Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5216

Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation 

Gradients in Remnant and 

Constructed Riparian Wetlands in 

West-Central Missouri, 2001–04

By David C. Heimann1and Paige A. Mettler-Cherry2

1

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Discipline, Lee’s Summit, Missouri

2

Lindenwood University, Department of Biological Sciences, St. Charles, Missouri

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the

Missouri Department of Conservation
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners

to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation: 

Heimann, D.C., and Mettler-Cherry, P.A., 2004, Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed

Riparian Wetlands in West-Central Missouri, 2001–04: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-

5216, 160 p.
iii

CONTENTS

Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Description of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Land-Use History of Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Surface-Water Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Ground-Water Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Soil Moisture, Texture, and Organic Matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Bottomland Forest in Remnant Wetland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Reforestation and Colonization in Constructed Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Data Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Hydrologic and Soils Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Remnant Bottomland Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Reforestation Plots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Natural Colonization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Hydrologic Gradients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Soil Gradients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Soil Moisture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Spatial Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Temporal Variability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Comparison of Mounded and Non-Mounded Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Physical Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Vegetation Gradients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Bottomland Forest in a Remnant Wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Ground-Layer Flora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Understory Flora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Overstory Flora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Reforestation Plots in Constructed Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Unit 3 Reforestation Plots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Unit 4 Reforestation Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Natural Colonization in Constructed Wetland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Relations Between Hydrology, Soils, and Vegetation Gradients in Four Rivers Conservation Area 

Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Primary Factors Affecting Vegetation Distribution in Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Using and Acquiring Hydrologic and Soils Data For Developing Revegetation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
iv

Figures

1. Map showing Four Rivers Conservation Area and vicinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2. Photographs showing historic (1939–1997) change in vegetation in the Horton Bottoms 

Natural Area in Units 1 and 3 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

3–5. Maps showing:

 3. Unit 1 of the Four Rivers Conservation Area and monitoring locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

 4. Unit 3 of the Four Rivers Conservation Area and monitoring locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

 5. Unit 4 of the Four Rivers Conservation Area and monitoring locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6–12. Graphs showing:

6. Relation between selected concurrent annual peak stages and differentials

between peak stages for the Marmaton River and the Little Osage River 

gaging stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

7. Relation between estimated and observed Marmaton River at Horton Bottoms annual

peak stages (1949–2003) and elevations of selected estimated instantaneous peak

recurrence interval stages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

8. Ground-water level below ground surface and ground-water elevation data for Unit 1

monitoring wells at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, 2001–03. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

9. Ground surface and selected ground-water elevation transects across Unit 1 

(Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

10. Ground-water level below ground surface and ground-water elevation data for Unit 3 

monitoring wells at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, 2001–03. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

11. Ground surface and selected ground-water elevation transects across Unit 3 from 

U3W1 to U3W2 and U3W3 to U3W2 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

12. Ground-water level below ground surface and ground-water elevation data for Unit 4 

monitoring wells at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, 2001–03. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

13. Boxplots showing soil moisture summary statistics by depth for monitoring sites in Units 1, 3, 

and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservations Area, 2001–03. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

14–20. Graphs showing:

14. Temporal variability in soil-moisture profiles in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four 

Rivers Conservation Area during the 2001–03 growing seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

15. Temporal variability in soil-moisture profiles in Unit 3 at the Four Rivers Conservation 

Area during the 2001–03 growing seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

16. Temporal variability in soil-moisture profiles in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation 

Area during the 2001–03 growing seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

17. Temporal variability in mean pan evaporation data from twice-monthly observations 

in Unit 1 (forested) and Unit 4 (open) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area during the 

2001–03 growing seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

18. Comparisons of soil moisture values at mounded and adjacent non-mounded tree 

locations in Unit 3 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, 2001–03. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

19. Normalized site elevations and landform type against clay, sand, silt, and organic 

matter content in surface (0–0.30 meter) soil samples from Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) 

at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

20. Normalized elevation and landform type against estimated wilting point, field capacity,

available water, saturation, and saturation hydraulic conductivity values in surface

(0–0.30 meter) soil samples from Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers

Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

21. Boxplots showing distributions of soil texture characteristics by landform in surface (0–0.30 

meter) samples from Unit 1(Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
v

22. Boxplots showing distributions of soil texture characteristics by depth at natural levee sites 

in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

23–49. Graphs showing:

23. Growth form of ground layer species for each landform type sampled in Unit 1 

(Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

24. Native and introduced ground layer species for each landform type sampled in

Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

25. Wetland indicator status of ground layer species for each landform type sampled 

in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

26. Dominant families determined as percent of total ground layer species cover for each 

landform type sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation

Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

27. Mean richness and diversity of ground layer vegetation for each landform type 

sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

28. Detrended correspondence analysis of ground layer vegetation sampled in Unit 1 

(Horton Bottoms) and ground layer vegetation separating landform type and year 

sampled in Unit 1 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

29. Growth form of understory species for each landform type sampled in Unit 1 (Horton 

Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

30. Wetland indicator status of understory species in each landform type sampled in Unit 1 

(Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

31. Dominant understory families determined as percentage of total basal area for each 

landform type sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation 

Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

32. Mean richness and species diversity of understory vegetation sampled in each landform 

type in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

33. Detrended correspondence analysis of understory vegetation and understory species 

scores resulting from ordination of plots sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four 

Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

34. Wetland indicator status of overstory species for each landform type sampled in Unit 1 

(Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

 35. Dominant overstory families determined as percentage of total basal area for each 

landform type sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation

Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

36. Mean richness and species diversity of overstory vegetation sampled in each landform 

type in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

37. Detrended correspondence analysis of overstory vegetation for each landform type 

and species scores of overstory vegetation resulting from ordination of plots 

sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

38. Mean canopy density for each landform type sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at 

the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

39. Size class distribution of dominant tree species of the natural levee landform type in 

Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, as determined by 

importance value (IV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

40. Size class distribution of dominant tree species of the flood plain landform type in 

Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, as determined by 

importance value (IV). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

41. Size class distribution of dominant tree species of the alluvial depression landform type 

in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area as determined by 

importance value (IV). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
vi

42. Size class distribution of dominant tree species of the backwater swamp landform type 

in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, as determined by 

importance value (IV). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

43. Mean percentage of change in diameter and height of bare root seedlings of Carya 

illinoiensis (pecan) and Quercus palustris (pin oak) at well 2 in Unit 3 at the 

Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

44. Percentage of change in diameter and height of direct seed seedlings associated with 

wells 1 and 3 in Unit 3 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

45. Mean percentage of change in diameter and height of root production method trees

in Unit 3 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

46. Mean richness, diversity, and evenness by elevation class for colonized vegetation 

sampled in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

47. Total species and cover for introduced and native species in each elevation class 

sampled in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

48. Percentage of total cover for each wetland indicator species type for each elevation 

class sampled in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

49. Detrended correspondence analysis ordination of all vegetation quadrats in Unit 4 

at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Tables

1. Description of landform definitions used in study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Observation well characteristics in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . 15

3. Log descriptions for wells in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4. Soil moisture tube depths and elevation characteristics of sampling tubes installed in 

Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5. Summary of soil moisture sampling dates and locations in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four 

Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

6. Vegetation plot characteristics in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation 

Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7. Location and elevation information for the Unit 4 vegetation transects at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

8. Summary of flooding and ponding depth and duration in Unit 1 at the Four Rivers Conservation 

Area, April 2001 through November 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

9. Summary of inundation and ponding depth and duration in Unit 3 at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area, April 2001 through November 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

10. Summary of inundation and ponding depth and duration in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area, April 2001 through November 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

11. Estimated instantaneous peak recurrence interval discharges and/or stages at the Marmaton 

River near Nevada, Missouri, Little Osage River at Horton, Missouri, and Marmaton River 

at Horton Bottoms, Missouri, locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

12. Summary of seasonal water-level depths and elevations at observation wells in Units 1, 

3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, 2001–03. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at 

the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

14. Measured ponded infiltration rates for selected Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) locations at the 

Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

15. Species master list for ground layer, understory, and overstory species sampled in Unit 1 

(Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area in 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
vii

16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation 

Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

17. Basal area for understory species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

18. Basal area for overstory species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

19. Ground layer families by landform type in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

20. Comparison of Sorensen’s Coefficient of Community Similarity by landform type for ground

layer vegetation in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

21. Ground layer species unique to each landform type and their wetland indicator status for 

vegetation sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

22. Pearson product moment correlations of environmental variables to ground layer 

Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) axis scores for vegetation sampled in 

Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

23. Comparison of Sorensen’s Coefficient of Community Similarity by landform type for 

understory vegetation in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation 

Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

24. Understory species unique to each landform type and their wetland indicator status for 

vegetation sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

25. Pearson product moment correlations of environmental variables to understory Detrended

Correspondence Analysis (DCA) axis scores for vegetation sampled in Unit 1 (Horton

Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

26. Flood tolerance of understory woody species for each landform type in Unit 1 (Horton 

Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

27. Comparison of Sorensen’s Coefficient of Community Similarity by landform type for 

overstory vegetation sampled in Unit 1(Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

28. Flood tolerance of overstory woody species by landform type in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) 

at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

29. Pearson product moment correlations of environmental variables to overstory Detrended 

Correspondence Analyses (DCA) axis scores for vegetation sampled in Unit 1 (Horton 

Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

30. Age and circumference of selected canopy (tree numbers 1–3) and sub-canopy (tree

numbers >3) sampled trees, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

31. Characteristics of overstory and understory trees sampled in the natural levee vegetation 

plots in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

32. Characteristics of overstory and understory trees sampled in the flood plain vegetation plots 

in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

33. Characteristics of overstory and understory trees sampled in the alluvial depression 

vegetation plots in Unit 1(Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

34. Characteristics of overstory and understory trees sampled in the backwater swamp vegetation 

plots in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

35. Mortality of bare root, direct seed, and root production method (RPM®) seedlings planted 

in Unit 3, Four Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

36. Mean diameter of bare root, direct seed, and root production method (RPM®) seedlings 

planted in Unit 3, Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

37. Mean height of bare root, direct seed, and root production method (RPM®) seedlings 

planted in Unit 3, Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
viii

38. Comparison of survival between tree species and production types for Unit 4 tree plots, at 

the Four Rivers Conservation Area, using results of 2x2 contingency table from chi-square 

analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

39. Mean diameter and mean height of bare root and root production method (RPM®) seedlings 

planted in Unit 4, Four Rivers Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

40. Elevation range of colonized vegetation quadrat groupings sampled in Unit 4 at the Four 

Rivers Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

41. Species master list for vegetation sampled in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area 

in 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
ix

Conversion Factors and Datum 

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft)

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi) 

Area

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

square kilometer (km2) 247.1 acre

square centimeter (cm ) 0.001076 square foot (ft ) 2 2

square decimeter (dm ) 0.1076 square foot (ft ) 2 2

square meter (m2

) 10.76 square foot (ft2)

square centimeter (cm2) 0.1550 square inch (in2)

hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mi2)

square kilometer (km ) 0.3861 square mile (mi ) 2 2

Volume

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s)

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

kilogram (kg) 2.205 pound avoirdupois (lb)

Pressure

Kilopascal (kPa) 0.01 bar

Hydraulic conductivity

meter per day (m/d) 3.281 foot per day (ft/d)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F = (1.8 x °C) + 32

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the “North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88)”.

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the “North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 

83)”.

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant 

and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central 

Missouri, 2001–04

By David C. Heimanna and Paige A. Mettler-Cherryb 

Abstract 

A study was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in 

cooperation with the Missouri Department of Conservation at 

the Four Rivers Conservation Area (west-central Missouri), 

between January 2001 and March 2004, to examine the relations between environmental factors (hydrology, soils, elevation, and landform type) and the spatial distribution of vegetation in remnant and constructed riparian wetlands. Vegetation 

characterization included species composition of ground, 

understory, and overstory layers in selected landforms of a remnant bottomland hardwood ecosystem, monitoring survival and 

growth of reforestation plots in leveed and partially leveed constructed wetlands, and determining gradients in colonization of 

herbaceous vegetation in a constructed wetland. 

Similar environmental factors accounted for variation in 

the distribution of ground, understory, and overstory vegetation 

in the remnant bottomland forest plots. The primary measured 

determining factors in the distribution of vegetation in the 

ground layer were elevation, soil texture (clay and silt content), 

flooding inundation duration, and ponding duration, while the 

distribution of vegetation in the understory layer was described 

by elevation, soil texture (clay, silt, and sand content), total 

flooding and ponding inundation duration, and distance from 

the Marmaton or Little Osage River. The primary measured 

determining factors in the distribution of overstory vegetation 

in Unit 1 were elevation, soil texture (clay, silt, and sand content), total flooding and ponding inundation duration, ponding 

duration, and to some extent, flooding inundation duration. 

Overall, the composition and structure of the remnant bottomland forest is indicative of a healthy, relatively undisturbed 

flood plain forest. Dominant species have a distribution of individuals that shows regeneration of these species with significant 

recruitment in the smaller size classes. The bottomland forest is 

an area whose overall hydrology has not been significantly 

altered; however, portions of the area have suffered from hydroa

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Discipline, Lee’s Summit, Missouri

bLindenwood University, Department of Biological Sciences, St. Charles, 

Missouri 

logic alteration by a drainage ditch that is resulting in the displacement of swamp and marsh species by colonizing shrub and 

tree species. This area likely will continue to develop into an 

immature flood plain forest under the current (2004) hydrologic 

regime. 

Reforestation plots in constructed wetlands consisted of 

sampling survival and growth of multiple tree species (Quercus 

palustris, pin oak; Carya illinoiensis, pecan) established under 

several production methods and planted at multiple elevations. 

Comparison of survival between tree species and production 

types showed no significant differences for all comparisons. 

Survival was high for both species and all production types, 

with the highest mortality seen in the mounded root production 

method (RPM®)c Quercus palustris (pin oak, 6.9 percent), 

while direct seeded Quercus palustris at middle elevation and 

bare root Quercus palustris seedlings at the low elevation plots 

had 100 percent survival. Measures of growth (diameter and 

height) were assessed among species, production types, and elevation by analyzing relative growth. The greatest rate of tree 

diameter (72.3 percent) and height (65.3 percent) growth was 

observed for direct seeded Quercus palustris trees planted at a 

middle elevation site. 

Natural colonized vegetation data were collected at multiple elevations within an abandoned cropland area of a constructed wetland. The primary measured determining factors in 

the distribution of herbaceous vegetation in this area were elevation, ponding duration, and soil texture. Richness, evenness, 

and diversity were all significantly greater in the highest elevation plots as a result of more recent disturbance in this area. 

While flood frequency and duration define the delivery 

mechanism for inundation on the flood plain, it is the duration 

of ponding and amount of “topographic capture” of these floodwaters in fluvial landforms that largely determines the survivability and distribution of tree species in both remnant and constructed wetlands. Ponding, flooding, ground-water levels, and 

precipitation all accounted for saturated conditions in the upper 

soil profiles in the Four Rivers Conservation Area monitoring 

sites. Of these processes, ponding and flooding were the primary factors accounting for soil saturation conditions. The 

c

Root production method (RPM®) is a registered trademark of Forrest Keeling Nursery, Elsberry, Missouri, which reserves the rights to use this name. 
2 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

identification of landform features in undisturbed settings, 

therefore, can be an important aide in predicting the sustainable 

spatial distribution of various plant species in riparian revegetation projects. 

Introduction 

Riparian habitat in Missouri has undergone dramatic 

changes since European settlement. The removal of native vegetation and modifications to the hydrology through drainage 

and levees has nearly eliminated once-common bottomland 

hardwood forests, wet prairies, shrub swamps, and freshwater 

marshes in the state (Nelson, 1985). The isolation of the flood 

plain from the river through levees or a modified flow regime 

results not only in hydrologic isolation, but also the loss of geomorphic processes responsible for the development and maintenance of the flood plain landform features and topographic gradients. These hydrologic and topographic gradients are an 

important component in the diversity of habitat and vegetation 

distribution patterns and abundance (Hupp and Osterkamp, 

1985; Sparks, 1992; Bendix and Hupp, 2000; Bledsoe and 

Shear, 2000; Lyon and Sagers, 2002; Nilsson and Svedmark, 

2002). A modification of the frequency, duration, or timing of 

flows can result in limiting natural populations of both terrestrial and aquatic species that are adapted to the natural flow 

regime (Poff and others, 1997). A change in the timing of peak 

flows, for instance, can lead to a reduction or limitation of 

native plant communities and the establishment of invasive species that are more adapted to the modified conditions. 

Bottomland forest, (including mesic, wet-mesic, and wet 

bottomland forests) once occupied nearly all of the flood plains 

of Missouri’s large rivers, or “more than 2.5 million acres” 

(Nelson 1985). Remaining bottomland hardwood forests represent less than 1 percent of the state’s forested lands (Missouri 

Department of Conservation, 2004a). Bottomland forests have 

been shown to provide vegetation diversity (Brinson, 1990), 

travel corridors and habitat for wildlife (Ohmart and Anderson, 

1986; Murray and Stauffer, 1995; Perkins and others, 2003), 

improved water quality (Lowrance and others, 1984; Peterjohn 

and Correll, 1984, 1986), sediment retention (Schlosser and 

Karr, 1981; Kleiss, 1996; Heimann and Roell, 2000), and recreation opportunities. 

The restoration of bottomland forests, wetlands, or riparian 

habitat is listed in the 10-year management priorities for all 

Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) Regions (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2004b). Revegetation 

efforts currently (2004) are being undertaken by the MDC and 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service to reforest bottomland forest [including hard-mast species such as Quercus 

palustris (pin oak), Carya illinoiensis (pecan), and Quercus 

macrocarpa (bur oak)], on newly acquired cleared lands, and to 

expand existing forested stream buffer areas. Reforestation also 

is a management tool for areas subjected to timber harvest, 

flooding, wind, or fire damage. Plantings can speed the reforestation of a diverse bottomland hardwood forest and provide 

greater diversity of food and cover for wildlife sooner than natural revegetation (Stanturf and others, 2001; Grossman and others, 2003; Kruse and Groninger, 2003). 

An important factor in the success and character of reforestation and natural revegetation efforts is the hydrologic conditions at planting and during growth (Hughes and others, 2001; 

Battaglia and others, 2002; Patterson and Adams, 2003). The 

timing and duration of soil saturation and flooding in riparian 

areas often are the primary factors determining species composition and growth rates (Broadfoot, 1967; Teskey and Hinckley, 

1977a, 1977b; Kozlowski, 1984a, 2002). The primary hydrologic processes in the riparian zone, and bottomland forests 

within them, are the flow regime of the river and the interactions 

of the river with the alluvial aquifer. Poff and others (1997) state 

that the duration, magnitude, frequency, timing, and rate of 

change of flow in rivers are the five critical components of flow 

that regulate ecological processes in riparian systems. Others 

specify that it is the rise and fall of floodwater across connected 

flood plains, or a ‘flood pulse’, that is responsible for community establishment and development in river ecosystems 

(Menges and Waller, 1983; Junk and Howard-Williams, 1984; 

Junk and others, 1989; Sparks and others, 1990; Bayley, 1991, 

1995; Sparks, 1992, 1995; Middleton, 1999). Species that have 

evolved in synchrony with repetitive events in ecosystems, such 

as the flood pulses of rivers, become dependent on these events 

as part of the natural system (Vogl, 1980). The flood pulse creates a gradient of moisture, light, and nutrients with conditions 

that range from terrestrial to aquatic habitats (Junk and others, 

1989). 

The hydrologic conditions in riparian areas are particularly 

dynamic because saturated soils can result from a combination 

of flood inundation, high ground-water levels, and/or precipitation and ponding caused by poor surface drainage. The effect of 

these water sources can vary overshort distances and with small 

changes in elevation on relatively flat riparian flood plains 

resulting in greater ecological heterogeneity. Species composition, structure, and detritus, in turn, have a large effect on the 

reproductive, habitat, and energy value of riparian areas to fish 

and wildlife (Naiman and Decamps, 1997). With the exception 

of selected sections of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, very 

little is known about the hydrology of riparian areas of Missouri 

or the correlation of riparian hydrology and soils with vegetation distribution and successful reforestation. 

A study was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) in cooperation with the MDC to correlate environmental conditions with the spatial distribution of vegetation in remnant and constructed riparian areas of selected Marmaton and 

Little Osage River reaches in west-central Missouri. Specific 

objectives were to correlate hydrologic and soil gradients with 

the spatial distribution of riparian vegetation in remnant bottomland forest and naturally colonized riparian areas; to correlate hydrologic and soil gradients with the growth and survival 

of reforested riparian areas; to identify the primary hydrologic 

(soil saturation) and soil factors that affect the distribution of 
 3 

vegetation in the study area, and to provide methods for determining how those factors are spatially distributed. 

Purpose and Scope 

The purpose of this report is to characterize and relate 

hydrologic, soil, and vegetation gradients in remnant and constructed riparian wetlands in west-central Missouri from April 

2001 to March 2004. Hydrologic data were collected at the Four 

Rivers Conservation Area (hereafter referred to as the FRCA) 

primarily in the April through October growing season of each 

sample year and included soil moisture profiles, ground-water 

levels, surface pool inundation depth and duration, and river 

stage. Soil characteristics, including texture and organic matter, 

were collected and used to estimate hydraulic properties. Site 

elevations, evaporation, precipitation, and light availability 

(canopy density) also were obtained during this period. Vegetation data, including information on growth of planted trees in 

tree plots, natural colonization of ground flora in a converted 

cropland area, and the distribution of ground flora, understory, 

and overstory species in a mature, remnant bottomland forest 

area were collected between January 2001 and March 2004. The 

major environmental factors determining vegetation distribution in the mature bottomland hardwood forest were identified, 

characteristics of colonizing vegetation in a converted cropland 

area were documented by elevation class, and comparisons 

were made between the success and growth of multiple reforestation techniques. 

