Sycamore Tree Health, Dispersal, and Soil
Composition in Quarry Bottom Flood Zones
Zachary R. Young, Sarah Minor, Hunter Schouweiler

Introduction
 Sycamore Trees (Platanus occidentalis)
 Frequently found in riparian and wetland areas.
 Moderately tolerant of flooding
 Growth standards and average age
 Divided at the ground forming secondary trunks
 Flaking is tree exfoliating, giving way to growth
 Seed dispersal
 Biotic and abiotic factors
Hypothesis
1) Flooding will have a negative effect on sycamore tree health.
2) Sycamore trees in the flood zone will have the lowest average
health score due to greater frequency of anoxic conditions.
3) Sycamore trees on medium or large rock piles will have higher
health scores than those on quarry bottom or flood zone mud
because those trees on rock piles will have higher nutrient
availability due to soil accumulation in rock pile
Methods
 Designated 3 areas (area 1, 2, & 3) in which to sample sycamore trees
 Collected data on all sycamore trees taller than 2m
 Measurements:
 Height of tree
 Location of the tree: in, near, or far from flood zone
 Type of soil: floodplain mud, quarry bottom; small, medium or large
rock pile, and base of rock pile
 Health score of tree
 Each member of the group gave their health score independent of the
other group members’ scores
 Numbered each tree
Locations
1
2
3
Location Definitions
 In the flood zone – at one point completely surrounded by
water
 We determined whether an area had been flooded at one point
by looking for biofilm or recognizing other characteristics of
flooding, such as depressed and dried out mud areas.
 Near flood zone- within 3 to 4m of the floodplain or an elevated
area, such as a rock pile, where some but not all sides of the
elevated area are touching an area that at one point had been
flooded
 Far from flood zone – more than 3 to 4m from floodplain edge
and no sign of flooding characteristics in immediate area
Health Index
 Health Index Criteria:
 0 = cannot have any foliage, tree looks dried or withered, trunk
may be deformed, no flaking bark
 1 = low/minimal foliage, trunk may be deformed, no flaking bark
 2 = about half of tree is covered in foliage, no misshapen trunk,
little to no flaking bark
 3 = about three-quarters of tree is covered in foliage, good quality
leaves and healthy trunk, flaking bark
 4 = near full foliage with good quality and healthy leaves and trunk,
flaking bark
Description and Observation of Sampling
Areas
 Area 1
 Area 1 was enclosed by a Nature Park trail, a large hill, and the
quarry pond.
 The flood zone in this area was distinct – pronounced by a lip
that formed the edge of the floodplain. Where there was not a
lip, there was a distinct contrast in plant life that designated the
edge of the flood zone.
 There were no other flood zone habitats past this initial
floodplain edge.
Description and Observation of Sampling
Areas
 Area 2
 This area was enclosed by the other side of the large hill, the
continuation of the Nature Park trail, an area filled with cattails
that extends from the far end of the quarry pond, and the
quarry pond.
 This area had a floodplain that was different from area 1. It had
many channels and large transects that extended from the
initial floodplain edge into the back of this area. These areas
flooded less regularly.
Description and Observation of Sampling
Areas
 Area 3
 This area was unique from the other two areas
 Ephemeral pond that is located in the southeast corner of the quarry
bottom, right against the quarry wall
 We defined the boundaries of this area as coming out from the pond
and extending to a series of rock piles which made the back edge of
the area and area of cattails that enclosed the remaining side of the
sampling area that was not enclosed by the quarry wall.
 The flood plain was again more dynamic than area 1, but less abstract
than area 2. There were some areas were watered had once been
pooled from flooding outside the initial flood plain.
