Map of the Study Area:
Historical State of the Ecosystem
Before the arrival of Europeans, Native Americans practiced fuelwood cutting and agricultural and village clearing. A single Iroquois village could cover up to 150 acres of land, not including the area cleared for fuelwood and timber. Large expanses of forest would be burned for driving game, increasing visibility, increasing grass seed and berry supplies, etc [i]. However, this activity often actually promoted new undergrowth, sparing larger trees. Additionally, the settlements were often widely dispersed over the land, and the rate at which the Native Americans used the land was balanced by its ability to regenerate. In 1620, just before arrival of the Europeans, an estimated 90-95% of the region was forested [xviii].
A deciduous forest in early Fall in Montgomery County, Maryland (Little Bennett Regional Park, near Frederick County)
Human Impacts on the Ecosystem:
Overall, human impacts on the ecosystem have been severely negative, as seen in the table below. It is only the natural ability of the forests to regenerate that has maintained the global conservation status of the temperate deciduous forests as good. (Note: All ideas presented in the table are expanded upon in the paragraphs to follow)
ACTIVITY
|
IMPACT
|
GOOD/ BAD
|
Native American forest burning and clearing [i]
|
90-95% of the region was left forested and their actions often actually encouraged new growth in forests.
|
Good
|
European forest burning and clearing [xiv]
|
Tree cover in areas that had previously been almost completely forested was reduced by up to 80%.
|
Bad
|
Traffic activity [v]
|
PAH’s enter the water system, degrading the water quality and killing many aquatic species found in the Anacostia River due to their carcinogenic properties.
|
Bad
|
International Trade [xiii] [xvi]
|
New invasive species, such as the emerald ash borer and Northern Snakehead have been introduced and continue to destroy the local ecosystem.
|
Bad
|
Urban Forests [xvii]
|
Created by humans, urban forests have had many positive environmental and social benefits (see table on urban tree benefits).
|
Good
|
Urban sprawl [xxii]
|
The large increase in urban sprawl has caused the destruction of animal habitats and fragmentation of remaining forests.
|
Bad
|
As Europeans began colonizing the Eastern United States, there was a much higher demand for timber, wood, coal, and agricultural land, resulting in increasing levels of deforestation that decimated the local forest habitat. This pattern continued for decades, not ceasing until around the time of the Civil War, by which time many species had vanished as a consequence of this destruction [xii]. Tree cover in areas such as Vermont, which had previously been almost completely forested, was reduced by up to 80%. However, the move away from rural agriculture after the industrial revolution allowed large expanses of old agricultural land to revert back to forests [xiv]. This, combined with the remarkably fast regeneration of temperate deciduous forests, has led to the ultimate prediction that these forests will begin to make a recovery. In fact, many forests have been regenerating at a rate much higher than would be expected through natural recovery [xi]. Thus, despite all the negative impact of human actions, the global conservation status of temperate deciduous forests is usually considered to be rather good [ii].
[vi]
Urbanization has also caused drastic changes in the ecosystem. Here, we will specifically focus on Maryland. In areas with large population and urban sprawl, such as Washington DC, there is a corresponding level of traffic activity and impervious surfaces, which together are responsible for high levels of chemicals, particularly PAH’s (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), in urban runoff. These chemicals are transported by sediments and enter the water, degrading the water quality and killing many aquatic species found in the Anacostia River due to their carcinogenic properties [v]. In fact, the local government has issued longstanding warnings against fishing in the Anacostia River due to the chemicals that continue to be found in fish caught in these areas [xvi].
Many invasive species have also been introduced into Maryland’s ecosystem, such as the Emerald Ash Borer and Northern Snakehead, both native to China. Although this may not have a readily apparent connection to urbanization, these species, like many others, were introduced to the ecosystem through a boom in international trade, most prevalent in the highly urbanized settings [xiii]. Thus, as human technology and innovation brings the world together, it connects species that would never have come into contact, sometimes with devastating results. The emerald ash borer has claimed the lives of nearly 15 million ash trees across North America, including many in Maryland [xiii], and the Northern Snakehead poses a great threat to native fish species in rivers all across the state [xvi].
People have been trying to limit their impact on the environment, however, or at least counteract it. In Washington DC, vast amounts of resources are put into the development and maintenance of an urban forest consisting of a remarkable 1.9 million trees. This urban forest has had many environmental and social benefits, including carbon storage and aesthetics (see table for environmental benefits below). While there is already an impressive 35% tree cover, there is still room for even more improvement. With only 33% of the land used for buildings, roads, and other types of developed features, this leaves 32% of the land with the potential for tree cover [xvii]. Increased efforts in the future could help to provide even more environmental benefit through these urban forests.