Description of Study Area 

The study was conducted at the FRCA, Vernon and Bates 

County, Missouri (fig. 1). The FRCA is owned and managed by 

the MDC and currently (2004) consists of 5,557 ha (hectares) of 

riparian flood plain including more than 33.8 km (kilometers) of 

river frontage along the Little Osage and Marmaton Rivers. 

Within the FRCA are four management units (Units 1, 2, 3, and 

4; fig. 1) that receive various degrees of flood protection and 

management intervention. Monitoring sites were established in 

Units 1, 3, and 4 of the FRCA. Units 1 (north of the Little Osage 

River) and 3 are leveed and water levels are regulated. Unit 1, 

south of the Little Osage River and known as Horton Bottoms, 

is unleveed; therefore, water levels and flooding are uncontrolled, so there exists a natural hydrologic regime. Unit 4 was 

leveed at one time, but the levees have been breached at various 

locations and no longer prevent flooding. Unit 4 has a control 

gate that allows floodwaters to enter the unit, but the gate also 

can control outflows; therefore, pool levels can be controlled to 

suit management needs. Pools in Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are managed primarily for migratory waterbirds. The water levels in 

selected pools are increased in the fall before migration, climatic and river conditions permitting, and minimum target 

water levels are maintained through the summer and fall in 

selected pools in each managed unit. 

Introduction

Most historic annual peaks at the Marmaton River near 

Marmaton, Kansas, (USGS gaging station number 06917380) 

and Little Osage River at Fulton, Kansas, (USGS gaging station 

number 06917000) basins have occurred in May or June 

although annual peaks have been measured in all months (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2004a). The lowest mean monthly flows at 

these stations have occurred in August followed by January and 

December (U.S. Geological Survey, 2004b). 

The 1971 to 2000 average annual precipitation at Butler, 

Missouri, located approximately 20 mi (miles) north of the 

FRCA was 107 cm (centimeters), and the average annual precipitation at Nevada, Missouri, located 10 mi south of the 

FRCA was 114 cm (National Climatic Data Center, 2002). May 

and June normally are the wettest months of the year with average precipitation amounts of 12.5 and 13.7 cm at Butler and 

13.4 and 14.3 cm at Nevada. 

Soils in the FRCA are Mollisols, generally classified in the 

Osage soil series, and consist of silty clays of low permeability, 

high shrinking and swelling potential, and high organic matter 

content (Preston, 1977). The natural fertility is high, but the 

wetness caused by ponding and flooding limit the use of the 

soils for farming (Preston, 1977). 

Land-Use History of Four Rivers Conservation Area 

The FRCA originally was established in 1982, but nearly 

2,833 ha (corresponding to Units 3 and 4) of former cropland 

were added as recently as 1999. The majority of the FRCA was 

formerly cropland that has been converted into managed wetland units although the Horton Bottoms includes approximately 

890 ha of mature bottomland timber. 

The lower-elevation interior of the Horton Bottoms area 

consists of wet prairie, marsh, and shrub swamp vegetation 

communities, which grade to bottomland forest at higher elevations. The high clay soils and poor drainage have limited agriculture in the area, and the Horton Bottoms is considered the 

“premier natural flood plain ecosystem” in the Osage Plains 

natural division (Kramer and others, 1996). A part of the interior (92 ha), which includes wet prairie, marsh, and shrub 

swamp wetlands, was designated by MDC for special protection as the Horton Bottoms Natural Area (HBNA) in 1998 (fig. 

1). 

Though largely undisturbed, the Horton Bottoms has experienced some post-European settlement modifications (fig. 2). 

Before being purchased by MDC, the area was lightly grazed 

during dry years; there also was some light tree harvesting in the 

area, perhaps as late as the 1970’s (Josh Cussimanio, Acting 

Manager, Four Rivers Conservation Area, oral commun., 

2003). The Marmaton and Little Osage River Basin hydrology 

as a whole currently (2004) has undergone minor modifications 

as a result of some upstream levees and flow regulation by small 

reservoirs in the upper Marmaton Basin, but the local hydrology 

of the HBNA is most affected by a channelized drainage ditch 

constructed sometime before 1939 (fig. 2). Channelization and 

deepening of the natural drainage has facilitated de-watering of 
4 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Introduction 5
6 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Methods 7 

the area. Aerial photographs from 1939, 1974, and 1997 show 

the encroachment of trees in the once predominantly herbaceous marsh (fig. 2). In the summer of 2002, the MDC began 

clearing trees in part of the affected area, and constructed log 

dams in the channelized drainage ditch in an attempt to limit the 

effects of de-watering by the ditch and to encourage establishment and spread of the herbaceous marsh, wet prairie, and shrub 

swamp species to pre-channelization conditions. 

Unit 3, originally a wet prairie and marsh, was farmed 

before acquisition by MDC. The 1939 photograph (fig. 2) 

shows Unit 3 as a vast expanse of wet prairie, likely Spartina 

pectinata (prairie cordgrass), before development for farming 

in the late 1950’s or early 1960’s. A boundary levee and series 

of rectangular interior drainages or “w-ditches” were constructed in the area at this time and the area was farmed through 

1998. Unit 3 was acquired by MDC in 1999 and developed into 

its current state in 2001. There are two main pools—a north 

pool managed for waterbirds, and a south pool managed for bottomland tree production (fig. 1). A gate structure controls water 

flow between the river and the interior of Unit 3 as well as 

inflows and outflows in both the north and south pools within 

Unit 3. 

Unit 4 is another area of converted cropland that was 

acquired in 1999 by MDC. The levees in this unit were difficult 

to maintain and frequent flooding and poor drainage resulted in 

marginal farming conditions. The unit was last farmed in 1995. 

In 2001, MDC developed it primarily for management of waterbirds by constructing a main pool, several small retention pools, 

and a control gate structure. A swing gate allows floodwaters to 

enter but outflows are controlled. Recent levee breaks have not 

been repaired; therefore, the unit is allowed to flood from the 

Little Osage River. Modifications to the vegetation in the unit 

include planting the high terrace areas in native prairie plants 

and planting trees along the terrace slopes above the anticipated 

full pool elevation of 221.9 m (meters). 

Acknowledgments 

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Jay Bowmaster, former manager of the FRCA, and Josh Cussimanio, current 

(2004) acting manager of the FRCA as well as the staff of the 

FRCA for their assistance in locating monitoring sites, installing equipment, freeing “traction impaired” vehicles, and providing information on the FRCA. The authors also acknowledge the assistance of Cindy Becker (Nature Keepers 

Consulting), Dr. Marian Smith and G.G. Wells (Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville), and Matt Parker (formerly with 

MDC) for vegetation monitoring design and/or sampling, and 

John Kabrick (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service) 

for compilation and initial summarization of 2001 and 2002 tree 

plot data from Unit 3. 

Methods 

Hydrology 

River stage, managed pool levels, and water levels in 

ground-water monitoring wells were recorded to determine the 

magnitude of interactions between surface- and ground-water 

sources and possible effects on vegetation distribution. The primary factors contributing to soil saturation conditions also were 

determined. 

Surface-Water Monitoring 

Streamflow and stage of the Marmaton and Little Osage 

Rivers were monitored upstream from the FRCA at USGS 

streamflow gaging stations Marmaton River near Nevada, Missouri, (USGS gaging station number 06918065) and the Little 

Osage River at Horton, Missouri, (USGS gaging station number 

06917060; fig. 1). Continuous stage data were collected at these 

sites beginning in 1992 using methods described in Rantz and 

others (1982a) and discharge data were computed beginning 

October 2000 using methods described by Rantz and others 

(1982b). The drainage area of the Marmaton River near Nevada 

is 2,820 km2

 (square kilometers); the Little Osage River at Horton drainage area is 1,290 km2

. The stage of the Little Osage 

River below the confluence with the Marmaton River also was 

monitored from December 2002 to November 2003 at the Little 

Osage River at FRCA, Missouri, (USGS gaging station number 

06918067; fig.1). 

Wetland pool water levels were monitored in each unit of 

the FRCA from April 2001 to November 2003. Water levels 

were recorded from manual observations of staff plates or continuous hourly readings by a pressure transducer and logger. 

The surface-water depths in the Horton Bottoms were measured 

by observing water depths or high-water marks at monitoring 

well locations(fig. 3). Wetland pool levels in Units 3 and 4 were 

measured with staff plates at the outflow control gate structure 

and/or at monitoring well locations shown in figures 4 and 5. 

Precipitation and pan evaporation data were collected at 

Units 1 and 4 from April 2001 to November 2003. Daily precipitation was measured at the FRCA headquarters in Unit 1 (fig. 

3). Class A evaporation pans were installed in a forested location near the FRCA headquarters and in an open area (Unit 4; 

fig. 5). The water levels in the evaporation pans were monitored 

and replenished every 2 to 3 weeks during the growing season 

and the pans were equipped with hourly stage loggers. 

To understand the conditions under which the current 

(2004) mature bottomland forest in Horton Bottoms has developed and to determine if hydrologic conditions have changed 

over time required an estimate of the historic hydrologic record 

for this area. This was estimated by correlating the annual peak 

stages of nearby Marmaton and Little Osage River gages 

(USGS gaging station numbers 06918065 and 06917060) with 

annual peak stages at upstream long-term record sites on these 
8 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Methods 9 
10 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04

Litt el

O as ge

River

UNIT 4 

Osage River

Ma ar is des

y C gnes

River

A 

U4W1T1 

U4W1 

VEGETATION TRANSECT AND IDENTIFIER SOIL MOISTURE TUBE AND IDENTIFIER WELL AND IDENTIFIER U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GAGING STATION WATER CONTROL GATE STRUCTURE EVAPORATION PAN LOCATION 

U4A 

EXPLANATION 

387693 392693 

4208595 4206095 

0 0.5 1 MILE Base from Missouri Spatial Data Information Service Digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangle, 1:24,000, 1995 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15N 
Methods 11

U4A

U4B

U4C

U4D

U4E

U4W2T3

U4W2T2

U4W2T1

U4W1T2

U4W1T1

U4W1T3

U4W1

U4W2

U4W3T1U

U4W

U4

3T2U

W3T4U

U4W3T3U

U4W3T3I

U4W3T2I

U4W3T1I

U4W3

A

UNIT 4

390465 390965

42085844209084

0 0.1 0.2 MILE 0.050 0.1 0.2 KILOMETER 0.05

Pool

gage

Base from Missouri Spatial Data Information Service

Digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangle, 1:24,000, 1995Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15N

Figure 5. Unit 4 of the Four Rivers Conservation Area and monitoring locations—Continued.
12 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

streams (USGS gaging station numbers 06917380 and 

0691700). The 2001 through 2003 peak stages on the Marmaton 

River at Horton Bottoms, determined by measurements of surface-water stage at monitoring well locations, were then correlated with the nearby upstream Marmaton gage (USGS gaging 

station number 06918065). The Little Osage River at Fulton, 

Kansas, (USGS gaging station number 06917000) has streamflow and stage record dating back to 1949, and was correlated 

with annual peaks for concurrent periods on the Marmaton 

River near Marmaton, Kansas, (USGS gaging station number 

06917380, 1972 to 2003) and Little Osage River at Horton, 

Missouri, (USGS gaging station number 06917060, 1986 to 

2003) using linear regression (fig. 6). These correlations were 

used to extend the annual peak record at the Marmaton and 

Horton sites back to 1949. Subsequently, the concurrent (1986– 

2003) annual peaks from the Marmaton River near Marmaton, 

Kansas, (USGS gaging station number 06917380) and Marmaton River near Nevada, Missouri, (USGS gaging station number 

06918065) were regressed to estimate the 1949 through 1985 

peaks at the Nevada, Missouri, station (fig. 6). The proximity of 

the Horton Bottoms to the confluence of the Marmaton and 

Little Osage Rivers and the storage and backwater effects that 

the rivers have on each other result in the differential of the two 

upstream sites being used in the determination of the correlation 

between the Marmaton River near Nevada and the downstream 

Horton Bottoms site stages (fig. 6). The stage differential of the 

Marmaton River near Nevada and Little Osage River at Horton 

stages is used to compute a storage/backwater correction factor 

that is subtracted from the Marmaton River near Nevada stage 

before estimating the Marmaton River at Horton Bottoms stage. 
With the lack of observed Horton Bottoms peak stages, the relation 

Mn – (y) = MHB , (1) 

where Mn = the observed stage at the Marmaton River near 

Nevada; 

y = the differential factor based on the linear relation between the Nevada and Horton stage differential and the differential between Nevada 

and Horton Bottoms stages (fig. 6); and 

MHB = the estimated Marmaton River at Horton Bottoms stage 

is assumed to be linear. 

The resulting product from the record extension is estimated 1949 through 2000 (in addition to observed 2001 through 

2003 peaks) annual peak stages at the Marmaton River at Horton Bottoms site (along transect A–A’ shown in fig. 3), which 

also can be related to calculated recurrence interval stages. 

The instantaneous peak flows for selected recurrence intervals were estimated for the Marmaton River near Nevada, Missouri, and Little Osage River at Horton, Missouri, gaging stations based on equations developed by Alexander and Wilson 

(1995). These regional equations utilize stream slope and drainage area in determination of specific recurrence interval flows. 

The determined peak flows were converted to stages at these 

sites using current (2004) stage-discharge rating tables and the 

resulting 2- and 5-year recurrence interval stages were used to 

estimate Marmaton River at Horton Bottoms stages based on 

the relation previously described. 

Ground-Water Monitoring 

Ground-water wells were installed in each of three management units within selected landforms (figs. 3 to 5). Three 

wells were established in Unit 1 along a topographic gradient 

that extended from the Marmaton River toward the HBNA (fig. 

3) and were located within selected landforms. Landforms that 

were defined for the purposes of this study and identified along 

this gradient included natural levee, flood plain, alluvial depression, backwater swamp, and terrace (table 1). Ground-water 

monitoring wells in Unit 1 were located in the natural levee, 

alluvial depression, and backwater swamp landforms. The four 

wells in Unit 3 were co-located with existing planted tree plots 

that were established at three different flood plain elevations 

(table 2; fig. 4). Two wells in Unit 3 were established at different depths in the same tree plot to determine any differences in 

vertical hydraulic gradients—well U3W3b (shallow) and well 

U3W3a (deep) (table 2). The three wells in Unit 4 were established along a topographic gradient from the top of a terrace to 

the edge of the modern flood plain (fig. 5). The second well was 

established approximately at the foot of the terrace and the third 

on the flood plain. 

Methods 13 

Wells were constructed in March and April 2001 by initially hand-auguring a 7.6-cm diameter hole to a depth exceeding the encountered water table (a listing of encountered lithologic materials is provided in table 3, at the back of this report). 

Wells were constructed using 5.1-cm diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing with a 1.52-m long screen at the bottom. The 

void between the outer PVC casing and excavated opening was 

filled with sand to about 1.2 m deep below ground surface. The 

remaining 1.2 m was packed with bentonite clay pellets to seal 

the well from preferential water flow from the surface. The 

wells were capped with a concrete base and 15.2-cm diameter 

outer protective PVC casing. The top of the outer PVC casings 

(corresponding to the reference point) was about 2.7 m above 

the ground surface to protect the well from inundation during 

flooding. 

A reference point was established at the top of each PVC 

well casing for periodic manual checks of the water levels and 

well elevations, and locations were surveyed to known datums. 

The elevation and location of each reference point for wells in 

Units 3 and 4 were determined using a Real Time Kinematic 

Global Positioning System (RTK GPS) to the nearest 2-cm vertical and 1-mm (millimeter) horizontal accuracy. The elevations 

of wells in Unit 1 were determined using an optical level to the 

nearest centimeter. The locations of each well in Unit 1 were 

determined using a hand-held GPS device, with 5-m accuracy. 

The vertical datum used for all elevation measurements in this 

study was the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 

88) and the horizontal datum was the North American Datum of 

1983 (NAD 83). 

Ground-water levels were monitored using observation 

wells equipped with data loggers that recorded water levels 

hourly. Water levels were checked with an electric sounding 

tape at least monthly from a reference point level. Water levels 

were converted into elevations referenced to the vertical datum. 

Soil Moisture, Texture, and Organic Matter 

Soil moisture vertical profile data were collected every 

two to three weeks during the 2001 through 2003 growing seasons (April through October) at 31 locations. The soil moisture 

profile data were collected in the top 2 m of soil by means of 44­

mm diameter access tubes and a Time Domain Reflectometry 

(TDR) tube access probe (TAP). The profile data were collected 

at 9 access tube locations in Unit 1 (fig. 3) and Unit 3 (fig. 4), 

and at 13 locations in Unit 4 (fig. 5) using a 1-gigahertz TDR. 

Three TAPs were co-located with each ground-water monitoring well in each of the 3 units, and an additional set of 4 tubes 

was installed near the top of the terrace upgradient from well 

U4W3 in Unit 4 (upper array). This set of tubes was established 

at approximately the same elevation as the well U4W1 array 

(table 3) to determine spatial variability that may be attributable 

to aspect, possible soil texture differences, or other micro-site 

characteristics. Access tubes within an array were placed about 

15 m apart and parallel with the elevation contour of the established observation well. The average soil moisture value, in 
14 

Table 1. Description of landform definitions used in study.[<, less than; m, meters]

Landform featurea Descriptiona Relative elevation Scale Hydrologic characteristics 

Natural levee Elevated depositional feature adjacent 

to the stream along banks. 

Flood plain Flat, extensive surface that is frequently flooded and hydrologically 

connected to the stream. 

Alluvial depressionb Small "perched" flood-plain depression 

formed by remnant channel or backwater swamp cutoff. 

Backwater swamp Large scale, nearly contiguous, topographic depression whose perimeter 

is defined by the extent of elevated coarse deposits near the river and upland slope. 

Terrace Remnant flood plain setting above the 

current or more active flood plain. 

Highest elevation feature on active

flood plain. 

Range of elevation between natural 

levee and backwater swamp. 

Elevation about 1 m below the natural 

levee and lo

wer than the adjacent 

flood plain. 

Lowest area on flood plain, some 

1–2 m below the natural levee. 

Lies above active flood-plain features. 

Narrow (<40 m) feature found nearly 

continuously along channel banks. 

Most common landform encompassing all areas not otherwise classified. 

Least common feature on flood plain.Narrow (<50 m) remnant channel or

backwater swamp cutoff typically oriented parallel to main channel. 

Nearly contiguous area encompassing 

several hundred acres and whose perimeter is defined by the coarse material depositional fringe of the Marmaton and Little Osage Rivers. 

Uncommon feature in area. 

Least frequently inundated area in 

active channel.

No ponding.

Variable inundation determined by

flood magnitude.

No ponding.

Variable inundation depending on 

flood magnitude.

Ponding greatly exceeds flood inundation period.First and most frequent feature inundated by flooding or precipitation.Ponding greatly exceeds flood inundation period.

Inundated only during exceptionally 

large flooding events.

No ponding. 

aLandform features and descriptions based on the definition in Leopold and others (1964), Brinson and others (1981), and Mitsch and Gosselink (1993). bThis landform feature and description similar to “slough” feature described in references listed in footnote a. 

Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO 2001–04 
Table 2. Observation well characteristics in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.

[UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator; N, north; E, east; m, meters]

Location, Bottom of Total well depth 

Site in UTM coordinates Top of casing Ground surface Top of screen screen/well from ground

(identifier) elevation, elevation, elevation, elevation, surface, 

(figs. 3–5) N E Landform feature in m in m in m in m in m 

Unit 1-Well 1 (U1W1) 4204862 383081 Natural levee 228.65 225.84 219.84 218.32 7.52 Unit 1-Well 2 (U1W2) 4204963 383015 Alluvial depression 227.60 224.83 218.90 217.38 7.45 Unit 1-Well 3 (U1W3) 4205403 382753 Backwater swamp 227.36 224.55 219.25 217.72 6.83 Unit 3-Well 1 (U3W1) 4207936 385134 Flood plain 226.31 223.57 220.22 218.69 4.88 Unit 3-Well 2 (U3W2) 4208917 385769 Flood plain 225.42 222.64 217.76 216.24 6.40 Unit 3-Well 3a (U3W3a) 4207965 385839 Flood plain 225.50 222.74 218.37 216.84 5.90 Unit 3-Well 3b (U3W3b) 4207966 385838 Flood plain 223.23 222.78 221.36 220.75 2.03 Unit 4-Well 1 (U4W1) 4208519 390382 Terrace 227.17 225.80 220.93 219.40 6.40 Unit 4-Well 2 (U4W2) 4208491 390337 Toe of terrace 225.80 222.95 221.09 219.57 3.39 Unit 4-Well 3 (U4W3) 4208978 390401 Flood plain 224.64 221.78 217.93 216.40 5.38 

Methods 15

16 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

percent by volume, was determined over a 16-cm length (corresponding to the TAP length) at average mid-depths of 0.1, 0.2, 

0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, and 2 m below 

ground surface, although the actual maximum depth of each 

tube varied (table 4). The overlapping of the TAP length and 

multiple measurement points at some profile locations resulted 

in the collection of a moving average of soil moisture values 

rather than discrete point values. 