Results
Least Squares Means For Health Scores
Area
1
2
3
RE/ flood
Far
In
Near
Area*RE/ flood
1) Far
1) In
1) Near
2) Far
2) In
2) Near
3) Far
3) In
3) Near
Mean
1.869
1.9134
1.8136
SE Mean
0.2186
0.1704
0.1712
1.7629
1.3752
2.4579
0.1666
0.1958
0.1996
1.7966
0.8835
2.927
2.0172
1.8521
1.871
1.475
1.3901
2.5756
0.1809
0.4697
0.4201
0.3009
0.2058
0.3574
0.355
0.2857
0.2351
Comparison of Health Scores
3.5
Health Score
3
2.5
Far
2
In
1.5
Near
1
0.5
0
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Analysis of Variance for Health Score,
Using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source
Height (m)
Area
RE/ Flood
Area * RE/Flood
Error
Total
DF
1
2
2
4
98
107
Seq SS
9.811
0.2406
12.8711
8.1887
86.4554
117.5669
Adj SS
8.519
0.1492
13.5892
8.1887
86.4554
Adj MS
8.519
0.0746
6.7946
2.0472
0.8822
F
9.66
0.08
7.7
2.32
P
0.002
0.919
0.001
0.062
Pairwise Comparisons
RE/Flood = Far subtracted from:
RE/Flood
In
Near
Difference of Means SE of Difference T-Value
-0.3877
0.2581
-1.502
0.695
0.2593
2.68
RE/Flood = In subtracted from:
RE/Flood
Near
Difference of Means SE of Difference T-Value Adjusted P-Value
1.083
0.2802
3.864
0.0006
Adjusted P-Value
0.2945
0.0233
Least Squares Means For Health Score
Area
1
2
3
Mean
1.865
2.087
2.282
SE Mean
0.2498
0.304
0.3031
Sub
Base of Large or Medium Rockpile
Flood Zone Mud
On Large Rockpile
On Medium or Small Rockpile
Quarry Bottom
2.006
1.427
2.374
2.537
2.044
0.2476
0.7888
0.402
0.4044
0.1914
Analysis of Variance for Health Score,
Using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source
Height
Area
Sub
Error
Total
Term
Constant
Height
DF
1
2
4
64
71
Seq SS
8.391
1.266
2.663
73.456
85.776
Coef
1.3874
0.1841
Adj SS
6.424
1.938
2.663
73.456
SE Coef
0.3849
0.07782
Adj MS
6.424
0.969
0.666
1.148
F
5.6
0.84
0.58
T
3.6
2.37
P
0.021
0.435
0.678
P
0.001
0.021
Discusion
Summary of Results
 “Near” trees performed the best in relation to health score.
 “In” trees performed the worst as shown by flood zone mud
health scores.
 Sycamores on rock piles, regardless of location, had the highest
health scores
 The effect of flood treatment on health score was almost
significant over all areas. This was probably due to the data
from area 2, which had zones that were less clearly defined due
to minor discrepancies of relative watershed height.
 Height was significantly related to health score.
Discussion
Variation between In, Near, Far
 Trees that were labeled “In” had the lowest health scores:
 Anoxic soil conditions
 Decreased photosynthesis due to stomata closure and decreased
macronutrients (N,P,K)
 Flooding causes growth reduction in roots more than shoots. This leads
to trees being less drought tolerant.
 Increased sedimentation leads to a change in the root and soil water
potentials and poor macroinvertebrate post-flood decomposition
 Trees labeled “Near” had the highest health scores:
 Moderately flood tolerant
 Same negative effects for “In” and “Far” sycamores most likely generate
positive effects for “Near” trees
 Sycamores thrive in riparian zone habitats
 Sycamore trees that were on rock piles in the “In” location are on the
same plain as near or far trees, avoiding the poor flooding conditions
Works Cited
1. Jones, Robert H., Rebecca R. Sharitz, and Kenneth W. McLeod.
"Effects of Flooding and Root Competition on Growth of Shaded
Bottomland Hardwood Seedlings." American Midland
Nationalist 121.1 (1989): 165-175. Print.
2. Gregory, Stanley V., Frederick J. Swanson, W. Arthur McKee, and
Kenneth W. Cummins. "An Ecosystem Perspective on Riparian
Zones." BioScience 41.8 (1991): 540-551. Print.
3. Kozlowski, T. T. "Plant Responses to Flooding of Soil." BioScience
34.3: 162-67. Web.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1309751