1,732 ±

772 595 ± 357 5.1 ± 0.8 Loam

Cumberland 5.0 ± 0.2 83 ± 17 241 ± 58 2,004 ±

1,072 307 ± 131 11.5 ± 3.9 Loam

Lancaster 6.5 ± 0.4 36 ± 29 411 ± 44 5,836 ±

1,807

1,246 ±

306 13.0 ± 4.8 Loam

Lancaster 6.3 ± 0.6 21 ± 5 341 ± 209 3,943 ±

3,737 992 ± 944 5.1 ± 2.0 Loam

Lebanon 5.4 ± 0.4 49 ± 19 185 ± 80 1,866 ±

1,081 364 ± 202 7.5 ± 2.0 Loam

Lehigh 6.4 ± 0.1 275 ± 128 381 ± 42 5,086 ±

1,464 611 ± 166 13.6 ± 4.4

Sandy

loam

Mifflin 5.0 ± 0.3 47 ± 14 223 ± 44 1,191 ±

361 226 ± 81 7.2 ± 2.4

Sandy

clay loam

Mifflin 5.2 ± 0.5 133 ± 25 199 ± 69 3,733 ±

2,215 276 ± 101 13.2 ± 6.7

Sandy

loam

Perry 5.2 ± 0.3 376 ± 184 184 ± 46 4,870 ±

1,289 309 ± 86 18.2 ± 7.6

Sandy

loam

Combined 5.7 ± 0.6 118 ± 130 280 ± 116 3,705 ±

2,213 538 ± 416 10.6 ± 5.7

Sandy

loam


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.

CONSERVATION THROUGH CULTIVATION: ECONOMIC, SOCIO ...

Documents

Transcript of CONSERVATION THROUGH CULTIVATION: ECONOMIC, SOCIO ...