Additional TDR measurements were made at the ground 

surface, within 1 m of each tube, for comparison to the surface 

TAP readings. Soils in the FRCA were known to have a high 

clay content and high potential for shrinking and swelling 

around the access tubes near the ground surface; therefore, comparison surface soil-moisture measurements were made with a 

16-cm long TDR multi-rod probe. A summary of soil moisture 

measurement dates by site is provided in table 5. Accuracy of 

the TDR measurements was to the nearest 2 percent by volume 

in the 0 to 40 percent range, or 3 percent in the 40 to 60 percent 

range, and precision was to 0.1 percent according to manufacturer specifications (IMKO Micromodultechnik, written commun., 2000). All TDR probes were calibrated to known reference levels at the beginning of each field season and routinely 

checked to known limits (0, 100 percent) to ensure proper meter 

function using specified manufacturer instructions. 

The ground-surface elevation was determined at each 

access tube location using RTK GPS or optical level. The horizontal locations were determined using RTK GPS (Units 3 and 

4) or hand-held GPS (Unit 1) with accuracies previously specified. 

A total of 41 concurrent TDR and gravimetric soil moisture measurements were collected in October 2001 and June 

2002 from all units to compare results from the two methods. 

Results showed TDR measurements to be, on average, 3.8 percent lower than corresponding gravimetric measurements, by 

volume, and an absolute measured difference (all differences 

positive) of 5.7 percent moisture by volume between the two 

methods. The weight and volume of selected soil cores were 

determined before drying the soil at 105 °C (degrees Celsius) 

for 24 hours. The volumetric soil moisture of the soil samples 

was determined by the product of the gravimetric soil moisture 

and soil bulk density using the equations listed below. 

The texture characteristics of soils in the top 1.2 m at each 

of 28 TDR access tube locations and at each of 45 vegetation 

plots in the Horton Bottoms were determined at the USGS laboratory in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, using the hydrometer 

method described by Gee and Bauder (1986). Soil samples were 

collected in the fall of 2002 and summer of 2003 using a 2.2-cm 

diameter soil corer in increments of 0.3 m deep, and texture 

analyses were conducted on 40 g (grams) of oven-dried (105 °C 

for at least 24 hours) sub-sample. The sand fraction from the 

samples was determined using a 0.53-Pm (micrometer) sieve. 

Duplicate soil profile samples were collected at each location 

and combined in the laboratory before analyses although in 

some instances, the samples were analyzed separately and texture values were averaged numerically. 

Complete soil profile samples were selected randomly 

from each unit for organic matter content analyses. A subsample of 90 soil samples from profiles at 23 randomly selected 

sites (14 vegetation plots in Unit 1, and 3 soil moisture profile 

tubes locations in each of Units 1, 3, and 4) were sent to the 

Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, soils laboratory 

for organic matter analyses using the Walkley-Black method 

(Combs and Nathan, 1998). 

Soil texture and soil organic matter were used to determine 

generalized hydrologic properties of the soil samples using the 

soil water characteristics program developed from equations 

derived by Saxton and others (1986). The percent organic matter, clay, and sand fraction of the soils was used in the soil 

hydraulic properties calculator (Washington State University, 

2003) to determine estimates of wilting point, field capacity, 

saturation percentage, available water, saturation hydraulic 

conductivity, and soil bulk density. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation monitoring at the FRCA consisted of sampling 

ground layer, understory, and overstory vegetation in plots 

along topographic gradients (land-surface transects) in a remnant riparian wetland (mature bottomland forest) in Unit 1 

(Horton Bottoms), sampling growth and survival of planted 

trees in Units 3 (constructed, leveed) and 4 (constructed, partially regulated), and monitoring vegetation colonization in 

vegetation transects along topographic gradients in Unit 4. 

Bottomland Forest in Remnant Wetland 

The spatial distribution of ground layer, understory, and 

overstory layers along topographic gradients and between fluvial landforms were assessed in the remnant mature bottomland 

forest in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms; figs. 1 and 3). Vegetation in 

each layer was monitored in a total of 45-400 m2 (square 

(Beginning soil weight-ending soil weight, in grams) Gravimetric soil moisture (percent soil moisture by weight) = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) (Ending soil weight, in grams) 

(Ending soil weight, in grams) Bulk density, in grams per cubic centimeter = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (3) (Soil volume, in cubic centimeters) 

Volumetric soil moisture (percent soil moisture by volume) = Bulk density * Gravimetric soil moisture (4) 
Table 4. Soil moisture tube depths and elevation 

characteristics of sampling tubes installed in Units 1,

3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[m, meters; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988] 

Ground surface 

Maximum elevation, 

depth, in m above 

Site Identifier in m NAVD 88 

Unit 1 

Well 1-Tube 1 U1W1T1 1.40 225.75 

Well 1-Tube 2 U1W1T2 2.30 225.68 

Well 1-Tube 3 U1W1T3 2.30 225.74 

Well 2-Tube 1 U1W2T1 2.05 224.78 

Well 2-Tube 2 U1W2T2 2.30 224.84 

Well 2-Tube 3 U1W2T3 2.20 224.77 

Well 3-Tube 1 U1W3T1 1.55 224.57 

Well 3-Tube 2 U1W3T2 2.10 224.57 

Well 3-Tube 3 U1W3T3 1.80 224.59 

Unit 3 

Well 1-Tube 1 U3W1T1 2.30 223.52 

Well 1-Tube 2 U3W1T2 2.05 223.57 

Well 1-Tube 3 U3W1T3 2.30 223.57 

Well 2-Tube 1 U3W2T1 2.30 222.66 

Well 2-Tube 2 U3W2T2 2.30 222.64 

Well 2-Tube 3 U3W2T3 2.05 222.62 

Well 3-Tube 1 U3W3T1 1.70 222.74 

Well 3-Tube 2 U3W3T2 2.30 222.75 

Well 3-Tube 3 U3W3T3 2.05 222.62 

Unit 4 

Well 1-Tube 1 U4W1T1 2.30 225.86 

Well 1-Tube 2 U4W1T2 1.20 225.86 

Well 1-Tube 3 U4W1T3 2.30 225.87 

Well 2-Tube 1 U4W2T1 2.20 222.85 

Well 2-Tube 2 U4W2T2 1.10 222.86 

Well 2-Tube 3 U4W2T3 1.05 222.89 

Well 3-Tube 1 upper U4W3T1u 1.40 225.12 

Well 3-Tube 2 upper U4W3T2u 1.55 225.25 

Well 3-Tube 3 upper U4W3T3u 1.55 225.28 

Well 3-Tube 4 upper U4W3T4u 1.55 225.30 

Well 3-Tube 1 lower U4W3T1l 2.30 222.07 

Well 3-Tube 2 lower U4W3T2l 2.30 222.13 

Well 3-Tube 3 lower U4W3T3l 2.00 222.03 

Methods 17 

meters) (20 x 20 m or 10 x 40 m) releve plots (Braun-Blanquet, 

1932) in June and August 2002, and June 2003 (table 6). Plots 

were stratified within natural levee, alluvial depression, flood 

plain, or backwater swamp landforms (table 1) as landforms 

define topographic, hydrologic, and soil transitions on the flood 

plain, and have provided an effective means of relating gradients to vegetation distribution (Hupp and Osterkamp, 1985; 

Bendix and Hupp, 2000). Horton Bottoms is located at the confluence of the Marmaton and Little Osage Rivers; therefore, the 

vegetation plots were located along fluvial features adjacent to 

both rivers. 

Twenty-two releve plots were established and sampled in 

June and August of 2002 (table 6; fig. 3). A total of six plots 

were established along the natural levee (three along the Little 

Osage River and three along the Marmaton River), six in the 

flood plain (three along the Little Osage River and three along 

the Marmaton River), five in alluvial depressions (two adjacent 

to the Little Osage River and three adjacent to the Marmaton 

River), and five in backwater swamp units (two on the Little 

Osage River and three along the Marmaton River). The 12 plots 

established in 2002 along the Marmaton River were co-located 

with observation well and soil moisture monitoring equipment. 

A vegetation plot was established near each well and additional plots were located within a random distance between 100 

and 200 m on either side of the originally established plot and 

within the representative landform. Plots were established in the 

late winter or early spring to limit vegetative biases and allow 

for better delineation of landforms. The dimensions of the 

releve plots (20 x 20 m or 10 x 40 m) and orientation of the plots 

were determined by the orientation and scale of the landform 

features (particularly the natural levee and alluvial depression 

sites). The alluvial depression sites were established opportunistically because of the more limited distribution of this feature. The Little Osage River plots were set up in a similar configuration to that of the Marmaton River plots, although there 

were no corresponding observation wells at the Little Osage 

River plots. A land-surface transect was established along the 

topographic gradient extending from the natural levee toward 

the backwater swamp area and vegetation plots were established in fluvial landforms along this gradient. A vegetation plot 

was first established on the natural levee near the upstream 

extent of the MDC property boundary, and additional natural 

levee plots were placed at a random distance (between 100 and 

200 m) upstream and downstream from the original plot within 

the natural levee feature. Flood plain plots were established 

adjacent to each natural levee site at a random distance between 

100- and 200-m toward the HBNA. As before, alluvial depression sites were established opportunistically along this gradient 

while maintaining a 100- to 200-m random spacing between 

plots. The alluvial depression and backwater swamp areas 

encountered along this transect on the Little Osage River side 

were too small to include more than two representative plots. 

An additional 23 releve vegetation plots were established 

in March and April of 2003, bringing the total number of Unit 1 

vegetation plots to 45. These additional plots were added to 

strengthen statistical analyses of vegetation results and determine species variability within landforms. The methodology 

used in the establishment of the 2003 plots was different than 

with the 2002 plots in that there was no attempt to sample along 

single transects bisecting all four landform types. Plots were 
18 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 5. Summary of soil moisture sampling dates and locations in Units 1, 3, and 4 of the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[X, sample date; --, no data] 

Unit 1 Unit 3 Unit 4 

Tube Vegetation Surface Tube Tube Surface 

Date array plots transect Date array Mounds Date arrays transects 

05/25/2001 X -- -- 05/24/2001 X -- 05/18/2001 X --

06/13/2001 X -- -- 06/15/2001 X X 05/23/2001 X --

06/27/2001 X -- -- 06/29/2001 X X 06/07/2001 X --

07/11/2001 X -- -- 07/13/2001 X X 06/12/2001 X --

07/30/2001 X -- -- 07/26/2001 X X 06/28/2001 X --

08/09/2001 X -- -- 08/08/2001 X X 07/12/2001 X --

08/21/2001 X -- -- 08/23/2001 X X 07/25/2001 X --

09/13/2001 X -- -- 09/14/2001 X X 08/08/2001 X --

10/03/2001 X -- -- 10/05/2001 X X 08/22/2001 X --

10/26/2001 X -- -- 10/25/2001 X X 09/17/2001 X --

04/04/2002 X X X 04/05/2002 X -- 10/11/2001 X --

04/18/2002 X -- -- 04/17/2002 X -- 11/02/2001 X --

05/03/2002 X X X 04/30/2002 X X 04/03/2002 X X 

05/23/2002 X -- -- 06/07/2002 X X 04/16/2002 X --

06/06/2002 X X X 06/25/2002 X X 05/01/2002 X X 

06/24/2002 X -- -- 07/08/2002 X X 05/21/2002 X --

07/10/2002 X -- X 07/22/2002 X X 06/10/2002 X X 

07/24/2002 X X -- 08/07/2002 X X 06/27/2002 X --

08/06/2002 X -- X 08/19/2002 X X 07/09/2002 X X 

08/20/2002 X X -- 09/13/2002 X -- 07/23/2002 X --

09/11/2002 X -- -- 10/02/2002 X X 08/05/2002 X X 

10/07/2002 X X X 10/15/2002 X X 08/21/2002 X --

10/17/2002 X -- -- 11/06/2002 X X 09/12/2002 X --

10/31/2002 X X X 04/10/2003 X X 09/17/2002 X --

04/08/2003 X -- -- 04/21/2003 X X 10/01/2002 X X 

04/23/2003 X X X 05/07/2003 X -- 10/16/2002 X --

05/09/2003 X -- -- 05/14/2003 X X 11/07/2002 X X 

05/30/2003 X X X 06/04/2003 X X 04/09/2003 X --

06/18/2003 X -- -- 06/24/2003 X X 04/22/2003 X X 

07/01/2003 X X X 07/09/2003 X X 05/12/2003 X --

07/29/2003 X -- -- 07/31/2003 X X 05/29/2003 X X 

08/21/2003 X -- -- 08/19/2003 X -- 06/17/2003 X --

09/04/2003 X -- -- 09/03/2003 X X 07/10/2003 X --

09/17/2003 X -- -- 09/15/2003 X X 07/30/2003 X --

10/07/2003 X -- -- 10/14/2003 X X 08/20/2003 X --

11/06/2003 X X X 11/04/2003 X X 09/02/2003 X --

09/16/2003 X --

10/15/2003 X --

11/07/2003 X X 
Table 6. Vegetation plot characteristics in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.

[UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator; m, meters; SE, southeast; NE, northeast; q, degrees; NW, northwest; SW, southwest] 

Location,


in UTM coordinates Sampling date
 Plot Elevation, Plot marker Orientation

code Northing Easting in m location Plot size Description Spring Fall (comments)

Unit 1, Horton Bottoms Natural Area, 2002 vegetation plots

NL1 4206405 380693 226.34 NW corner 10 x 40 m Natural levee 06/05/2002 225 q and 115 qNL2 4206472 380805 226.40 NW corner 10 x 40 m Natural levee 06/06/2002 245 q and 155 qNL3 4206604 380977 226.20 SW corner 10 x 40 m Natural levee 06/06/2002 55 q and 145 q

NL4 4204840 383016 225.57 SE corner 10 x 40 m Natural levee 05/22/2002 08/07/2002 315 q and 45 q

NL5 4204880 383083 225.45 SE corner 10 x 40 m Natural levee 05/22/2002 08/07/2002 330 q and 60 q(near well 1) NL6 4204923 383189 225.46 SE corner 10 x 40 m Natural levee 05/22/2002 08/07/2002 335 q and 65 qFP1 4206262 380803 225.74 NW corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 06/07/2002 In Cardinals FP2 4206356 380877 225.71 SW corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 06/07/2002 In Cardinals FP3 4206500 380984 226.04 NW corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 06/06/2002 In Cardinals FP4 4205333 382831 224.85 SE corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 05/23/2002 08/07/2002 In Cardinals FP5 4205372 382937 224.95 SE corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 05/23/2002 08/07/2002 In Cardinals FP6 4205311 382730 224.60 SE corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 05/23/2002 08/07/2002 In Cardinals AD1 4206333 381245 225.19 SW corner 20 x 20 m Alluvial depression 06/06/2002 In Cardinals AD2 4206339 381253 225.04 NW corner 20 x 20 m Alluvial depression 06/06/2002 In Cardinals AD3 4204954 383001 224.81 SE corner 10 x 40 m Alluvial depression 05/22/2002 08/07/2002 In Cardinals (near well 2)AD4 4205011 383067 224.81 SE corner 10 x 40 m Alluvial depression 05/22/2002 08/07/2002 In Cardinals AD5 4204870 382905 224.78 SE corner 10 x 20 m Alluvial depression 05/22/2002 08/07/2002 In CardinalsBS1 4206420 381383 224.59 NW corner 20 x 20 m Backwater swamp 06/06/2002 In Cardinals BS2 4206329 381354 224.68 SW corner 20 X 20 m Backwater swamp 06/06/2002 In CardinalsBS3 4205434 382762 224.50 SE corner 20 x 20 m Backwater swamp 05/23/2002 08/70/2002 In Cardinals (near well 3)BS4 4205513 382842 224.50 SE corner 20 x 20 m Backwater swamp 05/23/2002 08/07/2002 In Cardinals BS5 4205499 382710 224.60 NE corner 20 x 20 m Backwater swamp 05/23/2002 08/07/2002 In Cardinals 

Methods 19

20 

Table 6. 

Vegetation plot characteristics in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area.—Continued

[UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator; m, meters; SE, southeast; NE, northeast; q, degrees; NW, north

west; SW, southwest] 

Location,


in UTM coordinates Sampling date
 Plot Elevation, Plot marker Orientation

code Northing Easting in m location Plot size Description Spring Fall (comments)

Unit 1, Horton Bottoms Natural Area, 2003 vegetation plots

NL7 4206766 381456 225.80 NW corner 20 x 20 m 

Natural levee 06/17/2003 In Cardinals 

NL8 4206862 383198 225.38 NE corner 20 X 20 m Natural levee 06/17/2003 215 q, 305 qNL9 4206746 383484 225.23 NE corner 20 x 20 m Natural levee 06/17/2003 165 q, 255 qNL10 4205692 383796 225.04 SE corner 20 x 20 m Natural levee 06/17/2003 15 q, 285 qNL11 4205954 383973 225.09 NE corner 20 x 20 m Natural levee 06/17/2003 15 q, 285 qNL12 4206295 384046 224.98 NE corner 20 x 20 m Natural levee 06/17/2003 110 q, 200 qFP7 4206756 381226 225.28 SE corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 06/18/2003 250 q, 340 qFP8 4206759 383076 224.95 SW corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 06/17/2003 55 q, 325 qFP9 4206630 383487 225.16 NW corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 06/17/2003 In Cardinals FP10 4205772 383635 224.60 SW corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 06/16/2003 35 q, 125 qFP11 4205960 383827 224.89 NE corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 06/17/2003 140 q, 230 qFP12 4206311 383905 224.85 NE corner 20 x 20 m Flood plain 06/17/2003 200 q, 290 qAD6 4205347 383460 224.64 SE corner 20 x 20 m Alluvial depression 06/16/2003 45 q, 315 qAD7 4205436 383519 224.52 SE corner 20 x 20 m Alluvial depression 06/16/2003 55 q, 145 qAD8 4205575 383625 224.50 SE corner 20 x 20 m Alluvial depression 06/16/2003 0 q, 270 qAD9 4205936 383852 224.57 NE corner 10 x 40 m Alluvial depression 06/17/2003 150 q, 240 qAD10 4206402 383936 224.64 NE corner 20 x 20 m Alluvial depression 06/17/2003 210 q, 300 qBS6 4205862 382716 224.56 NW corner 20 x 20 m 

Backwater swamp 06/18/2003 50 q, 140 q

BS7 4206152 382579 224.73 SE corner 20 x 20 m Backwater swamp 06/18/2003 250 q, 340 qBS8 4206389 381930 224.76 NW corner 20 x 20 m Backwater swamp 06/18/2003 120 q, 210 qBS9 4206259 381881 224.59 SW corner 20 x 20 m Backwater swamp 06/18/2003 35 q, 125 qBS10 4206185 382273 224.57 NE corner 20 x 20 m Backwater swamp 06/18/2003 200 q, 290 qBS11 4206064 382439 224.65 NE corner 20 x 20 m Backwater swamp 06/18/2003 230 q, 320 q

Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO 2001–04 
Methods 21 

located randomly within all possible represented landform areas 

towards obtaining a better characterization of vegetation distribution in each landform. The map perimeter lengths of the Little 

Osage and Marmaton Rivers along the Horton Bottoms were 

determined, and three natural levee sampling sites were placed 

randomly along each of these two river perimeters. Flood plain 

sampling sites were co-located with these natural levee plots at 

a random inland distance of between 100 and 200 m. The map 

perimeter of the backwater swamp area was determined, and six 

additional backwater swamp sites were established randomly 

along and within this perimeter area, with minor location adjustments made in the field to account for map and field inconsistencies in the backwater swamp boundary. Alluvial depression 

sites were established opportunistically while establishing the 

natural levee and flood plain sites. The five additional alluvial 

depression sites were oriented to fit within the landform feature, 

and adjacent depression sites were located randomly between 

100 and 200 m from each other within the landform. 

The vegetation of the ground layer (all herbaceous vegetation, vines, shrubs, and trees; less than 1 m in height), understory [trees and shrubs, greater than 1 m in height and less than 

11.4 cm diameter at breast height (dbh)], and overstory (trees 

greater than 11.4 cm dbh) layers were sampled in each 400 m2 

releve plot. All overstory trees were identified to species and the 

diameter of each tree was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm. The 

crown position (canopy, sub-canopy) of each tree in the overstory also was noted. The canopy density of each plot was measured using a canopy densitometer. Twenty densitometer readings were collected at regular intervals along a linear transect 

through the longest plot centerline at each of the 45 plot locations. The age of approximately six (three canopy and three subcanopy) overstory trees were sampled at breast height in each 

plot using an increment borer. The tree cores were dried and 

analyzed at the USGS office in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, and 

tree age was determined to the nearest year using methods 

described in Phipps (1985). The understory layer was sampled 

within the entire releve plot, each stem was identified to species, 

and the diameter (nearest 0.1 cm) and height (nearest 1 cm) 

were measured. The ground layer was sampled to species within 

a 10 x 20 m or 5 x 40 m centered subplot, and the cover class of 

each species was estimated using the Braun-Blanquet coverage 

system (Braun-Blanquet, 1932). Species nomenclature follows 

Yatskievych and Turner (1990) and Yatskievych (1999). 

The elevations of the 45 vegetation plots in the Horton 

Bottoms were determined using an optical level, and the locations were determined using a hand-held GPS with previously 

defined accuracies. Vegetation plot elevations were determined 

by averaging the corner and center elevations of each plot. Vegetation plot elevations were normalized to Marmaton and Little 

Osage River base-flow water-surface elevations to account for 

channel gradients in the ground-surface elevation differences. 