Urban Tree Benefits [xvii]
|
Metric tons/year
|
Economic Value ($)
|
Carbon Storage
|
474,000
|
10.8 million
|
Carbon Sequestered
|
14,600
|
334,000
|
Pollution Removed
|
490
|
3.7 million
|
CO Removed
|
23
|
32,000
|
NO2 Removed
|
65
|
645,000
|
O3 Removed
|
196
|
1.9 million
|
SO2 Removed
|
66
|
160,000
|
PM10 Removed
|
140
|
1 million
|
Additionally, many of the trees planted in these urban forests are in fact native to Maryland, including the American Beech, Red Maple, and even Maryland’s state tree, the White Oak. In fact, of the top ten most common trees found in DC’s urban forest, eight are native and an additional one tree specie is native to neighboring Virginia [x]. Through careful planning, the government of DC has been attempting to restore local ecosystems and lessen the damaging impact that has been inflicted on the environment through increased urban sprawl [xix]. 
(Graphic, Native trees are boxed in green, and the one in yellow is native to Virginia [xix]).
Despite this push to repopulate native tree species, the largest threat facing the ecosystem of the northeastern US is one that cannot be readily solved by replanting- fragmentation. Temperate regions provide humans with ample space to live as well as many resources such as timber and good agricultural land, making them one of the prime locations for humans to live [ii]. As urban sprawl and agricultural land begin to dominate the landscape, not only are animal habitats destroyed but barriers are formed between remaining fragments of forest, creating a unique form of isolation. A frequent result of this is a decline in habitat heterogeneity. Since small fragments often lack the diversity of the whole forest, there is often a decline in genetic variation. Additionally, these isolated fragments may not provide the range of habitat a species requires to survive, and consequently, species in these fragments face a much higher threat of extinction [xxii]. With a lower abundance and variation of potential pollinators, many tree species also suffer a sharp decline, even going locally extinct in many fragments [iv]. It is then of the utmost importance to preserve the largest of the remaining forests to prevent further fragmentation and a loss of even more species of both animals and plants that are essential to the ecosystem.
Protected Areas of our Ecosystem:
Deciduous forests that are located in Maryland are protected by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service which aims to restore, manage, and protect Maryland’s trees, forests, and forested ecosystem to sustain its natural resources and connect people to the land [xx]. Two main areas they are protecting are drinking water and preventing erosion. Currently, the northern and western areas of Maryland are supplied with drinking water from surface sources like reservoirs[xx].
Maryland has laws for protecting deciduous forests such as the Sustainable Forestry Act of 2009 to the Forest Conservation Act, Critical Area Law, Nontidal Wetlands Law, sediment and erosion control requirements, and local government comprehensive plan requirements[vii]. Maryland is committed to practice sustainable forest management, and is working to have all state forests certified by third party organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)[viii]. Maryland is also committed to restore Chesapeake Bay through increased riparian forest buffers, forest conservation in priority areas, and meeting urban tree canopy goals.
Maryland forests have been conserved and protected by various public programs such as Program Open Space, the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), the Forest Conservation and Management Agreement Program (FCMA), and the Smart Growth and Rural Legacy Programs. Finally, the report found that Maryland had lost approximately 79,500 acres of forest in the period between 1986 and 1993[xx].
Maryland forests have been conserved and protected by various public programs such as Program Open Space, the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), the Forest Conservation and Management Agreement Program (FCMA), and the Smart Growth and Rural Legacy Programs. Finally, the report found that Maryland had lost approximately 79,500 acres of forest in the period between 1986 and 1993[xx].
Map: This map shows several parks and forests that are in the North East USA region.
Status of the Protected Area:
The forests in Maryland are growing but at the same time they are capturing carbon. Larger tree volumes contribute to carbon sequestration as wood is left standing, but this could be increased with additional forest management[iii]. Carbon in biomass is estimated to have increased by 31% between 2004 and 2008. Maryland has three priorities for managing the nation’s forests as stated in the 2008 Farm Bill which are conserve working forest landscapes, protect forests from harm, and enhance public benefits from trees and forests[iii].
Future Prospects of this Ecosystem:
Throughout the years, the temperate deciduous forest in the northeastern United States has undergone a significant amount of human use. However, it has remained a flourishing ecosystem with a variety of wildlife [xxiii]. There is a lot of tree cover area in the Northeast, but there has been little forest cover loss in the last 15 years [xxi]. This shows that there is a large amount of forest and forest density in the Northeast, and a small amount of depletion. Assuming that this pattern will continue, this indicates that the forest is in a fairly good state for sustainability.
Percent Tree Cover in 2000
Forest Cover Loss from 2000-2014
The biggest threat to the conservation status of the temperate deciduous forest is the conversion of the land undisturbed to land to be used for agriculture and development. Additionally, hardwood is a popular byproduct of this ecosystem, as it is in demand by many people, causing logging to also pose a threat to the status of this forest [ix]. Taking these threats into account, they have the potential to make a negative effect on the temperate deciduous forest but are not extremely immediate or prominent concerns. Therefore, one can draw the conclusion that the future of this biome will continue to remain satisfactory so long as people and the government take the proper measures to resist agricultural development and depletion in the area.