Reforestation and Colonization in Constructed 

Wetlands 

A mixture of Carya illinoiensis (pecan) and Quercus 

palustris (pin oak) trees was planted by MDC staff in plots in 

Unit 3 in the late winter of 1999. The plots were established at 

three different elevations and include trees established by two 

different methods. The “low” elevation plot (U3W2 location, 

222.6 m) was established using bare root seedlings (fig. 4). The 

“middle” elevation (U3W3, 222.7 m) and “high” elevation 

(U3W1, 223.5 m) plots were established using direct seeding 

methods. Local sources primarily were used in the acquisition 

of seed stock for the bare root seedlings and direct seed plantings. The nuts and bare root stock were planted using mechanical planters within 2 weeks of acquisition. Trees were randomly 

planted in rows spaced approximately 1 m between trees within 

a row and 6 m between rows. In addition to the bare root seedlings and direct seeding plots, individual root production 

method (RPM®, is a registered trademark of Forrest Keeling 

Nursery, Elsberry, Missouri, which reserves the rights to use 

this name) trees also were planted. This production technique 

utilizes multi-step air root pruning to produce a dense fibrous 

root structure, accelerated stem growth, and precocious seed 

production—characteristics particularly applicable for establishing hard-mast species in wetland settings. The RPM® trees 

were planted in the early spring of 1999, 2000, and 2001 

throughout the south Unit 3 pool. RPM® trees were planted by 

MDC staff in both 2-m diameter x 0.5 m-high earth mounds and 

in non-mounded settings throughout the Unit 3 south pool area. 

All planted trees (including direct seed, bare root stock, and 

RPM® stock) were given individually numbered tags, and the 

basal diameter and height were measured annually by MDC 

staff during the dormant period beginning in the winter 2000– 

2001. The basal area and diameter of 50 randomly selected 

Cayra illinoiensis and 50 randomly selected Quercus palustris 

trees were sampled from each of the three established tree plots. 

One hundred mounded RPM® trees and 64 non-mounded 

RPM® trees also were initially selected randomly for repeated 

monitoring (basal diameter and height) during dormancy 

(November through March) when conditions permitted. 

Maintenance of the planted trees in Unit 3 included mowing between rows in the three tree plots, the use of weed barriers, and fertilization of the RPM® stock. The tree plots were 

mowed each summer to discourage weed competition from colonized trees, grasses, and forbs. The RPM® trees (both 

mounded and non-mounded) were supplied with weed barriers 

at planting and fertilized with slow-release fertilizer tabs the 

second and third year of growth (2000 and 2001 growing seasons). The weed barriers were removed from most sampled 

RPM® trees beginning in winter 2000–2001 monitoring period 

as these barriers served as a refuge for rodents and encouraged 

tree damage through rodent burrows (Josh Cussimanio, Acting 

Manager, Four Rivers Conservation Area, oral commun., 

2003). 

Natural revegetation and planted tree stock also were sampled in Unit 4. Vegetation plots were established in Unit 4 in 
22 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 7. Location and elevation information for the Unit 4 vegetation transects at the Four RIvers Conservation Area. 

[UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator; m, meters] 

Transect start location Transect end location 

Ground flora Transect UTM coordinates UTM coordinates

sampling start Elevation, Elevation, 

date point Northing Easting in m Northing Easting in m 

08/05/2002 U4A 4208510.820 390380.116 225.46 4208471.144 390297.737 221.91 

08/06/2002 U4B 4208778.066 390257.670 224.73 4208757.405 390165.923 221.35 

08/06/2002 U4C 4208871.221 390426.232 225.30 4208996.938 390401.386 221.94 

08/06/2002 U4D 4208793.713 390572.777 225.41 4208841.819 390647.516 221.76 

08/06/2002 U4E 4208504.006 390812.678 225.13 4208549.429 390871.029 221.82 

August 2002 to inventory the naturally colonized vegetative 

community in a converted cropland unit 7-years post-production, and to determine how this vegetation varied along a topographic gradient. Vegetation was inventoried along five, 

approximately 60-m long, vegetation transects extending from 

the top of a terrace down to the foot and perpendicular to the 

topographic gradient along this scarp (fig. 5). Vegetation plot 

sampling consisted of 120 quadrats, 1 m2 in area, established 

along secondary transects configured parallel with the elevation 

contours and perpendicular to primary transects running from 

the top of a terrace down to the terrace foot and current flood 

plain (table 7). Each primary transect was stratified into 15-m 

sections to account for observed changes in vegetation composition with topographic gradient. At a random distance within 

each 15-m subsection, a secondary transect was located perpendicular to the primary transect and five, 1-m2 quadrats were 

located every 10 m along this secondary transect. The first 

quadrat along each secondary transect was located randomly 

between 1 and 5 m from the primary transect. The direction of 

the perpendicular secondary transect from the primary transect 

(left or right) was determined at random, and the direction of 

subsequent secondary transects were alternately placed. The 

ground flora was identified to species within each quadrat and 

given an estimate of coverage to the nearest 5 percent using 

visual estimates. The understory layer also was sampled in each 

quadrat, all plants in this category were identified to species, 

and the diameter (nearest 0.1 cm) and height (nearest 1cm) were 

measured. Because all trees were less than 7 years old, no overstory vegetation was present. 

Bare root seedlings and RPM® trees were planted in Unit 

4 during the winter of 2002 along four of the five, approximately 60-m long, transects previously described (fig. 5). The 

bare root stock was obtained from the MDC nursery, but no 

attempts were made to acquire stock from local sources. All 

trees were planted using mechanical planting and auger equipment. At four of the five transect locations, four rows of 20 trees 

each were planted in February 2003. The four rows consisted of 

one row each of bare root Carya illinoiensis seedlings, bare root 

Quercus palustris seedlings, RPM® Carya illinoiensis, and 

RPM® Quercus palustris trees. Elevations along transects generally varied by about 4 m (table 7) and encompassed the historic range of inundation conditions. The basal diameter and 

height of the trees were measured shortly after planting and 

again in the winter of 2003 to 2004 by MDC staff. Treatment 

included fertilization of the RPM® trees using slow-release fertilizer tabs in the spring of 2003. 

Data Analyses 

Hydrologic and Soils Data 

Hydrologic and soil characteristics were tested for significant differences using either one-way analysis of variance 

(ANOVA) and Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure or 

Kruskal-Wallis one way analysis of variance on ranks 

(ANOVA), with a Dunn’s multiple comparison procedure 

(Sokal and Rohlf, 1996) to isolate significant differences. 

Annual peaks at selected stream gages with limited records 

were extended using linear regression models (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992) developed from concurrent records. The degree of 

correlation between selected environmental factors was determined using a Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient (Helsel 

and Hirsch, 1992). Differences in median soil moisture values 

from mounded and non-mounded areas were compared using a 

Mann-Whitney rank sum test (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992). A significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses in this 

report. 

Vegetation 

Remnant Bottomland Forest 

To characterize the ground layer, understory and overstory 

communities within each landform type, the growth form, classification as introduced (I) or native (N), and wetland indicator 

status of each species were determined using Reed (1988). 

Dominant growth forms in the ground layer vegetation were 

identified for each landform type by calculating the percent of 
each species and percent total cover of the species within each 

classification. The number of species and percent of total species for each taxonomic family in each landform type were calculated; the three dominant families for each landform type 

were determined by calculating percent total cover for ground 

layer species and total importance value (IV) of understory and 

overstory species. Importance value (Mueller-Dombois and 

Ellenberg, 1974) was calculated as 

(RFj + RDj + RBj) Importance Value = IVj = -------------------------------------------- ; (5) 3 

where Relative frequency = RFj = 100 u ----

F

----

j

- ; (6) 

¦Fj

j 

Relative density = RDj = 100 u ---

T

----j-- ; (7) 

¦Tj

j 

Bj Relative dominance = RBj = 100 u --------- ; (8) 

¦Bj

j 

and Fj = number of sample units containing species j; 

Tj = number of trees of species j in all sample units; 

and 

Bj = total basal area, in square decimeters per hectare 

(dm2

/ha), of species j in all sample units. 

Other vegetation characteristics calculated included percent frequency, density, and basal area where 

Percent frequency = ---

F

-

j ; (9) N 

Density(trees/hectare) = Dj = T

----

j ; (10) A 

Basal area (square decimeters/hectare) = BAj = B

----

j

; (11) A 

where N = number of samples; and 

A = sampled area. 

Richness (total number of species), evenness (Pielou, 

1969) and diversity (Shannon’s Diversity Index; Shannon and 

Weaver, 1949) for each plot were calculated using the program 

PC-ORD (McCune and Mefford, 1999) where, 

Evenness = E = H' e ln (richness) ; and (12) 

s 

Diversity = H' = ¦pi

 log pi , (13) 

i 

where pi = the proportion of the total number of individuals 

for the ith species. 

One-way ANOVA was calculated to determine significant 

differences in richness among landform types and a Tukey’s 

Methods 23 

multiple comparison procedure was used to isolate different 

groups (Sokal and Rohlf, 1996). Diversity was transformed to 

Hill’s number (Hill, 1973) for parametric analyses, as the normal distribution of Shannon’s Diversity Index is not known 

(Hill, 1973; Peet, 1974). One-way ANOVA was calculated to 

determine significant differences in diversity among landform 

types and a Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure was used to 

isolate different groups (Sokal and Rohlf, 1996). Sorensen’s 

Coefficient of Community Similarity (Sorensen, 1948) was calculated between each landform type to determine degree of similarity for species composition using 

Sorensen’s Coefficient of Community Similarity = 

CCs = -------

2

----

c

---- ; (14)

s1 + s2 

where c = number of species common to both communities; 

s1 = number of species in community 1; and 

s2 = number of species in community 2. 

A canopy position index (CPI) was recorded for each overstory species within each landform type (Clark and Clark, 

1992). CPI values were assigned as follows: 1=tree completely 

exposed vertically; 2=partially exposed vertically; 3=shaded 

just beneath the canopy; and 4=shaded and distant from the canopy. A low score (1) indicates a native crown species and a high 

score (4) indicates a low understory species. Densitometer readings were used to calculate mean canopy density for each landform type. Means were tested for significant differences among 

landform types with one-way ANOVA and a Tukey’s multiple 

comparison procedure (Sokal and Rohlf, 1996). Within each 

landform type, stem size-class distributions were calculated for 

the dominant species to determine patterns of abundance and 

regeneration within each landform type. Mean CPI was calculated for each species within each landform type. Tree core data 

were used to calculate mean age for overstory tree species 

within each landform type. 

Species cover (ground layer) or total basal area (understory and overstory) data were used to calculate a Detrended 

Correspondence Analysis (DCA; Hill and Gauch, 1980) ordination of all plots for each vegetation layer. DCA was calculated 

with the program PC-ORD (McCune and Mefford, 1999) using 

the default options. “Ordination” refers to a collection of techniques used by ecologists that provide an abstract model of vegetation by mathematically reducing it to a comprehensible form, 

essentially arranging plots along axes based on species composition data. Ecological community data generally have many 

dimensions, and ordination allows the researcher to extract the 

strongest relations in fewer dimensions, and then use these relations to position the plots in a low dimensional (usually two or 

three axes) space. The closer the plots are in this reduced space, 

the more similar they are in composition. Ideally, underlying 

gradients that determine the relation of the objects to one 

another become evident when the data are reduced. This gives 

the researcher insight into species relations and the environment 

they live in. 
24 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

DCA is an eigenanalysis technique—an algebraic technique that uses a data matrix to calculate eigenvectors [see Hill 

and Gauch (1980) for the complete mathematical equations]. 

The data matrix is composed of plots and species, with a value 

given for each species in each plot that is a measure of that species presence (for example, cover or basal area). In DCA, sample scores are calculated from the matrix to order the plots (axis 

1 and axis 2) and the eigenvalue is a measure of the strength of 

the ordination. To determine the percentage of variance 

explained by each axis, an after-the-fact evaluation (using the 

coefficient of determination, r2

, between distances in the ordination space and distances in the original matrix) was calculated 

using Sorensen’s Coefficient of Community Similarity as a distance measure between plots (McCune and Mefford, 1999). To 

test the relation of the environmental variables (elevation; distance from nearest river; flooding inundation duration; ponding 

duration; flooding and ponding inundation duration; and percent sand, silt, clay, and organic matter in surficial soil samples) 

to the vegetation data, Pearson Product Moment correlations 

were calculated of each variable to axes 1 and 2 of every ordination (Sokal and Rohlf, 1996). 

Reforestation Plots 

Survival of bare root seedlings, direct seeded trees, and 

RPM® trees in Unit 3 was analyzed with a Fischer’s Exact test 

to determine if there were significant differences in survival 

between species (Carya illinoiensis and Quercus palustris) and 

treatments (elevation, mounded vs. non-mounded) (Sokal and 

Rohlf, 1996). Mean diameter and height were tested for significant differences each year of the study (2001 through 2003) 

with either a t-test or Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks with a Dunn’s multiple comparison procedure 

(Sokal and Rohlf, 1996). The percentage of change in diameter 

and height of the seedlings were tested for significant differences between the species and treatments with either a MannWhitney Rank Sum Test or Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of 

variance on ranks with a Dunn’s multiple comparison procedure (Sokal and Rohlf, 1996). 

Survival of trees in Unit 4 was tested for significant differences using 2 x 2 contingency table, chi-square analyses for percent mortality of bare root seedlings (Carya illinoiensis and 

Quercus palustris), RPM® trees (Carya illinoiensis and Quercus palustris), bare root Carya illinoiensis seedlings and RPM® 

Carya illinoiensis trees, and bare root Quercus palustris seedlings and RPM® Quercus palustris trees (Sokal and Rohlf, 

1996). Mean basal diameter (centimeter) and mean height (centimeter) were calculated for each species and planting type 

(bare root seedling and RPM®) for each year of the study. 

Natural Colonization 

To analyze naturally colonized herbaceous vegetation in 

the Unit 4 plots, the same methods were used as described for 

the Unit 1 ground layer vegetation. Richness (number of species), evenness (Pielou, 1969) and Shannon’s Diversity Index 

(Shannon and Weaver, 1949) were calculated for each plot 

using PC-ORD (McCune and Mefford, 1999) and a mean of 

these measures was calculated for each elevation class (terrace, 

terrace foot, and flood plain). A Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance on ranks with a Dunn’s multiple comparison procedure 

was calculated to determine significant differences between elevation classes (Sokal and Rohlf, 1996). Diversity was transformed to Hill’s number (Hill, 1973) for parametric analysis, as 

the normal distribution of Shannon’s Diversity Index is not 

known (Hill, 1973; Peet, 1974). 

Hydrologic Gradients 

Surface Water 

The local hydrology is a major factor controlling the distribution and character of riparian vegetation communities. One 

specific hydrologic parameter controlling the distribution and 

establishment of tree species is inundation (Kozlowski, 1984a, 

1984b, 2002). The depth of inundation, duration, timing, moving or stagnant inundation waters, water temperature, siltation, 

and the species and age of the inundated tree are all important 

factors affecting the tolerance of a tree to inundation (Teskey 

and Hinckley, 1977a; Loucks, 1987). 

All three units had inundation or ponding during each 

growing season of the 3-year monitoring period. Annual precipitation values from stations in the vicinity of the FRCA provided variable results but were near normal in 2001, below normal in 2002, and near normal again in 2003. Precipitation data 

for 2001 from nearby Butler and Nevada, Missouri, were 12 cm 

above and 20 cm below 30-year normals of 107 and 114 cm, 

respectively. In 2002, precipitation values from these sites were 

28 and 27 cm below normal, and in 2003 precipitation values at 

Butler and Nevada were 7.0 and 2.0 cm below the normal averages. 

Areas of all three study units were inundated during part of 

the 2001 through 2003 growing seasons (tables 8 to 10). The 

backwater swamp in Unit 1 was inundated 160, 89, and 84 days 

during the growing seasons of 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively (table 8). The Unit 4 well 3 site retained floodwaters at or 

above the target pool elevation of 221.9 m for 38, 53, and 258 

days during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 growing seasons (table 

10). The primary mechanism for inundation in Units 1 and 4 

was flooding from the Marmaton and/or Little Osage Rivers. 

The timing of flooding and ponding primarily was in late winter 

and spring (tables 8 to 10) although retention duration of floodwaters in Unit 4 was determined by management objectives. 

Unit 3, despite levee protection, still had shallow ponding from 

interior drainage for as many as 15, 47, and 10 days in the 2001, 

2002, and 2003 growing seasons, depending on the site location 

(table 9). The duration of standing water in the Unit 3 south pool 

was controlled and water levels were not above an elevation of 

222.8 m, corresponding to the elevation at which low lying tree 

plots were inundated, more than about 7 days during the study. 
25 

Table 8. Summary of flooding and ponding depth and duration in Unit 1 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, April 2001 through November 2003.[m, meters; >, greater than]

Inundation by seasona, in days 

Maximum 

Range of ground surface Inundated continuous Winter Spring Summer

elevation of sampled water- inundation, (December 21– (March 21– (June 21–

vegetation plots, surface Total Total Total days in days March 20) June 20) September 20) 

by landform, elevation, days of days of of

in m in m flooding ponding inundation Flood Ponding Flood Ponding Flood Ponding Flood Ponding 

Natural Flood Alluvial Backlevee plain depres- water

sion swamp

Unit 1 pool inundation data

2001 (calendar year)

224.50 224.50	 >224.49 12.3 147.7 160 4.7 155.3 8.5 30.5 3.8 86.2 0 31 

224.60 >224.64 11.4 133.6 145 4.5 140.5 7.7 16.3 3.7 86.3 0 31 

224.98	 224.80 >224.94 10.2 0 10.2 4 0 6.8 0 3.4 0 0 0 

225.19	 >225.25 7.8 0 7.8 3.2 0 5.1 0 2.7 0 0 0 

>225.55 3.5 0 3.5 2.5 0 2.5 0 1 0 0 0

>225.86 1.8 0 1.8 1.8 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 

226.04	 >226.16 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

226.40	 >226.47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2002 (calendar year)

224.50 224.50	 >224.49 17.2 71.8 89 7.7 81.3 0 0 17.2 60.8 0 11 

224.60 >224.64 16.4 49.6 66 7.5 58.5 0 0 16.4 38.6 0 11 

224.98	 224.80 >224.94 14 0 14 7.1 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 

225.19	 >225.25 9.9 0 9.9 6.2 0 0 0 9.9 0 0 0 

>225.55 6.3 0 6.3 4.8 0 0 0 6.3 0 0 0

>225.86 3.9 0 3.9 3.9 0 0 0 3.9 0 0 0 

226.04	 >226.16 3.3 0 3.3 3.3 0 0 0 3.3 0 0 0 

226.40	 >226.47 2.7 0 2.7 2.7 0 0 0 2.7 0 0 0 

Hydrologic Gradients 
26 

Table 8. Summary of flooding and ponding depth and duration in Unit 1 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, April 2001 through November 2003.—Continued[m, meters; >, greater than] 

Inundation by seasona 

Range of ground surface Inundated 	 Maximum Winter Spring Summer

elevation of sampled water- continuous (December 21– (March 21– (June 21–

vegetation plots, surface Total

Total

Total days inundation March 20) June 20) September 20) 

by landform, elevation, days of days of of

in m in m flooding ponding inundation Flood Ponding Flood Ponding Flood Ponding Flood Ponding 

Natural Flood Alluvial Backlevee plain depres- water

sion swamp 

Unit 1 pool inundation data—Continued

2003 (calendar year)

224.50 224.50	 >224.49 2.5 81.5 84 1.9 62.1 0 3 2.5 73.5 0 5 

224.60 >224.64 1.6 17.4 19 1.6 17.4 0 0 1.6 17.4 0 0 

224.98	 224.80 >224.94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

225.19	 >225.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>225.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

>225.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

226.04	 >226.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

226.40	 >226.47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

aThere were no periods of fall flooding or ponding in Unit 1 during the study period. 

Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO 2001–04 
27 

Table 9. Summary of inundation and ponding depth and duration in Unit 3 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, April 2001 through November 2003.[m, meters]

Inundation by season, in days Reforestation plot Maximum

and elevation, Total days continuous Winter Spring Summer Fall

in m of inundation, (December 21– (March 21– (June 21– (September 21–

(fig. 4) inundation in days March 20) June 20) September 20) December 20) 

Unit 3 pool inundation/ponding data

2001 (calendar year)

U3W1 (223.57) 10 10 0 10 0 0 U3W2 (222.64) 10 10 0 10 0 0 U3W3 (222.74) 15 10 0 15 0 0 

2002 (calendar year)

U3W1 (223.57) a10 a6 0 10 0 0 U3W2 (222.64) a15 a8 0 15 0 0 U3W3 (222.74) a47 a23 13 34 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 

2003 (calendar year)

U3W1 (223.57) a3 a3 3 0 0 0 U3W2 (222.64) 0 0 0 0 0 0U3W3 (222.74) a10 a6 0 10 0 0 

a Localized ponding. 

Hydrologic Gradients 
28 

Table 10. Summary of inundation and ponding depth and duration in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, April 2001 through November 2003.[m, meters]

Monitoring site and Inundation by season, in days

surface Maximum

elevation, Total days continuous Winter Spring Summer Fall

in m of inundation, (December 21– (March 21– (June 21– (September 21–

(fig. 5) inundation in days March 20) June 20) September 20) December 20) 

Unit 4 pool inundation data

2001 (calendar year)

U4W3 (221.78) 38 21 17 21 0 0 U4W2 (222.95) 11 5 8 3 0 0 

U4W1 (225.78) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2002 (calendar year)

U4W3 (221.78) 53 53 0 53 0 0 U4W2 (222.95) 36 36 0 36 0 0 U4W1 (225.78) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2003 (calendar year)

U4W3 (221.78) 258 131 24 91 57 86 U4W2 (222.95) 69 35 0 33 11 25 U4W1 (225.78) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO 2001–04 
The primary sources of ponded water in Unit 3 were precipitation and ground-water seepage. The middle elevation well 

U3W3 site had a greater duration of ponding than either the 

lower elevation or higher elevation sites (wells U3W2 and 

U3W1; table 9). 

Correlation results do not indicate a significant relation 

between estimated instantaneous annual flood peaks with time 

(Spearman’s rho = 0.07, p>0.05) at the Marmaton River at Horton Bottoms site, which would indicate there has been no trend 

in the magnitude of annual peaks in the basins from 1949 to 

2003 (fig. 7). Floods of 2-year recurrence interval (table 11) or 

greater occurred in 39 of the 55 years of estimated record with 

the highest peak stage occurring in 1986 (fig. 7). The plot of 

estimated flood peaks and the range in vegetation plot elevations by landform (fig. 7) indicates that the backwater swamp 

was inundated at least once in 50 of the last 55 years, while the 

natural levee sites were inundated from 38 to 48 of the last 55 

years. Flooding has been, and continues to be, a common and 

natural component of the hydrologic regime of the FRCA. 

Ground Water 

Ground-water elevations and depth to the ground-water 

surface were monitored in the three units as ground-water characteristics are directly related to the distribution and establishment of flood plain vegetation species (Hughes and others, 

2001), particularly sedges (Budelsky and Galatowitsch, 2000; 

Hunter and others, 2000; Steed and others, 2002). Changes in 

ground-water levels in the alluvial aquifer in riparian areas also 

offer an indication of the degree of connectivity between the 

flood plain and the river, and also between the alluvial aquifer 

and depressional flood plain features. 

Observation wells in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) indicate 

ground-water levels varied during the study from 0.6 m above 

the ground surface (during river flooding) to about 7 m below 

the ground surface depending on the site (table 12; fig. 8). The 

ground-water levels at well U1W1, located in the natural levee 

landform about 5 m from the river bank, consistently were the 

farthest below the ground surface as a result of a topographic 

rise and drainage by the adjacent Marmaton River. The mean 

annual depths below ground of the ground-water surface of well 

U1W1 were -5.77, -5.81, and -6.14 m in 2001, 2002, and 2003, 

respectively (table 12). Ground-water levels typically were 3 m 

or greater below ground during the study period except during 

flood events (fig. 8). Water levels were lowest at well U1W1 in 

the fall and winter and highest in the spring, similar to fluctuations in river levels, and quite variable with a range of approximately 6.4 m. The variability at this site was the result of the 

proximity of the well to the Marmaton River, which serves as a 

ground-water drainage collector and a line source of periodic 

recharge through the bank during high river stages. 

Water levels at well U1W2 in Unit 1, located in an alluvial 

depression approximately 130 m from the Marmaton River, 

ranged 5.7 m—from a maximum of 0.6 m above the ground surface down to 5.09 m below the ground surface (table 12; fig. 8). 

Hydrologic Gradients 29 

Ground-water levels again were closely related to river levels; 

the highest ground-water levels were during high river stages, 

primarily in the spring, and lowest were during summer and 

early winter river base-flow conditions. Mean annual groundwater levels at this site were -3.51, -3.36, and -5.53 m in 2001, 

2002, and 2003 (table 10). 

Ground-water levels at well U1W3 in Unit 1, located in the 

backwater swamp some 660 m from the river, ranged 2 m during the study from near the ground surface (during flooding) to 

1.88 m below the surface (table 12; fig. 8). The range of 2 m was 

the lowest of the three well sites, likely a result of the farther 

distance of this well from the Marmaton River, and also the high 

clay content and lower hydraulic conductivity of the soils in the 

area. Mean annual ground-water levels at this site were -0.86, 

-0.90, and -1.22 m below ground surface in 2001, 2002, and 

2003 (table 12). 

When ground-water levels were put in terms of elevations, 

it is evident that the predominant gradient was from the backwater swamp site (well U1W3) towards well U1W2, well 

U1W1, and the Marmaton River (fig. 8) as the ground-water 

elevations at well U1W3 consistently were higher than at well 

U1W2 or U1W1. The response of the monitoring wells to 

changes in river stage was directly related to the distance of the 

well to the river. Well U1W1, on the natural levee (5 m from the 

river), was the most responsive to Marmaton River fluctuations 

(fig. 8) followed by wells U1W2 (130 m) and U1W3 (660 m). 

While ground-water levels at well U1W3 still seemed responsive to changes in river levels (fig. 8), it is difficult to discern 

the effects of extended ponding on ground-water levels at well 

U1W3 with those of delayed responses to river conditions. 

The land-surface and ground-water elevation surfaces in 

Unit 1 were plotted during four seasonal base-flow periods; 

December 10, 2002, February 21, 2003, May 13, 2003, and 

August 22, 2003 (fig. 9). The land-surface gradient is from well 

U1W1 toward well U1W3, and the ground-water surface consistently is sloped from well U1W3 toward well U1W1. The 

discharge of stored water from the alluvial aquifer into the Marmaton River was most evident in the May 13, 2003, profile as 

there is little difference between the ground-water surface at 

wells U1W2 and U1W3, but a 1.3 m drop in ground-water elevations between well U1W2 and well U1W1 over approximately 150 m. 

Ground-water levels were similar between observation 

wells in Unit 3 of the FRCA from 2001 to 2003 (table 12; fig. 

10). Water levels generally were within 0.6 m of the ground surface in late winter through spring, and within 3 m of the surface 

in the late summer and fall. Collectively, ground-water levels 

were higher in this unit than either Unit 1 or 4 as topographic 

differences between wells in this unit were the least of the three 

sites. Ground-water levels were less than 1 to 3 m below ground 

at the monitoring sites during the study period (table 12). The 

depths to ground water in the summer and fall generally were 

the greatest at well U3W1 (highest elevation well) and least at 

well U3W2 (lowest elevation well). The vertical gradient 

between water levels at well U3W3a and the adjacent and shallower well U3W3b (table 2) was small or non-existent on sam­
30 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 31 

Table 11. Estimated instantaneous peak recurrence interval discharges and/or stages at the Marmaton River 

near Nevada, Missouri, Little Osage River at Horton, Missouri, and Marmaton River at Horton Bottoms, Missouri, 

locations. 

[m3/s, cubic meters per second; m, meters; yr, years; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988] 

Marmaton River Little Osage River Marmaton River at 

near Nevada a at Horton b Horton Bottoms 

Marmaton Concurrent Marmaton

Stage Stage only flood and Little Osage floods elevation, elevation, 

Recurrence Discharge, in m above Discharge, in m above Estimated stage elevation, 

interval in m3/s NAVD 88 in m3/s NAVD 88 in m 

2-yr 385 228.52 227 227.24 226.38 226.77 

5-yr 626 229.36 374 227.66 227.23 227.49 

a

Drainage area, in square kilometers, is 2,820. Slope, in meters per kilometer, is 0.50. b

Drainage area, in square kilometers, is 1,290. Slope, in meters per kilometer, is 0.53. 

pling dates during the 2001 to 2003 growing seasons (fig. 10). 

This indicates the absence of a clay pan or impeding layer in this 

area, and this conclusion is supported by the homogenous 

nature of well log materials encountered during well installation 

(table 3). Based on ground-water elevations of the three observation wells in Unit 3, it appears that the ground-water gradient 

generally is from well U3W1 towards wells U3W2 and U3W3a 

(fig. 10). This gradient is not as steep, nor consistent as the one 

shown for Unit 1 as there are additional effects on ground-water 

elevations at well U3W2. These effects include the north pool 

levels and water levels in the adjacent borrow ditch just north of 

well U3W2, both which can serve as recharge areas and elevate 

ground-water elevations in well U3W2. Unit 3 is geographically 

similar, albeit smaller in scale, to Horton Bottoms in that it is 

bordered on more than one side by a river and is located in a relatively large flood plain depression. All three sites had similar 

responses to Little Osage River changes in stage as all three 

sites were within 800 m from the channel. The hydrologic and 

topographic characteristics of this unit supported a wet prairie/ 

marsh as shown by the herbaceous nature of the vegetation in 

the 1939 aerial photograph in what currently (2004) is Unit 3 

(fig. 2). 

Transects of land-surface and ground-water elevation were 

constructed to show seasonal base-flow conditions in Unit 3 

across wells U3W1 and U3W2, and wells U3W3a and U3W2 

(fig. 11). The ground-water elevation gradient was from well 

U3W1 to well U3W2 in all four periods, and consistent with the 

land-surface gradient. The steepest gradient between the 

ground-water surface at well U3W1 and U3W2 was detected in 

the winter (February 21, 2003) at about 1.5 m, while the gradients for remaining dates were less than 1 m. The ground-water 

elevation gradients between wells U3W3a and U3W2 were 

toward well U3W2 on February 21, 2003, and May 13, 

2003—consistent with the ground surface. The ground-water 

elevation gradient was from well U3W2 toward well U3W3a on 

the December 10, 2002, and August 22, 2003, monitoring dates 

as a result of elevated ground-water levels at well U3W2 resulting from water storage in the adjacent borrow ditches and north 

pool. 

Ground-water levels in wells U4W1, U4W2, and U4W3 in 

Unit 4 were within about 4.5, 2, and 1 m of the ground surface, 

respectively (table 12; fig. 12) during the study period. The 

greatest range in water levels was measured at wells U4W1 and 

U4W2 with a range of about 2.4 and 2.9 m, and water levels at 

well U4W1 in Unit 4 were never closer than 2.6 m to the ground 

surface. 

The ground-water elevations at all three Unit 4 wells generally were similar throughout the study period, and all three 

wells were responsive to river fluctuations (fig. 12). The baseflow ground-water elevation gradients in Unit 4 were the most 

variable of the 3 units as the gradients were not consistent 

between wells on any two seasonal monitoring dates (December 10, 2002, February 21, 2003, May 13, 2003, and August 22, 

2003). Only the December 10, 2002, ground-water elevation 

measurements follow the ground surface gradient from well 

U4W1 to well U4W2 to well U4W3. Gradients during the other 

seasonal monitoring dates reflect managed pool elevation 

changes including higher pool elevations in the north pool in the 

spring and summer of 2003. 

SOIL GRADIENTS 

Soil Moisture 

Plant-water stresses, whether the result of soil saturation 

and anoxia or low soil water levels and wilting conditions, are 

important factors in the distribution and growth of flood plain 

vegetation. From a hydrologic standpoint, the characteristics of 

the unsaturated zone and wetting front in riparian areas are of 

considerable interest. Soil moisture data were collected in profiles in all three units to help explain the vegetation characteristics and characterize hydrologic processes in riparian zones of 

the FRCA. 
32 

Table 12. Summary of seasonal water-level depths and elevations at observation 

wells in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, 2001–03.

[m, meters; elevation relative to North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Positive values indicate ground-water levels above the ground surface, negative values indicate ground-water levels below ground 

surface] 

2001 

Spring (partial) Summer Fall Annual 

(April 19, 2001– (June 21, 2001– (September 21, 2001– 2001 Calendar year

June 20, 2001) September 20, 2001) December 20, 2001) (partial) 

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Mean

depth depth depth depth depth depth depth

Well below below Maximum Minimum below below Maximum Minimum below below Maximum Minimum below Mean

site ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, elevation,

(figs. 3–5) in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m 

U1W1 -5.99 -2.36 223.48 219.85 -6.46 -3.59 222.25 219.38 -6.56 -5.63 220.21 219.28 -5.77 220.06 U1W2 -1.80 -.6 224.23 223.02 -4.3 -.88 223.94 220.53 -4.57 -4.04 220.79 220.26 -3.51 221.32 U1W3 -.39 -.3 224.25 223.83 -1.24 -.24 224.31 23.31 -1.39 -.91 223.64 223.16 -.86 223.69 U3W1 -.48 .04 223.61 223.09 -1.7 -.08 223.49 221.87 -1.75 .01 223.6 221.21 -.55 223.02 U3W2 -1.52 -.21 222.42 221.12 -1.42 -.22 222.42 222.22 -2.4 -2.03 222.45 221.2 -.67 221.97 U3W3a -.3 -.06 222.68 222.44 -1.5 -.43 222.31 221.26 -.8 .01 222.75 222 -.12 221.61 

U4W1 -4.21 -3.3 222.49 221.58 -5.14 -3.59 222.2 220.66 -5.53 -4.19 221.6 220.26 -4.28 221.51 U4W2 -1.33 .4 223.35 221.62 -2.2 -.62 222.33 220.75 -2.21 -1.01 221.94 220.75 -1.36 221.59 U4W3 -.67 .15 221.94 221.12 -1.11 .15 221.94 220.68 -1.25 .04 221.83 220.54 -.43 221.36 

Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO 2001–04 
33 

Table 12. Summary of seasonal water-level depths and elevations at observation wells in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, 2001–03.—Continued[m, meters; elevation relative to North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Positive values indicate ground-water levels above the ground surface, negative values indicate ground-water levels below ground 

surface] 

2002 

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 

(December 22, 2001– (March 21, 2002– (June 21, 2002– (September 21, 2002– 2002 Calendar year

March 20, 2002) June 20, 2002) September 20, 2002) December 20, 2002) (partial) 

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Mean 

depth depth depth depth depth depth depth depth depth

Well below below Maximum Minimum below below Maximum Minimum below below Maximum Minimum below below Maximum Minimum below Mean

site ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, elevation,

(figs. 3–5) in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m 

U1W1 -6.46 -5.12 220.72 219.38 -6.13 -1.21 224.64 219.71 -6.71 -4.33 221.51 219.13 -6.75 -6.53 219.31 219.09 -5.81 220.03 U1W2 -4.03 -1.56 223.27 220.79 -1.97 .64 225.46 222.86 -4.63 -.76 224.07 220.2 -5.09 -4.63 220.2 219.74 -3.36 221.66 U1W3 -.91 -.69 223.86 223.64 -.7 .55 225.1 223.85 -1.43 .06 223.12 222.67 -1.88 -1.43 223.12 222.67 -.90 223.65 U3W1 -.52 .03 223.6 223.05 -.61 1.79 223.64 222.96 -2.71 -.59 222.98 220.86 -3.05 -1.93 221.64 220.52 -.97 222.40 U3W2 -.32 -.19 222.45 222.32 -.44 .03 222.69 222.2 -2.27 -.28 222.36 220.37 -2.4 -2.03 220.61 220.24 -1.09 221.55 U3W3a -.47 .02 222.76 222.27 -.51 .12 222.86 222.44 -2.64 -.51 222.23 220.1 -2.85 -.74 222.75 221.95 -1.15 221.59 

U4W1 -5.33 -4.35 221.82 221.45 -4.26 -2.62 223.17 221.53 -5.07 -3.26 222.53 220.72 -5.33 -4.3 221.49 220.47 -4.27 221.51 U4W2 -1.33 -.87 222.08 221.62 -1.24 1.43 224.38 221.71 -1.86 -.49 222.95 221.1 -1.42 -1.13 221.18 220.6 -1.24 221.71 U4W3 -.36 .28 222.07 221.43 -.41 .28 222.07 221.38 -1.31 -.2 221.59 220.48 -1.63 -.37 221.43 220.16 -.69 221.11 

SOIL GRADIENTS 
34 

Table 12. Summary of seasonal water-level depths and elevations at observation 

wells in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area, 2001–03.—Continued

[m, meters; elevation relative to North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Positive values indicate ground-water levels above the ground surface, negative values indicate ground-water levels below ground 

surface] 

2003 

Winter Spring Summer Fall (partial) Annual 

(December 22, 2002– (March 21, 2003– (June 21, 2003– (September 21, 2003– 2003 Calendar year

March 20, 2003) June 20, 2003) September 20, 2003) November 1, 2003) (partial) 

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Mean 

depth depth depth depth depth depth depth depth depth

Well below below Maximum Minimum below below Maximum Minimum below below Maximum Minimum below below Maximum Minimum below Mean

site ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, ground, elevation, elevation, ground, elevation,

(figs. 3–5) in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m in m 

U1W1 -6.67 -5.51 220.33 219.17 -6.07 -3.70 222.14 219.78 -6.88 -5.41 220.43 218.96 -6.63 -6.16 219.68 219.21 -6.14 219.71 U1W2 -5.07 -2.96 221.86 219.76 -2.96 -1.44 223.39 221.86 -4.79 -1.79 223.03 220.03 -4.8 -4.51 220.32 220.03 -5.53 221.30 U1W3 -1.86 -1.12 223.43 222.69 -1.12 -.61 223.94 223.43 -1.65 -.6 223.95 222.9 -1.9 -1.65 222.9 222.65 -1.22 223.33 U3W1 -2.36 .01 223.58 221.21 -.55 .01 223.58 223.02 -2.31 -.49 223.08 221.26 -2.5 -2.29 221.28 221.07 -1.24 222.33 U3W2 -2.03 -.6 222.03 220.61 -.6 -.08 222.56 222.04 -.6 -.36 222.28 222.04 -1.63 -1.55 221.09 221.01 -1.09 221.55 U3W3a -1.13 .01 222.74 221.61 -.54 .04 222.78 222.20 -2.84 -.54 222.2 219.9 -2.59 -2.46 220.28 220.14 -1.02 221.72 

U4W1 -4.26 -2.62 223.17 221.53 -4.41 -3.88 221.91 221.38 -4.77 -3.95 221.84 221.03 -4.37 -4.03 221.76 221.42 -4.29 221.50 U4W2 -1.96 -1.07 221.88 220.99 -1.34 -.81 222.14 221.61 -2.25 -.98 222.33 220.75 -1.42 -1.13 221.82 221.53 -1.36 221.59 U4W3 -.8 .07 221.87 221 -.02 .51 222.31 221.77 -.35 .42 222.22 221.44 .35 .43 222.22 222.14 -.06 221.85 

Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 35

36 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Spatial Variability 

The cumulative distribution of soil moisture values varied 

greatly with depth and location in each of the three units during 

the three growing seasons (fig. 13). The 3-year median soil 

moisture levels by depth were inversely related to site elevation 

at Unit 1—similar to the depth-to-ground-water relations in this 

unit. The highest median soil moisture values were measured at 

the lowest elevation site, near well U1W3, and the lowest soil 

moisture values were at the highest elevation site near well 

U1W1. The well U1W1 soil moisture array site had the lowest 

maximum, median, and minimum soil moisture values of the 

three Unit 1 sites. Within the soil profile, moisture values generally were greater and less variable at greater depths. The 

greater variability in soil moisture in the upper soil profile can 

be attributed to the greater effects of precipitation and evaporation near the ground surface. At the well U1W1 array the 

median soil moisture values were highest at 0.95 m deep (37 

percent by volume) and lowest at 2.2 m deep (24 percent; fig. 

13). Median soil moistures at the remaining depths were similar. At the well U1W2 array site the median soil moisture was 

highest at 2.2 m deep (42 percent) with median values similar at 

other depths (about 35 percent). At the well U1W3 monitoring 

location the median soil moisture values were lowest at 0.12 m 

deep (41 percent) and similar (about 50 percent) at the remaining depths. 

Median 3-year soil moisture profile values were inversely 

related to land-surface elevation at the Unit 3 monitoring sites 

and followed a similar relation to that of depth-to-ground water 

between monitoring sites. The soil-moisture variability was 

lowest at 2.2 m deep and similar at the remaining depths at all 

three sites (fig. 13). The Unit 3 sites consistently had the highest 

median soil moisture levels of the three units, which is consistent with ground-water levels that were the shallowest of the 

three units. The well U3W1 site had the highest median soil 

moisture levels at 1.45 m deep (47 percent) and the lowest at 
SOIL GRADIENTS 37

38 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 39

40 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 41

42 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 43 

0.12 m deep (34 percent). The wells U3W2 and U3W3 median 

soil moisture values were highest at 2.2 m deep (50 percent and 

48 percent) and lowest at 0.12 m deep (both about 35 percent). 

The median 3-year soil moisture levels in Unit 4 generally 

were highest at the lowest ground-surface elevation site (well 

U4W3) for any given depth, followed by similar median values 

at well U4W2 and the upper well U4W3 soil-moisture array 

site, with median soil moisture values at the well U4W1 site 

generally the lowest (fig. 13). Soil moisture levels at well 

U4W3 were the most variable in this unit as this site was the 

most susceptible to the effects of periodic inundation. The well 

U4W3 upper array values had median soil moisture values similar to well U4W2 despite a nearly 3-m elevation difference 

(table 3). The well U4W3 upper array was similar in elevation 

to the well U4W1 array. The differences in soil moisture 

between well U4W1 and well U4W3 upper sites may be attributed to the north aspect of the well U4W3 upper site. Soil moisture levels were more variable in upper layers than lower layers 

at all sites. 

Temporal Variability 

Soil moisture varied greatly during the growing season, 

within the soil column and between sites within each of the 

three sampled units (figs. 14 to 16). The 2001 through 2003 soil 

moisture results in Unit 1 (fig. 14) show the sharp contrast in 

soil moisture levels between the natural levee site (U1W1 tube 

array) and the alluvial depression (U1W2 tube array) and backwater swamp sites (U1W3 tube array). The U1W1 site soil columns had the lowest soil moisture values and most variable soil 

moisture profiles, as a whole, among the three Unit 1 sites. This 

relation in soil moisture between sites was similar to that of 

ground-water levels. Soil moisture values at the U1W1 site 

were below estimated field capacity levels (36 percent; table 13, 

at the back of this report) during August through October of 

2001, and July through October of 2002 and 2003 corresponding to periods of high evaporation (fig. 17) and transpiration. 