What can be done to improve human impacts?
Thus far, the temperate deciduous forest has been well sustained in the northeastern United States, so the best way to maintain balance between people and this ecosystem is to continue to support the political measures that have been taken to protect the area. The Adirondack Forest Preserve and the creation of the area’s National Forests have helped give the state and federal government ownership of the forests in the Northeast and in order to keep their resources from being depleted. There have also been efforts to convert agricultural land back into forest in this ecosystem, this has helped, but there are still worries about practices on private land that act as a threat to the deciduous forest. The recent advancements in logging equipment have resurfaced this threat and made clearcutting a more prominent concern [xv]. People can help maintain the status of this ecosystem by encouraging regulations on practices such as clearcutting and by supporting the protection of these temperate deciduous forests in the Northeast.
Destruction of Forest Re-Growth
Sources:
[i] Day, Gordon M.. “The Indian as an Ecological Factor in the Northeastern Forest”. Ecology 34.2 (1953): 329–346. Web.
[ii] Gillespie, Thomas. “Earth’s Biomes.” UCLA, Los Angeles. 29 September 2015. Lecture.
[iii] Highfield, Craig. "Welcome to the Woods." Web. 23 Nov. 2015. http://dnr2.maryland.gov/forests/Documents/publications/Welcome_to_Woods_v9.pdf.
[iv] Honnay, Olivier, Hans Jacquemyn, Beatrijs Bossuyt, and Martin Hermy. "Forest Fragmentation Effects on Patch Occupancy and Population Viability of Herbaceous Plant Species." New Phytologist 166.3 (2005): 723-36. Web.
[v] Hwang, Hyun-Min, and Gregory D. Foster. "Characterization of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Urban Stormwater Runoff Flowing into the Tidal Anacostia River, Washington, DC, USA." Environmental Pollution140.3 (2006): 416-26. Web.
[vi] Keddy, Paul A., and Chris G. Drummond. “Ecological Properties for the Evaluation, Management, and Restoration of Temperate Deciduous Forest Ecosystems”. Ecological Applications 6.3 (1996): 748–762. Web.
[vii]Kohen, S. "MARYLAND FOREST RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 2010." Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
[viii] "List of Parks Located in Maryland." List of Parks Located in Maryland. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
[ix] Marietta College, “The Temperate Deciduous Forest.”Marietta. n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
[x] "Maryland at a Glace." Maryland Trees. Maryland State Archives, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2015. <http://msa.maryland.gov>.
[xi] McMahon, S. M., G. G. Parker, and D. R. Miller. "Evidence for a Recent Increase in Forest Growth." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107.8 (2010): 3611-615. Web.
[xii] Oliver, Mark B. "ONE New England - The Connecticut Ecosystem." The Connecticut Ecosystem. ONE New England, 27 Oct. 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.onenewengland.com>.
[xiii] Poland, Therese M., and Deborah G. McCullough. "Emerald ash borer: invasion of the urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resource." Journal of Forestry 104.3 (2006): 118-124.
[xiv] Reich, P.B. and Frelich, L. (2002) Temperate deciduous forests. In: Munn, T. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
[xv] Society of American Foresters, "United States Northeast." Encyclopedia of Forestry. n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.
[xvi] United States of America. Department of Energy and Environment. District of Columbia. Fishing in the District. Department of Energy and Environment, 2015. Web. 15 Nov. 2015. <http://doee.dc.gov>.
[xvii] United States of America. Government of District of Columbia. Urban Forestry Administration. District of Columbia Assessment of Urban Forest Resources and Strategy. Washington D.C.: n.p., 2010. Print.
[xviii] United States of America. US Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.Northeastern Forest Regeneration Handbook. By Jeffrey S. Ward, Thomas E. Worthley, Peter J. Smallidge, and Karen P. Bennett. Newtown Square: USDA Forest Service, 2006. Print.
[xix] United States of America. USDA Forest Service. District of Columbia.Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values. By David J. Nowak, Robert E. Hoehn, Daniel E. Crane, Jack C. Stevens, and Jeffrey T. Walton. Newtown Square: USDA Forest Service, 2006. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.
[xx] United States. National Park Service. "Maryland (U.S. National Park Service)." National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
[xxi] University of Maryland Department of Geographical Sciences, “Global Forest Change, Google Crisis Map.”Earth Engine Partners. n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
[xxii] Wilcove, David S., Charles H. McLellan, and Andrew P. Dobson. "Habitat Fragmentation in the Temperate Zone." Conservation Biology 6 (1986): 237-56. Print.
[xxiii] Wild Screen Arkive, “Eastern Deciduous Forest.”Arkive. n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