During these same periods, soil moisture levels were below estimated wilting point levels of 15 to 20 percent, particularly in the 

below average precipitation year of 2002. Ground-water levels 

never intersected the upper 2.2 m of the measured soil profile at 

the natural levee site (U1W1 tube array) on any of the soil moisture monitoring dates, and soils were not at or near saturation on 

any monitoring dates during the study. 

At the alluvial depression site (U1W2 tube array) in Unit 1 

the elevated soil moisture values (greater than 45 percent by 

volume) in the upper layers during the first one-half of the 

growing seasons corresponding to periods of observed ponding 

at this site (fig. 14). These ponding periods also corresponded to 

dates in which the ground-water surface was within the soil column. Upper column soil moisture values at this site also were 

below estimated field capacity (around 45 percent) and wilting 

points (28 percent) in August through October of 2001 through 

2003. 

Soil moisture values consistently were highest at the 

U1W3 tube array compared with the U1W1 and U1W2 sites 

(fig. 14). As with the other two Unit 1 sites, soil moisture levels 

were the lowest in the upper soil column during August corresponding to the period of likely maximum evapotranspiration. 

During this period upper column soil moisture levels were 

below estimated field capacity levels of 47 percent (table 13); in 

October 2002 and August 2003 moisture values were at or 

below the estimated wilting point of 32 percent. Ground-water 

levels were within soil moisture monitoring column at the 

U1W3 tube array location on all monitored dates in 2001 

through 2003 resulting in soil moisture values at or near saturation at some point in the upper 2 m soil column throughout each 

of the three growing seasons. 

Soil moisture profiles at the Unit 3 monitoring sites were 

similar to those of the backwater swamp U1W3 tube array in 

that ground-water levels were within the monitored soil column 

throughout the growing season and soils were at or near saturation levels (greater than 50 percent) in most of the soil column 

throughout the 2001 growing season (fig. 15). Soils at each 

measurement site also were at or near saturation levels at some 

point in the drier 2002 and 2003 growing seasons. From about 

July to October, high evapotranspiration rates resulted in soil 

moisture and ground-water level drawdown in the soil column, 

which was most evident in the below average precipitation year 

of 2002. During late summer, moisture levels fell below the 

estimated field capacity levels of 45 to 50 percent and wilting 

points of 30 to 35 percent through at least the upper 1.5 m of the 

soil profile. 

Temporal and spatial differences in soil moisture levels in 

the soil profiles between sites in Unit 4 are similar to those differences between sites in Unit 1 (figs. 14, 16). The U4W1 tube 

array consistently had the lowest soil moisture values of any of 

the three Unit 4 sites and the lowest moisture measurements of 

any sites or any unit (less than 10 percent) on two occasions in 

August 2001. Soils were below the estimated field capacity 

level of 37 percent at this site throughout all three growing seasons, and below the estimated wilting point of 22 percent each 

year. Elevated soil moisture levels (greater than 45 percent) 

were measured in early 2001 and in 2003 immediately following precipitation events (fig. 16). The commonly elevated levels 

of soil moisture at the U4W1 tube array, measured at the 0.2- to 

0.5-m level, indicates there could be a textural or structural 

layer limiting hydraulic conductivities; possibly a remnant 

effect of a plow layer in this previously farmed unit. This is supported by higher clay content values in the 0.31- to 0.6-m sample layer (table 13). Soils at the U4W2 tube array were below 

the estimated field capacity of about 38 percent in the upper 

1.5-m profile after July of each growing season. Soils were at or 

near saturation levels at some point in the soil column through 

the 2001 through 2003 growing seasons at times in response to 

ponded floodwaters. Soils at the U4W3 tube array were below 

the estimated field capacity (46 percent; table 13) and wilting 

point (30 percent; table 13) in the upper 1 m of the profile in the 

latter part of the 2001 to 2003 growing seasons. Soils at this 

flood plain site were the wettest of the three monitoring sites in 
44 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 45

46 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 47

48 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 49

50 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 51

52 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Unit 4 as ground-water elevations consistently were within the 

upper 2 m of the soil profile. Soils were at or near saturation 

levels during the growing season of each year, particularly 

during 2003 as floodwaters were ponded in the unit for several 

months during the growing season. 

The effects of a substantial precipitation event on temporal 

and spatial variability of soil moisture are most evident following the August 27 through September 2, 2003, event in which 

about 19.4 cm fell following a particularly dry period (figs. 14 

to 16). In Unit 1, this event increased moisture levels 10 to 20 

percent in the upper 0.8 to 1.4 m of the soil column at the natural 

levee (U1W1 tube array) and alluvial depression (U1W2 tube 

SOIL GRADIENTS 53 

array) sites (data from the backwater swamp site, U1W3 tube 

array, are unavailable). In Unit 3 following this event the soil 

moisture levels were increased about 20 percent through most 

of the soil column and resulted in elevated moisture levels for 

several weeks at the U1W2 tube array (likely from ponding in 

the north pool located upgradient from well 2). Soil moisture 

levels at the Unit 4 sites following the event also were raised 10 

to 20 percent in the upper 1 to 1.5 m of the soil. The subsequent 

retention of floodwaters raised ground-water levels and resulted 

in saturation or near saturation conditions at the U4W2 and 

U4W3 sites during the latter part of the 2003 growing season. 

Comparison of Mounded and Non-Mounded Locations 

Planting trees on constructed mounds was one management alternative used in the FRCA to facilitate the establishment of hard-mast species in the wet bottomland conditions and 

this was tested in Unit 3 of the FRCA. It was hypothesized by 

MDC managers that the mounds would have lower soil moisture values than the surrounding flood plain and would be better 

suited to allow the establishment and maturation of moderately 

tolerant tree species in areas prone to saturation conditions. The 

surficial (0 to 16 cm) soil moisture levels at 10 selected mounds 

and adjacent non-mounded sites were monitored along with the 

tube array data. The mounds were statistically drier than the 

adjacent non-mounded sites on all monitored dates (p< 0.001, 

Mann-Whitney test) and the average mounded values were 3.8 

to 20.4 percent less than adjacent non-mounded sites (fig. 18). 

Mound surficial (0 to 16 cm) soil moisture levels were below 35 

percent moisture by volume—a value approximating the wilting point using textural characteristics of adjacent flood plain 

soils (table 13)—during most of the 2001 through 2003 growing 

seasons. 

Physical Properties 

Soil physical properties including clay, silt, sand, and 

organic matter content have been determined to be strongly correlated with the distribution of overstory and understory vegetation in bottomland forests (Bledsoe and Shear, 2000; Lyon 

and Sagers, 2002). A number of soil physical properties were 

collected in all three units of the FRCA and these properties 

were used in determining estimates of corresponding soil 

hydraulic properties for each unit. 

Soil texture, organic matter, and corresponding estimated 

hydraulic properties varied both spatially and with depth at the 

selected sampling sites in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the FRCA (table 

13). The overall clay content in soil samples from all FRCA 

sites varied from 22.4 to 66.4 percent, sand was from 0.0 to 25.0 

percent, and organic matter varied from 0.6 to 9.2 percent. Soil 

texture classifications predominantly were silty clay, but also 

included silty clay loam, silt loam, and clay. 

Texture and hydraulic properties of surficial (0 to 0.30 m) 

soil samples collected at 45 vegetation monitoring plots in Unit 

1 (Horton Bottoms) sites were correlated with elevation and by 
54 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 55 

landform types (figs. 19, 20). The clay content of soils on the 

Horton Bottoms flood plain was strongly and inversely related 

to normalized vegetation plot elevations (Spearman’s rho = 

-0.92) and landforms (fig. 19). The backwater swamp sites had 

the lowest elevations and highest clay content, while the natural 

levee sites were the highest elevation sites on the flood plain and 

had the lowest clay content. Sand content was less than 4 percent at most sample sites with the exception occurring at several 

natural levee site locations. Sand content at select natural levee 

sites, likely corresponding to sand splay locations, was from 6 

to 13 percent. Sand was, therefore, weakly (Spearman’s rho = 

0.44), but still significantly, correlated with elevation. Silt content was strongly and directly correlated with site elevation 

(Spearman’s rho = 0.92). Organic matter content was weakly 

and inversely correlated with elevation, but this relation was not 

significant (p=0.18) (fig. 19). 

Most estimated hydraulic properties for Unit 1 soil samples also were strongly and significantly correlated with eleva­
56 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
SOIL GRADIENTS 57 

Table 14. Measured ponded infiltration rates for selected Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) locations at the Four Rivers Conservation 

Area. 

[m, meters; cm/hr, centimeters per hour; na, not available] 

Alluvial depression Backwater swamp 

Depth to ground water 

from land surface, 

in m 

Dates 

U1W2 

Tube 1 

U1W2 

Tube 2 

U1W2 

Tube 3 

U1W3 

Tube 1 

U1W3 

Tube 2 

U1W3 

Tube 3 U1W2 U1W3 

06/13/2001 to 06/27/2001 

05/23/2002 to 06/06/2002 

0.019 

.013 

Measured ponded infiltration rates a, in cm/hr 

na 

na 

0.027 0.028 0.028 

0.017 .017 .014 

0.021 

.015 

-0.60 to -0.94 

-0.22 to -0.40 

-0.20 to -0.27 

0.23 to 0.21 

Average 0.016 0.017 0.027 0.022 0.021 0.018 

a

Measured using water budget equation—Infiltration rate = ((Beginning water surface - evaporation + precipitation) - Ending water surface))/hours 

between beginning and ending water-surface observations. 

tion and landform type (fig. 20). Estimated wilting points, field 

capacities, and saturation levels were inversely correlated with 

elevation, with low-lying backwater swamp sites having the 

highest values for these properties. Available water was directly 

and significantly (p<0.01) correlated with elevation with natural levee sites having the highest estimated values (fig. 20). Saturation hydraulic conductivity, dependent primarily on sand and 

organic matter content, was weakly and not significantly (p= 

0.13) correlated with elevation. 

Measured infiltration rates under ponding conditions at the 

Unit 1 alluvial depression (U1W2) and backwater swamp 

(U1W2) locations (table 14) were compared with estimated saturation hydraulic conductivity values based on texture characteristics (table 13). Under steady-state conditions, infiltration 

rates approach saturated hydraulic conductivity values of the 

limiting layer in the soil profile (Hillel, 1982). Results indicate 

that the measured infiltration rates under ponding conditions 

were similar between the alluvial depression and backwater 

swamp sites [about 0.020 cm/hr (centimeter per hour); table 14] 

but were one order of magnitude less than estimated hydraulic 

conductivity rates for lower soil layers (about 0.55 cm/hr; table 

13) and two orders of magnitude less than estimated surficial (0 

to 0.30 m) rates (about 7 cm/hr; table 13). One reason for the 

discrepancy between measured infiltration rates (table 14) and 

estimated saturated hydraulic conductivities (table 13) could be 

that infiltration rates were not soil profile limited under these 

conditions but rather limited by a thin impeding layer, which 

would not be accounted for in the coarse 0.3-m length core samples collected from the sites and used in the hydraulic conductivity estimates. Such a tight thin layer may perch infiltrating 

water. However, ponding was observed only in the alluvial 

depression sites when ground-water levels were within the soil 

column (fig. 14). While ponding was not observed to be directly 

sustained by ground-water recharge (ground-water levels did 

not intersect the ground surface during the total observation 

periods) it could be indirectly sustained by the reduced infiltration rates and limited downward flux that occurs with elevated 

ground-water levels. Other factors accounting for the discrepancies include the errors in the relation between soil texture and 

hydraulic conductivity estimates and a lack of consideration of 

the anisotropic nature of hydraulic conductivity in the soil profile (horizontal hydraulic conductivity can exceed vertical 

hydraulic conductivity in the soil profile by orders of magnitude). One or more of these factors may account for the discrepancies between measured and estimated saturated hydraulic 

conductivity values; additional measurements under a variety of 

moisture conditions and at a variety of locations would provide 

more conclusive results. 

Statistical analyses of soil samples from Unit 1 vegetation 

plots indicate that there appears to be more variability in soil 

characteristics and hydraulic properties between landforms than 

between sample depths. Results of comparisons of distributions 

of clay, sand, silt, and organic matter content at selected 0- to 

0.3-m depths at the four landform types are presented in figure 

21. Significant differences were determined in all four texture 

properties between the natural levee and backwater swamp 

sites. There were no significant differences in clay (p=0.566) or 

sand (p=0.939) content and soil depths at the natural levee site, 

but significant differences in silt (p=0.014) and organic matter 

content (p<0.001) were determined (fig. 22). 

Significant differences were determined in textural characteristics of soil samples with depth at the Unit 3 soil moisture 

monitoring locations, but no significant differences were determined in textural characteristics with depth at the Unit 4 sites. 

Statistically significant differences were determined in clay (p= 

0.011), sand (p<0.001), and organic matter (p<0.001) between 

soil profile samples in Unit 3, but not silt (p=0.060). There were 

no significant differences between clay (p=0.071), sand (p= 

0.673), silt (p=0.154), or organic matter (p=0.057) with depth in 

the Unit 4 soil profile samples. 
58 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Vegetation Gradients 

Vegetation gradients were measured in the remnant (Unit 

1, Horton Bottoms) and constructed (Units 3 and 4) units in the 

FRCA. The extent of vegetation monitoring differed between 

units with the most extensive monitoring occurring in Unit 1 

within Horton Bottoms. Vegetation monitoring in the constructed wetlands consisted of monitoring reforestation efforts 

in Units 3 and 4, and natural colonization along topographic 

gradients in Unit 4. Data analyses includes characterization of 

growth form, native and introduced species, wetland indicator 

status, identification of dominant families, species richness and 

evenness, community similarity, and other descriptors. 

Bottomland Forest in a Remnant Wetland 

The ground-layer, understory, and overstory flora in Unit 

1 (Horton Bottoms) were monitored to identify the vegetation 

response to differences in environmental factors. Results of the 
Vegetation Gradients 59 

distribution of vegetation and correlations between vegetation 

and environmental factors in this remnant system may provide 

insight into the environmental requirements and revegetation/ 

restoration of constructed wetland systems. Summary tables of 

all species (including common names) sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) (table 15), the percent cover of ground layer species by site (table 16), the basal area of understory species by 

site (table 17), and basal area of overstory species by site (table 

18) are provided at the back of this report. 

Ground-Layer Flora 

In terms of the distribution of species by growth form 

(annual, annual/biennial, perennial, vine, woody vine, shrub, or 

tree), the ground-layer flora in all sampled landform types 

within Horton Bottoms was dominated by perennial species 

with tree seedling species being sub-dominant (fig. 23). The 

backwater swamp also had annual species as a sub-dominant 
60 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

with tree seedling species, while woody vines were sub-dominant in the natural levee, alluvial depression and flood plain 

(fig. 23). When analyzing the proportion of each growth form 

type as a percent of total cover, the patterns were similar to the 

percent of species. The natural levee landform was the only feature to have species represented in every growth form classification and the backwater swamp was represented by the fewest 

growth forms (fig. 23). 

There was a significantly greater proportion of native species cover than introduced species cover in every landform type 

(p<0.001; fig. 24). The alluvial depression landform had the 

greatest percent total cover of introduced species (23.5 percent) 

and the natural levee landform had the lowest percent total 

cover of introduced species (2.8 percent; fig. 24). The alluvial 

depression is low in elevation, relatively close to the adjacent 

rivers, and is more susceptible to inundation than the natural 

levee and many flood plain areas. The relative stability and 

higher elevation of the natural levee environmental conditions 

appears to inhibit invasion by introduced species, despite proximity to a natural dispersal route in the river. 

The natural levee, flood plain, and alluvial depression 

landform types had the greatest cover from facultative wetland 

species (FACW) (fig. 25), although facultative species (FAC) 

had high cover in the natural levee and flood plain landforms 

(fig. 25). In the backwater swamp, the greatest cover was from 

obligate wetland species (OBL), followed closely by facultative 

wetland species (fig. 25). In all landforms, the greatest cover 

was from species that have higher frequencies in wetlands 

(FAC, FACW, and OBL), while species that rarely occur in 

wetlands and are more typical of upland habitats (FACU) had 
Vegetation Gradients 61 

very low frequencies. This is indicative of normal hydrologic 

functioning in these wetlands, as there has not been significant 

recruitment of species typical of upland habitats that require 

drier conditions for growth and reproduction. 

As percent of total cover, the Poaceae and Cyperaceae (all 

Carex species) were two of the dominant families in the natural 

levee and flood plain landforms (fig. 26). The Primulaceae (represented by a single, introduced species, Lysimachia nummularia, moneywort) was a dominant family at the three lowest 

elevation landforms (flood plain, alluvial depression, and backwater swamp; fig. 26) while Anarcardiaceae (also represented 

by a single species, Toxicodendron radicans, native poison ivy) 

was the third dominant family in the natural levee landform (fig. 

26). The Malvaceae, (represented by a single species, Hibiscus 

laevis, rose mallow) dominated the backwater swamp landform. 

Polygonaceae was the third dominant family in the backwater 

swamp (fig. 26). The natural levee landform flora was represented by 37 families, the flood plain by 39 families, the alluvial 

depression by 35 families, and the backwater swamp 31 families (table 19, at the back of this report). 

Mean species richness (number of species) per vegetation 

plot was significantly different among landform types (fig. 27). 

The natural levee plots had the greatest mean species richness 

of 29.25 [+standard error of the mean (s.e.) = 3.85], which was 

significantly greater than the backwater swamp (mean 13.73, +s.e. 0.96), but not the alluvial depression (mean 21.1, +s.e. 

1.31) or the flood plain (mean 24.58, +s.e. 2.84) (p=0.017, fig. 

27). Species richness in the backwater swamp was not significantly lower than the alluvial depression (fig. 27). There was 

not a significant difference in evenness (distribution of individuals among species) among landform types (p=0.30). Diversity 

followed a similar pattern to species richness, with the natural 

levee (2.41, +s.e. 0.16), the alluvial depression (mean diversity 

2.18, +s.e. 0.15) and the flood plain (mean diversity 2.35, +s.e. 

0.10) having significantly greater mean diversity than the backwater swamp (mean diversity 1.80, +s.e. 0.09; p=0.02, fig. 27). 

Reduced richness and diversity in the backwater swamp could 

be a result of undersampling and environmental conditions, particularly in 2003, which was typified by drier conditions that 

likely resulted in early senescence in some species and lack of 
62 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

recruitment in others. In several plots, there was a substantial 

amount of senescent biomass that appeared to be sedge and 

grass species, but these plants were unidentifiable when the 

plots were sampled in June. Collection and identification of 

these species earlier in the growing season would have resulted 

in higher values for richness and diversity. In areas that are 

dominated by herbaceousspecies, there also is a higher turnover 

of species throughout the growing season, making it necessary 

to sample multiple times within the growing season to ensure 

accurate measures of the community’s composition. 

Calculation of Sorensen’s Coefficient of Similarity measures the similarity of species composition between communities, with a range of 1 (100 percent species in common) to 0 (0 

species in common). The landform types most similar to each 

other were the natural levee and flood plain (0.82), while the 

least similar landforms were the natural levee and backwater 

swamp (0.35; table 20). The natural levee had 8 (9.7 percent) 

unique species, the flood plain 10 (11.6 percent), the alluvial 

depression 7 (11.1 percent), and the backwater swamp 13 (25.0 

percent; table 21, at the back of this report). 

The primary measured factors determining the distribution 

of vegetation in the ground layer in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms), as 

determined by DCA, were elevation, soil texture (clay, silt content) and flooding inundation duration. Analysis of the variation 

explained by the DCA axes is an evaluation of the quality of the 

data reduction. Axis 1 explained 49.4 percent of the variation in 

the species data and axis 2 explained 9.7 percent of the variation 

for a total of 59.1 percent of the variation in the ground layer 

vegetation. Elevation was significantly and negatively correlated with axis 1 (-0.903, p<0.001; table 22), indicating that as 

elevation increased the axis score for the plot decreased. Elevation was not significantly correlated with axis 2 (table 22). Soil 
Vegetation Gradients 63 

texture also was strongly correlated with axis 1, with clay content increasing and silt and sand content decreasing with axis 

score (fig. 28). The environmental variable most strongly correlated with axis 2 was flooding inundation duration (-0.697, 

p<0.001; table 22), indicating that plots with lower axis 2 scores 

were flooded for longer periods during the year the plots were 

sampled. Inundation resulting from ponding also was significantly correlated with axis 1 (0.450, p<0.001) with ponding 

duration increasing with axis score. Although elevation, soil 

texture, and ponding duration are variables determining ground 

layer community composition, year-to-year variation in 

ground-layer vegetation is determined by flooding inundation 

duration (fig. 28). 

UnderstoryFlora 

All landform types were dominated by tree species, with 

the alluvial depression and backwater swamp having no shrub 

species present in the plots (fig. 29). It should be noted, however, that Reed (1988) classifies Cephalanthus occidentalis 

(buttonbush, a dominant species in the swamp) as a tree species, 

although it often has the appearance of a shrub. The perennial 

species Hibiscus laevis (Rose mallow) also often appears to be 

a shrub when, in fact, it is an herbaceous plant. All understory 

species identified in the plots were native species. 

The natural levee plots were dominated by FACW and 

FACU species, with no OBL species present (fig. 30). More 

than 80 percent of the basal area measured in the alluvial 

depression and flood plain was from FACW species, which 

dominated these landforms (fig. 30). The backwater swamp was 

dominated by OBL species (fig. 30). 

The natural levee plots were dominated by species from 

the Ulmaceae, Caprifoliaceae, and Fabaceae; each of these families represented less than 20 percent of the total basal area (fig. 

31). The flood plain was dominated by Juglandacae (Carya 

laciniosa, shellbark hickory and Carya cordiformis, bitternut 

hickory), Ulmaceae, and Caesalpiniaceae (Gymnocladus dio­
64 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 20. Comparison of Sorensen’s Coefficient of 

Community Similarity by landform type for ground layer 

vegetation in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area. 

[--, no data] 

Natural Flood Alluvial Backwater 

Landform type levee plain depression swamp 

Natural levee 1 0.82 0.61 0.35 

Flood plain -- 1 -- .39 

Alluvial depression -- .63 1 .52 

Backwater swamp -- -- -- 1 

ica, Kentucky coffee tree) (fig. 31). The alluvial depression was 

dominated by the Ulmaceae (69.2 percent of total basal area), 

Rubiaceae and Juglandaceae which each had less than 5 percent 

of the total basal area (fig. 31). The backwater swamp was dominated by Salicaceae (Salix nigra, black willow), Aceraceae 

(Acer saccharinum, silver maple), and Rubiaceae (Cephalanthus occidentalis, buttonbush) (fig. 31). 

Richness and diversity followed the same patterns in the 

understory vegetation as they did in the ground layer vegetation, 

with the natural levee and flood plain having significantly 

greater richness and diversity (fig. 32) than the alluvial depression and backwater swamp. There was no significant difference 

among landform types in evenness (p=0.075). 

The landform types most similar to each other in understory composition based on Sorenson’s Coefficient of Community Similarity are the alluvial depression and backwater swamp 

(0.67), while the least similar landform types were the natural 

levee and the backwater swamp (0.35; table 23). The natural 

levee had seven (28 percent) unique species, the flood plain had 

Table 22. Pearson product moment correlations of environmental variables to ground layer Detrended Correspondence 

Analysis (DCA) axis scores for vegetation sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[p, probability; <, less than; *, statistically significant] 

Vegetation Gradients 65 

three (14 percent), whereas the alluvial depression and backwater swamp had no unique understory species (table 24, at the 

back of this report). 

The primary measured determining factors in the distribution of vegetation in the understory layer in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms), as determined by DCA, were elevation, soil texture 

(clay, silt, and sand content), total inundation duration (flooding 

and ponding), and distance from river. Axis 1 of the ordination 

explained 32.1 percent of the variation in the vegetation data, 

whereas axis 2 explained 5.9 percent for a total of 38 percent as 

calculated using Sorensen’s Coefficient of Similarity Index as a 

distance measure. Elevation was positively correlated with axis 

1 of the ordination (0.870, p<0.001), indicating that as axis 

score increased, elevation increased. Soil texture also was correlated with axis 1, with percent silt (0.772, p<0.001) and percent sand (0.419, p=0.004) increasing with axis score and percent clay (-0.751, p<0.001) decreasing with axis score (table 25; 

fig. 33). Average total annual inundation (days of flooding and 

ponding per calendar year, from 2001 through 2003) was 

strongly correlated to axis 1 (-0.739, p<0.001), indicating that 

as the score for axis 1 increased, average annual inundation 

decreased. The distance of the plot from the nearest river also 

was strongly correlated with axis 1 (-0.642, p<0.001). None of 

the environmental variables were significantly correlated with 

axis 2, indicating that understory communities are determined 

by the combination of variables correlated with axis 1, and that 

a secondary environmental gradient does not exist or is negligible in its effect (table 25). This also is reflected by the low percentage of variation accounted for by the ordination scores of 

axis 2. The spatial distribution of understory species as reflected 

by the environmental variable identified with the plot ordination is shown in figure 33. The closer the species symbols are to 

one another in figure 33, the more likely they are to be associated together in the understory communities as defined by the 

environmental variables. 

Correlation coefficients 

Environmental variable Axis 1 Axis 2 

Normalized elevationa -0.903, p<0.001* -0.191, p=0.209 

Plot distance from nearest river 0.562, p<0.001* -0.389, p<0.008* 

Flooding inundation duration (average number of days per year) 0.253, p=0.093 -0.697, p<0.001* 

Ponding duration (average number of days per year) 0.450, p<0.001* -0.205, p=0.178 

Percent silt -0.911, p<0.001* -0.014, p=0.926 

Percent sand -0.533, p<0.001* -0.096, p=0.530 

Percent clay 0.898, p<0.001* 0.042, p=0.787 

Percent organic matter 0.235, p=0.121 0.049, 0.749 

a

Vegetation plot elevations were normalized to the base-flow river-water surface. 
66 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Vegetation Gradients 67 

Every landform had species of all tolerance types; however, proportions of these types varied with landform type. 

Flood tolerance, as determined by Whitlow and Harris (1979), 

varied widely in the understory with tolerances ranging from 

intolerant (unable to survive more than a few days of flooding 

during the growing season without significant mortality) to very 

tolerant (able to survive deep, prolonged flooding for more than 

1 year). Of the intolerant species identified, 71 percent were 

present in the natural levee plots; 80 percent of the very tolerant 

species were in the alluvial depression and backwater swamp 

plots (table 26, at the back of this report). 

Overstory Flora 

All species sampled in the overstory in all landform types 

were native tree species. This indicates that stability of hydrologic function has prevented major shifts in understory community structure that would give introduced species the opportunity to invade. However, shifts in the ground layer community 

ultimately could prevent recruitment of native tree seedlings 

and any difference in trends would be identified first in the 

ground layer. The presence of Lysimachia nummularia (moneywort) has been shown to inhibit recruitment of native flood 

plain herbaceous species (Mettler-Cherry, 2004), but it is not 

known if it inhibits tree seed germination. 

The natural levee and flood plain plots were dominated by 

FACW and FACU tree species and were the only two landforms 

to have species not listed as indicator species (fig. 34). The alluvial depression was dominated by FACW and FACU tree species; however, there also were OBL species present (fig. 34). 

The backwater swamp was dominated by FACW and OBL tree 

and shrub species with no FACU or unlisted species present 

(fig. 34). 
68 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Dominant families in the natural levee were Aceraceae 

(Acer negundo, boxelder; Acer saccharinum, silver maple), 

Ulmaceae (Celtis occidentalis, hackberry), and Juglandaceae 

(Carya laciniosa, shellbark hickory) (fig. 35). The alluvial 

depression and flood plain had the same dominant families; 

Oleaceae (Fraxinus pennsylvanica, green ash), Aceraceae 

(Acer negundo, Acer saccharinum), and Fagaceae (Quercus 

palustris, pin oak) (fig. 35). Oleaceae (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 

was the dominant family in the backwater swamp, along with 

Salicaceae (Salix nigra) and Juglandaceae (Carya illinoensis, 

pecan) (fig. 35). 

Richness and diversity had the same pattern in the overstory as it did in the understory and ground layers, with the 

backwater swamp having significantly lower richness and 

diversity than the natural levee and flood plain. Richness and 

diversity in the alluvial depression was not significantly lower 

than the natural levee and flood plain, nor significantly higher 

than the backwater swamp (fig. 36). There was no significant 

difference in evenness among the landform types. 

Unlike the understory vegetation, the landform types most 

similar to each in overstory species composition were the alluvial depression and the flood plain (0.67), whereas the backwater swamp and the natural levee again were the least similar 

(0.35, table 27). The backwater swamp areas had reduced overstory vegetation overall and had no overstory vegetation in one 

plot surveyed, and this is reflected in reduced similarity with the 
Vegetation Gradients 69 

alluvial depression. The natural levee was the only landform 

type to contain unique overstory species, Crataegus mollis 

(downy hawthorn) and Tilia americana (basswood). 

Flood tolerance, as determined by Whitlow and Harris 

(1979), of the overstory species was more clearly delineated 

than in the understory species. In the natural levee area, 41 percent of the species were flood intolerant, whereas the backwater 

swamp had no flood intolerant species present in the overstory 

(table 28, at the back of this report). Overstory flood tolerance 

increased from the natural levee, to the flood plain, to the alluvial depression, to the backwater swamp. 

The primary measured determining factors, as determined 

by DCA, in the distribution of overstory vegetation in Unit 1 

(Horton Bottoms) were elevation, soil texture (clay, silt, and 

sand content), ponding duration, and to some extent, flooding 

inundation duration. Axis 1 determined 45.6 percent of the variation in the species data and axis 2 determined 11.6 percent of 

the variation for a total of 57.2 percent. As with the understory, 

elevation was most positively correlated with axis 1 (0.878, 

p<0.001; table 29), indicating that elevation increased as axis 

score increased (fig. 37). Soil texture also was strongly correlated with axis 1, with percent silt (0.760) and percent sand 

(0.426) increasing with axis 1 score and percent clay (-0.740) 

decreasing with axis 1 score. Average total flooding and ponding inundation duration (average days per calendar year, 2001 

through 2003) and average ponding duration (average days per 

calendar year, 2001 to 2003) were negatively correlated with 

axes 1 and 2; however, average flooding inundation duration 

was correlated only with axis 1 (-0.483), indicating that the 

effects of ponding on overstory vegetation were greater than 

flooding alone. The distribution of overstory species in relation 

to the environmental variables identified in the plot ordination 

is shown in figure 37. 

Canopy density was not significantly different among the 

natural levee, alluvial depression, and flood plain landform 

types. The backwater swamp had significantly lower canopy 

density than the other landform types (fig. 38). 

The age and diameter of selected canopy and sub-canopy 

trees were determined at each of the 45 vegetation plots in Unit 

1 for a total of 270 sampled trees to obtain information on stand 

age distribution by landform. These results are presented in 

table 30, at the back of this report. Tree core samples indicate 

an average natural levee stand age of 58 years, with a range of 

21 to 144 years. These data indicate that the natural levee landform has not experienced a major disturbance event (for example, logging) for more than 100 years. The average age of sampled dominant species were 65.6 (Celtis occidentalis, 

hackberry), 42.2 (Acer negundo, boxelder), and 59.8 (Carya 
70 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 23. Comparison of Sorensen’s Coefficient of 

Community Similarity by landform type for understory 

vegetation in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area. 

[--, no data] 

Natural Flood Alluvial Backwater 

Landform type levee plain depression swamp 

Natural levee 1 0.60 0.49 0.35 

Flood plain -- 1 -- .45 

Alluvial depression -- .59 1 .67 

Backwater swamp -- -- -- 1 

laciniosa, shellbark hickory) (table 31). The oldest average 

sample ages were for Ulmus americana (american elm, 79.0), a 

somewhat flood tolerant species, and Acer saccharinum (silver 

maple, 71.0), a flood tolerant species (table 31). Carya illinoiensis (pecan), a very flood tolerant species in the natural 

levee, had an average sample age of 66.3 years (table 31). 

The average stand age of the flood plain is 55.4 years, with 

a range of 13 to 125 years. The dominant species had mean sample ages of 31.6 (Acer saccharinum) and 55.1 (Fraxinus pennsylvanica, green ash) (table 32). The flood plain sites (median 

elevation = 224.7 m) were significantly (p<0.001) higher in elevation than the alluvial depression (224.4 m) and backwater 

swamp sites (224.1 m), although significantly lower than the 

natural levee (225.1 m). Average flood plain stand age was 

slightly lower than the natural levee, but higher than the alluvial 

depression, reflecting differences in inundation among the landform types. The sub-dominant species Ulmus americana 

(American elm) had a mean sample age of 65.6 (table 32). The 

three oldest species samples were all dominant (two species) 

and sub-dominant species of the flood plain forest, indicating 

stability in forest structure for this landform type. 

Tree core samples from the alluvial depression plots indicate an average stand age of 51.3 years, with a range of 12 to 89 

years. The alluvial depression is lower in elevation and is subjected to more frequent disturbance from flooding and ponding; 

therefore, it is logical to see reduced stand age as mature trees 

succumb to flood stress. The alluvial depression area is a habitat 

that is too wet to be considered flood plain but is not wet 

enough, or of a large enough scale, to be considered a backwater 

swamp. Although the tree species in the alluvial depression generally are flood tolerant, even these species will experience 

damage such as reduced shoot and root growth, premature leaf 

senescence, and loss of mycrorrhizal associations typically 

detected if flooding is prolonged during the growing season 

(Kozlowski, 1984b). The average sample ages of the dominant 

species were 34.1 (Acer saccharinum) and 69.6 years (Fraxinus 

pennsylvanica) (table 33). The oldest mean species samples 

were Fraxinus pennsylvanica (69.6 years) and Carya illinoiensis (66.5 years), both very flood tolerant species (table 33). 

The backwater swamp had a much lower average stand age 

(38.7 years) than all other landform types, with a range of 9 to 

84 years. Fraxinus pennsylvanica had an average sample age of 

52.0 and mean CPI of 2.1, Acer saccharinum had an average 

sample age of 46.5, and Salix. nigra had an average sample age 

of 21.2 years (table 34). Carya illinoiensis, a very flood tolerant 

species, according to Whitlow and Harris (1979), had the greatest sampled age of 84 years. 

The natural levee forest can be described as a mesic, 

broad-leaved, deciduous flood plain forest dominated by Celtis 

occidentalis, Acer negundo, and Carya laciniosa. Size class distributions indicate healthy regeneration of the dominant species, with a large number of juveniles in the lowest diameter at 

breast height classes (fig. 39). The most important species (IV= 

14.8) of the natural levee forest is Celtis occidentalis, a flood 

tolerant species positioned in the canopy or just below with an 

average CPI of 2.5 (table 31). Acer negundo, also a flood tolerant species, had an IV of 13.9 with an average CPI of 2.6 (table 

Table 25. Pearson product moment correlations of environmental variables to understory Detrended Correspondence 

Analysis (DCA) axis scores for vegetation sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[p, probability; <, less than; *, statistically significant] 

Vegetation Gradients 71 

Correlation coefficients 

Environmental variable Axis 1 Axis 2 

Normalized elevationa 0.870, p<0.001* -0.133, p=0.385 

Plot distance from nearest river -0.642, p<0.001* 0.199, p=0.190 

Total flooding and ponding inundation duration -0.739, p<0.001* 0.163, p=0.285 

(average number of days per year, 2001–03) 

Percent silt 0.772, p<0.001 -0.088, p=0.562 

Percent sand 0.419, p=0.004 -0.281, p=0.061 

Percent clay -0.751, p<0.001 0.159, p=0.296 

a

Vegetation plot elevations were normalized to the base-flow river-water surface.
72 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Vegetation Gradients 73 

31). Carya laciniosa, a flood intolerant species, had the largest 

number of stems per hectare in 0 to 10 cm dbh class with most 

individuals either in the canopy or just beneath the canopy 

(mean CPI = 2.7). Another flood intolerant species, Morus 

rubra (red mulberry), is an important component of the understory with an average CPI of 3.0 (table 31). 

The flood plain can be classified as a mesic, broad-leaved, 

deciduous flood plain forest also dominated by Acer saccharinum and Fraxinus pennsylvanica, with Quercus palustris (flood 

tolerant) and Ulmus americana (somewhat flood tolerant) as 

sub-dominant species (table 32; fig. 40). The dominant species 

again had large juvenile classes, indicating population regeneration, with Acer saccharinum (silver maple) having the largest 

juvenile class (fig. 40). Acer saccharinum (flood tolerant) had 

an IV of 18.2 and mean CPI of 2.5, Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

(very flood tolerant) had an IV of 16. 8 and mean CPI of 2.1 

(table 32). 

The alluvial depression also can be classified as a mesic, 

broad-leaved, deciduous flood plain forest dominated by Acer 

saccharinum and Fraxinus pennsylvanica, with sub-dominant 

species Quercus palustris and Ulmus americana. The dominant 

species had large juvenile size classes; however, Acer saccharinum (a flood tolerant species) had a much larger number of 

stems per hectare in the smallest size class than the other dominant species with an IV of 31.0 and mean CPI of 2.4 (fig. 41; 

table 33). Fraxinus pennsylvanica, a very flood tolerant species, 

had an IV of 23.3 and mean CPI of 2.0. The dominant species 

of the tree canopy had partial vertical exposure of their crowns, 

although Fraxinus pennsylvanica had greater vertical exposure 

than Acer saccharinum (table 33). 
74 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

The backwater swamp is a mosaic of mesic, broad-leaved, 

deciduous flood plain forest and shrub swamp. The forest plots 

are dominated by Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Acer saccharinum, 

and Salix nigra. All of the dominant species had large juvenile 

classes, with Acer saccharinum having more stems per hectare 

than the other dominant species (table 34, fig. 42). Fraxinus 

pennsylvanica had the highest IV (26.4), with a mean CPI of 2.1 

(table 32). Acer saccharinum had an IV of 17.2 and a CPI of 1 

for all individuals. This species had a mean diameter at breast 

height of 6.2 cm and most individuals were less than 20 cm dbh, 

indicating significant and recent recruitment of this species in 

the backwater swamp plots. Salix nigra had an IV of 17.0 and a 

mean CPI of 2.1 (table 34). Overall, CPI was low for all species, 

indicating a more open forest structure than in the other landform types, with scattered individual trees present in the shrubswamp plots. The shrub-swamp plots were dominated by Cephalanthus occidentalis–Hibiscus laevis–Salix nigra; species all 

adapted to surviving prolonged periods of inundation. 

There has been recent and substantial recruitment of tree 

species in the backwater swamp, evidence corroborated by the 

aerial photographs presented earlier that clearly show a virtually treeless swamp (probably a sedge meadow) in 1939 (fig. 2). 

The drainage ditch is plainly visible and the presence of trees in 

immediate proximity to the ditch also is visible in this photograph. The presence of tree seedlings in many of the plots is evidence that the backwater swamp is shifting from dominance by 

shrub and sedge species to forest tree species that eventually 

could displace the remnants of the historical community of this 

area. There were 10 tree seedling species present in the groundlayer vegetation, accounting for 9.07 percent of the total cover 

of the ground layer. Flood tolerance of seedlings and saplings is 

much lower than mature trees and varies widely; however, permanent flooding such as usually occurs in swamps prevents tree 

establishment except for the few species capable of growth in 

permanently inundated conditions, such as Taxodium distichum 

(baldcypress), Nyssa aquatica (water tupelo), and Salix spp. 

(Kozlowski, 1984b). Although seeds can germinate while 

flooded, drawdown of floodwater is necessary to allow the 

seedling to establish roots on exposed habitat. The presence of 

Acer saccharinum and Fraxinus pennsylvanica, in addition to 

Salix nigra, in the backwater swamp clearly indicates that 

hydrologic conditions are dry enough at some point during the 

growing season to allow seed germination and seedling establishment. At some point, a critical threshold will be reached 

when the environment of this habitat is altered to a degree that 

prohibits re-colonization of shrub and sedge species, and frag­
Vegetation Gradients 75

76 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 27. Comparison of Sorensen’s Coefficient of 

Community Similarity by landform type for overstory 

vegetation sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the 

Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[--, no data] 

Natural Flood Alluvial Backwater 

Landform type levee plain depression swamp 

Natural levee 1 0.58 0.59 0.35 

Flood plain -- 1 -- .50 

Alluvial depression -- .67 1 .63 

Backwater swamp -- -- -- 1 

mentation prevents seed dispersal from patch to patch, further 

depleting the potential for reversal of the trend towards flood 

plain forest. 

There was no evidence of overstory vegetative disturbance 

in the Horton Bottoms as a result of the 1986 flood (>100-year 

recurrence interval; fig. 7) that occurred on the Marmaton and 

Little Osage Rivers. The age-class distribution of dominant 

trees in each landform (figs. 39 to 42) show a wide distribution 

of age classes represented with no apparent shifts or gaps in 

regeneration characteristics. There were observed to be numerous dead mature trees on the fringe of the backwater swamp 

near U1W3, but the timing of the death of these trees is difficult 

to discern, and the area of dead timber was isolated as similar 

occurrences of dead timber along the fringe of the backwater 

swamp in other areas were not observed. The timing of the 

flood, near the end of the growing season (October to NovemTable 29. Pearson product moment correlations of environmental variables to overstory Detrended Correspondence 

Analysis (DCA) axis scores for vegetation sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[p, probability; <, less than; *, statistically significant] 

ber), combined with the relative undisturbed hydrologic nature 

under which the stand matured, resulted in the native overstory 

species being adaptable to a flood of this magnitude and duration. Also, the determination of effects of the 1986 flood was 

not a primary objective of the study and not considered when 

developing the vegetation sampling methodology. A flood of 

this magnitude no doubt affected the ground flora layer, understory, and perhaps some susceptible overstory trees, but a direct 

correlation of these effects was not apparent some 17 or 18 

years after the event. 

Previous work by Weaver (1960) examined flood plain 

forest communities along the Missouri River and its tributaries 

in northwestern Missouri, northeastern Kansas, southwestern 

Iowa, and southeastern Nebraska, and provides an excellent 

comparison to flood plain forests in Horton Bottoms. The forest 

overstory species composition described by Weaver is similar 

to Horton Bottoms and includes Acer negundo, Acer saccarhinum, Ulmus americana, and Fraxinus pennsylvanica as dominant species. Weaver described Cornus Drummondi (rough 

leaved dogwood), Symphoricarpos orbiculatus (coralberry), 

and Euonymus atropurpureus (eastern wahoo) as some of the 

common understory species. As was recorded in Horton Bottoms, Weaver (1960) also described Vitis vulpina (frost grape), 

Smilax hispida (bristly greenbriar), Toxicodendron radicans, 

and Clematis virginiana (virgin’s bower) as common understory woody vines. Weaver compares his work to several historical accounts from both Illinois and Missouri that describe similar flood plain forest composition in areas that had not been 

subject to wide disturbance or hydrologic alteration. Many of 

the alterations took place from 1930 to 1968, when the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers built dam and reservoir systems to 

facilitate barge navigation. Many agricultural levees were conCorrelation coefficients 

Environmental variable Axis 1 Axis 2 

Normalized elevationa 0.878, p<0.001* 0.309, p=0.041* 

Plot distance from nearest river -0.641, p<0.001 -0.117, p=0.451 

Total flooding and ponding inundation duration -0.736, p<0.001* -0.319, p=0.035* 

(average number of days per year, 2001–03) 

Flooding inundation duration -0.483, p<0.001* -0.193, p=0.209 

(average number of days per year, 2001–03) 

Ponding duration -0.706, p<0.001 -0.309, p=0.041* 

(average number of days per year, 2001–03) 

Percent silt 0.760, p<0.001* 0.496, p=0.001* 

Percent sand 0.426, p=0.004* 0.156, p=0.313 

Percent clay -0.740, p<0.001* -0.444, p=0.003* 

a

Vegetation plot elevations were normalized to the base-flow river-water surface. 
Vegetation Gradients 77

78 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

structed along rivers in the Midwest during this period (Larson, 

1978). 

Overall, the composition and structure of the forest in Unit 

1 is indicative of a healthy, relatively undisturbed flood plain 

forest. Dominant species in each landform type have a distribution of individuals that shows regeneration of these species with 

significant recruitment in the smaller size classes. Elevation and 

hydrology have been shown to be the primary determinants of 

vegetative composition in the Horton Bottoms. The flood plain 

forest is an area whose hydrology has not been significantly 

altered (fig. 7); this supports a healthy, regenerating native forest. However, the backwater swamp has suffered from hydrologic alteration by a drainage ditch that is resulting in the displacement of swamp and marsh species by colonizing shrub and 

tree species. This area likely will continue to develop into an 

immature flood plain forest under the current (2004) hydrologic 

regime. 

Reforestation Plots in Constructed Wetlands 

Unit 3 Reforestation Plots 

Vegetation monitoring in Unit 3 consisted of sampling 

growth and determining survival of multiple tree species established under several production methods and planted at multiple 

elevations. The well U3W2 (low elevation) monitoring site was 

established in association with a bare root tree plot and wells 

U3W1 (high elevation), U3W3a, and U3W3b (middle elevation) were established in association with direct seeded tree 

plots. Plots of RPM® trees were planted at mounded and nonmounded sites between wells U3W2 and U3W3. 

Comparison of survival between tree species and production types showed no significant differences for all comparisons 

(table 35). Survival was high for both species and all production 

types, with the highest mortality seen in mounded RPM® Quercus palustris (pin oak, 6.9 percent). Bare root Quercus palustris 

seedlings at well U3W2, and direct seed seedlings at U3W3, 

had 100 percent survival (table 35). 

Bare root seedling diameter was not significantly different 

between Carya illinoiensis and Quercus palustris seedlings at 

the time of planting; however, Quercus palustris seedlings had 

significantly larger mean diameter in 2002 and 2003 (table 36). 

Diameters of direct seed trees at both well U3W1 and well 

U3W3 locations increased throughout the study (table 36). 

There were significant differences between the planting groups 

at the time of planting in 2001 and in 2002. Direct seeded Carya 

illinoiensis at the well U3W1 location were significantly larger 

in diameter than the direct seeded Quercus palustris seedlings 

at well U3W3 and well U3W1 locations, but not significantly 

larger than direct seeded Carya illinoiensis seedlings at well 

U3W3 (table 36). By 2003, there were no significant differences 
79 

Table 31. Characteristics of overstory and understory trees sampled in the natural levee vegetation plots in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.[dbh, diameter at breast height; cm, centimeters; BA, basal area; dm2, square decimeters; IV, importance value; CPI, canopy position index; n, number in sample; --, no data]

Mean age,

Number of Mean dbh, BA, Relative Mean in years 

Natural levee species trees in cm in dm2 Frequency density Dominance IV CPI (n) 

Acer negundo 86 57.4 271.2 8.3 11.1 22.3 13.9 2.6 42.2 (6) Acer saccharinum 4 12.3 58.1 1.5 .5 4.8 2.3 2.3 71.0 (2) Asimina triloba 134 1.0 4.5 3.8 17.3 .4 7.2 -- --Carya cordiformis 33 5.1 23.9 3.0 4.3 2.0 3.1 -- --Carya illinoiensis 11 9.3 43.9 2.3 1.4 3.6 2.4 1.3 66.3 (3) Carya laciniosa 85 28.1 132.7 7.6 11.0 10.9 9.8 2.7 59.8 (6) Celtis occidentalis 98 60.4 285.3 8.3 12.7 23.4 14.8 2.5 65.6 (11) Carya ovata 1 5.43 25.7 .8 .1 2.1 1.0 -- -­Cercis canadensis 13 .9 4.4 1.5 1.7 .4 1.2 -- --Cornus drummondi 22 .5 2.1 3.8 2.8 .2 2.3 -- --Crataegus mollis 8 .8 3.7 3.8 1.0 .3 1.7 -- --Eunonymus atropurpureus 2 .1 .4 1.5 .3 .1 .6 -- --Fraxinus pennsylvanica 57 5.6 26.2 6.1 7.4 2.2 5.2 -- 61.6 (10) Gleditsia triacanthos 1 .2 .8 .8 .1 .1 .3 -- --Gymnocladus dioica 10 5.8 27.6 3.0 1.3 2.3 2.2 -- -­Ilex deciduas 24 .4 1.8 6.1 3.1 .2 3.1 -- --Juglans nigra 3 .9 4.2 1.5 .4 .4 .8 2.0 --Morus rubra 21 15.4 71.1 7.6 2.7 5.9 5.4 3.0 --Quercus bicolor 1 .1 .3 .8 .1 .1 .3 -- --Quercus macrocarpa 21 10.9 51.6 6.8 2.7 4.2 4.6 2.7 61.3 (6) Quercus palustris 15 20.0 94.7 3.0 1.9 7.8 4.3 -- 42.3 (8) Sumbucus canadensis 1 .1 .1 .8 .1 .1 .3 -- --Symphoricarpos orbiculata 49 .1 .6 3.8 6.3 .1 3.4 -- --Tilia americana 6 4.0 19.0 1.5 .8 1.6 1.3 -- 51.0 (2) Ulmus americana 45 9.3 43.7 6.8 5.8 3.6 5.4 3.0 79.0 (2) Ulmus rubra 3 .3 1.4 2.3 .4 .1 .9 -- -­Viburnum prunifolium 15 .1 .6 .8 1.9 .1 .9 -- -­

Vegetation Gradients 
80 

Table 32. Characteristics of overstory and understory trees sampled in the flood plain vegetation plots in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation 

Area.

[dbh, diameter at breast height; c

m, centimeters; 

BA, basal area; dm2, square decimeters; IV, importance value; CPI, canopy position index; n, number in sample; --, no data]

Mean age,

Number of Mean dbh, BA, Relative Mean in years

Flood plain species trees in cm in dm2 Frequency density Dominance IV CPI (n) 

Acer negundo 50 16.1 76.1 8.6 5.2 5.4 6.4 2.7 32.5 (2) Acer saccharinum 303 44.8 211.4 7.8 31.8 15.0 18.2 2.5 31.6 (7) Carya cordiformis 4 2.0 9.7 1.7 .4 .7 .9 -- --Carya illinoiensis 20 8.5 40.2 6.0 2.1 2.8 3.7 2.3 66.8 (6) Carya laciniosa 38 18.8 88.6 6.0 4.0 6.3 5.4 2.0 --Carya ovata 2 1.2 5.6 .9 .2 .4 .5 -- 13.0 (1) Celtis occidentalis 43 14.4 67.8 5.2 4.5 4.8 4.8 2.3 44.3 (3) Cephalanthus occidentalis 2 .1 .1 .9 .2 .1 .4 -- -­Cercis canadensis 3 .2 1.1 1.7 .3 .1 .7 -- --Cornus drummondi 98 .6 2.8 3.5 10.3 .2 4.6 -- --Crataegus mollis 13 .4 1.8 2.6 1.4 .1 1.4 -- --Diospyros virginiana 2 .1 .1 .9 .2 .1 .4 -- --Fraxinus pennsylvanica 129 81.9 386.8 9.5 13.5 27.3 16.8 2.1 55.1 (14) Gleditsia triacanthos 2 9.5 44.9 .9 .2 3.2 1.4 -- 69.0 (1) Gymnocladus dioica 3 2.7 12.7 1.7 .3 .9 1.0 2.5 -­Ilex decidua 71 1.3 6.1 7.8 7.4 .4 5.2 -- --Morus rubra 9 7.6 36.1 4.3 .9 2.6 2.6 3.0 --Prunus americana 1 .1 .1 .9 .1 .1 .3 -- --Quercus bicolor 1 .2 .8 .9 .1 .1 .3 -- --Quercus macrocarpa 13 12.1 57.1 4.3 1.4 4.0 3.2 3.0 59.7 (3) Quercus palustris 58 36.5 172.5 9.5 6.1 12.2 9.3 2.6 42.4 (11) Symphoricarpos orbiculata 31 .1 .4 2.6 3.3 .1 2.0 -- --Ulmus americana 46 26.9 127.2 7.8 4.8 9.0 7.2 2.6 65.6 (8) 

Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO 2001–04 
81 

Table 33. Characteristics of overstory and understory trees sampled in the alluvial depression vegetation plots in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.[dbh, diameter at breast height; cm, centimeters; BA, basal area; dm2, square decimeters; IV, importance value; CPI, canopy position index; n, number in sample; --, no data]

Mean age,

Number of Mean dbh, BA, Relative Mean in years

Alluvial depression species trees in cm in dm2 Frequency density Dominance IV CPI (n) 

Acer negundo 5 2.9 11.3 3.2 0.4 0.9 1.5 2.7 28.5 (2) Acer saccharinum 759 61.1 240.2 14.5 59.8 18.7 31.0 2.4 34.1 (10) Carya illinoiensis 7 9.8 38.5 6.5 .6 3.0 3.3 1.0 66.5 (2) Celtis occidentalis 3 1.3 5.1 4.8 .2 .4 1.8 2.0 44.0 (1) Cephalanthus occidentalis 45 1.2 4.6 8.1 3.6 .4 4.0 -- --Cornus drummondi 32 .3 1.3 1.6 2.5 .1 1.4 -- --Fraxinus pennsylvanica 205 122.2 481.1 16.1 16.2 37.5 23.3 2.0 69.6 (20)Gleditsia triacanthos 4 3.6 14.3 4.8 .3 1.1 2.1 2.0 --Gymnocladus dioica 1 .1 .1 1.6 .1 .1 .6 -- -­Ilex deciduas 30 .4 1.7 6.5 2.4 .1 3.0 -- --Juglans nigra 1 8.1 31.9 1.6 .1 2.5 1.4 -- --Quercus macrocarpa 1 .1 .3 1.6 .1 .1 .6 -- --Quercus palustris 51 48.8 192.2 8.1 4.0 15.0 9.0 2.3 44.4 (8) Salix nigra 56 23.6 93.0 4.8 4.4 7.2 5.5 2.1 14.5 (7)Ulmus americana 55 26.2 103.1 9.7 4.3 8.0 7.4 2.4 40.1 (7) 

Vegetation Gradients 
82 

Table 34. Characteristics of overstory and understory trees sampled in the backwater swamp vegetation plots in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.[dbh, diameter at breast height; c

m, centimeters; 

BA, basal area; dm2, square decimeters; IV, importance value; CPI, canopy position index; n, number in sample; --, no data]

Mean age,

Number of Mean dbh, BA, Relative Mean in years

Backwater s

wamp species trees in cm in dm2 Frequency density Dominance IV CPI (n)

Acer negundo 3 0.1 0.1 3.7 0.3 0.1 1.3 -- --Acer saccharinum 371 6.2 26.8 14.8 33.7 3.3 17.2 1.0 46.5 (2) Carya cordiformis 1 .1 .1 1.9 .1 .1 .7 -- --Carya illinoiensis 2 6.8 29.3 1.9 .2 3.6 1.9 1.5 84.0 (1) Celtis occidentalis 33 .4 1.9 1.9 3.0 .2 1.7 -- --Cephalanthus occidentalis 255 4.0 17.3 18.5 23.2 2.1 14.6 -- --Fraxinus pennsylvanica 264 69.2 299.8 18.5 24.0 36.7 26.4 2.1 52.0 (25) Gleditsia triacanthos 3 .5 2.0 5.6 .3 .3 2.0 2.0 -­Ilex decidua 1 .1 .1 1.9 .1 .1 .7 -- --Quercus palustris 1 .1 .1 1.9 .1 .1 .7 -- 82.0 (1)Salix nigra 111 42.2 182.3 18.5 10.1 22.4 17.0 2.1 21.2 (25) Ulmus americana 2 2.6 11.2 1.9 .2 1.4 1.1 -- 41.0 (1) 

Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO 2001–04 
Vegetation Gradients 83 

among species and plot locations for the diameter of direct 

seeded trees, and there was greater variability in diameter for all 

groups (table 36). Analysis of RPM® trees was completed 

according to growth year as non-mounded RPM® Carya illinoiensis seedlings were planted in 2002, whereas the others 

were planted in 2001. Calculations for non-mounded RPM® 

Carya illinoiensis trees are based on available data; measurements for 22 trees were unavailable for 2003. Mean diameter of 

mounded RPM® Carya illinoiensis and Quercus palustris trees 

increased, but non-mounded RPM® Quercus palustris tree 

diameters decreased from previous years (table 36). The negative growth is likely the result of variability in the measurement 

location on these small diameter trees. Non-mounded RPM® 

Carya illinoiensis trees showed very little increase in diameter 

from year 1 to year 2 (table 36). Mean diameters of mounded 

RPM® Carya illinoiensis and Quercus palustris trees were significantly greater than non-mounded RPM® trees in year 1 

(table 36); however, in year 2 only diameters of mounded 

RPM® Quercus palustris trees were significantly greater than 

non–mounded trees (table 36). By year 3, diameters of 

mounded RPM® Carya illinoiensis, mounded RPM® Quercus 

palustris, and non-mounded RPM® Quercus palustris trees 

were all significantly different, with mounded RPM® Quercus 

palustris having the greatest mean diameter (4.1 cm) and nonmounded RPM® Quercus palustris having the smallest mean 

diameter (0.94 cm; table 36). Overall, by year 3, mounded 

RPM® trees had greater diameter than non-mounded RPM®, 

direct seeded, and bare root seedlings. Bare root seedlings of 

both species had greater diameter than direct seeded trees. 

Height increased for all species, production methods, and 

elevations except for non-mounded Quercus palustris from 

2001 to 2003 (table 37). At the end of the study, mounded 

RPM® Quercus palustris had the greatest mean height (166.5 

cm) while direct seeded Carya illinoiensis seedlings at well 1 

had the lowest mean height (42.7 cm). Mean height of bare root 

Carya illinoiensis and Quercus palustris seedlings was significantly different when the seedlings were planted and remained 

significantly different throughout the study (table 37). The bare 

root Quercus palustris seedlings had a mean height of 80.6 cm, 

and the bare root Carya illinoiensis had a mean height of 61.4 

cm at the end of the study in 2003 (table 37). Direct seeded 

Carya illinoiensis trees at well U3W1 had significantly greater 

mean height in 2001 than other well U3W3 direct seeded trees 

(table 37). By 2003, well U3W3 site direct seeded Quercus 

palustris trees had the greatest mean height (53.0 cm) while 

well U3W1 site direct seeded Carya illinoiensis trees had significantly lower mean height (42.7 cm; table 37). There was no 

significant difference between well U3W3 site direct seeded 
84 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Carya illinoiensis trees and well U3W1 site direct seeded Quercus palustris, and no significant differences between sites 

within each species (table 37). 

Measures of growth (diameter and height) among species, 

production types, and site elevation were analyzed using relative changes during the study period (figs. 43 to 45). The greatest rate of growth in tree diameter was observed for direct 

seeded Quercus palustris trees planted at the well U3W3 site 

(72.3 percent mean change in diameter; fig. 44), while nonmounded RPM® Quercus palustris trees actually had a negative mean change in diameter (-21.9 percent; likely resulting 

from variability in the measurement location) and mounded 

RPM® Carya illinoiensis trees had the lowest positive growth 

rate (42.6 percent; fig. 45). When examining where individual 

species grew the best, bare root Carya illinoiensis seedlings had 

the greatest diameter growth rate (63.1 percent; fig. 43) at the 

well U3W2 (low elevation) location and direct seeded Quercus 

palustris had the greatest increase in percent diameter at the 

well U3W3 (middle elevation) location (fig. 44). Mounded 

RPM® trees had the lowest positive diameter growth rate overall (fig. 45). Bare root seedlings of both species all had mean 

diameter growth rates greater than 50.0 percent (fig. 43). 

Direct seeded Quercus palustris trees planted at the U3W3 

site also had the greatest mean percent change in height (65.3 

percent; fig. 44), while non-mounded RPM® Quercus palustris 

had negative changes in height (fig. 45). Mounded RPM® 

Quercus palustris had the lowest positive percent change in 

height (15.5 percent; fig. 45). As with growth in diameter, direct 

seeded Quercus palustris had the greatest mean percentage 

increase in height at the U3W3 site and direct seeded Carya illinoiensis trees also had the greatest mean percent increase in 

height at the U3W3 site (fig. 44). Mounded RPM® trees again 

had the lowest mean percent increase in height, although they 

were the tallest trees at the end of the study. 

Unit 4 Reforestation Plots 

There were significant differences in survival between tree 

species and planting methods in Unit 4 reforestation plots, but 

not among species within planting methods (table 38). Bare root 
Vegetation Gradients 85 

Carya illinoiensis seedlings had significantly lower survival 

(26.8 percent) than bare root Quercus palustris seedlings (83.3 

percent survival) and RPM® Carya illinoiensis trees (93.9 percent survival). There were no significant differences in survival 

between RPM® Carya illinoiensis and RPM® Quercus palustris trees, and bare root Quercus palustris seedlings and RPM® 

Quercus palustris trees. The higher mortality of bare root Carya 

illinoiensis seedlings did not appear to be related to elevation 

and inundation as mortality occurred throughout the range of 

elevations and inundation periods. Carya illinoiensis is a very 

flood tolerant species and grows best in wet conditions; therefore, it is probable that the high loss of Carya illinoiensis seedlings is because of below average precipitation in 2002. Dry 

conditions inhibit root penetration of the soil, and roots do not 

immediately recover their water absorbing capacity when moisture levels rise (Kramer and Kozlowski, 1979). For species not 

adapted to dry habitats, these effects are magnified. Higher survival rates in RPM® trees were likely a result of larger root systems, which helped alleviate drought stress, and fertilization of 

the trees. 

There was high variation in measurements of basal diameter and height by species and production method (table 39). For 

bare root Carya illinoiensis and Quercus palustris seedlings 

mean basal diameters in 2002 were 0.99 and 0.71 cm, respectively. In 2003, the mean basal diameter of bare root Carya illinoiensis seedlings was 0.95 cm, which was a decrease in mean 

diameter of 0.04 cm. The annual variability (including negative 

growth values) is not surprising, given the generally small 

diameters of the trees and the likelihood that measurements 

were not taken in exactly the same position each year of the 

study for both diameter and height. The mean basal diameter of 

bare root Quercus palustris seedlings in 2003 was 0.67 cm, a 

decrease in mean basal diameter of 0.04 cm. The Unit 4 RPM£

trees had a larger mean basal diameter than bare root seedlings 

for both species, with RPM£ Quercus palustris having the 

greatest mean basal diameter. The mean basal diameter of 

RPM£ Carya illinoiensis in 2002 was 1.17 cm, while RPM£

Quercus palustris was 1.51 cm. In 2003, mean basal diameter 

of RPM£ Carya illinoiensis was 1.18 cm, an increase in mean 

basal diameter of 0.01 cm. The mean basal diameter of RPM£

Quercus palustris trees was 1.55 cm, an increase in mean basal 

diameter of 0.04 cm. 

Both species of RPM£ trees were taller than bare root 

seedlings, and RPM£ Quercus palustris were taller than 

RPM£ Carya illinoiensis trees (table 39). The mean height of 

bare root Carya illinoiensis seedlings was 55.37 cm in 2002, 

whereas bare root Quercus palustris seedlings was 62.28 cm. In 

2003, mean height of bare root Carya illinoiensis seedlings was 
86 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

46.70 cm, a decrease in mean height of 8.67 cm. The mean 

height of bare root Quercus palustris seedlings in 2003 was 

59.79 cm, a decrease of 2.49 cm. In 2002, RPM£ Carya illinoiensis trees had a mean height of 84.55 cm, whereas mean 

RPM£ Quercus palustris trees height was 142.44 cm. By 2003, 

the mean height of RPM£ Carya illinoiensis trees was 80.17 

cm, a decrease of 4.38 cm. The mean height of RPM£ Quercus 

palustris trees in 2003 was 135.78 cm, a decrease of 6.66 cm.

 Bare root seedlings of Carya illinoiensis and Quercus 

palustris had substantially greater mortality in Unit 4 than in 

Unit 3 (tables 35 and 38), with bare root Carya illinoiensis seedlings experiencing significant mortality (>70 percent) in Unit 4. 

Unit 4 consistently had lower soil moisture during the study, 

which likely had a strong effect on survival. Several studies 

have shown that flood plain tree species, and particularly bare 

root seedlings, have higher rates of survival in moist conditions 

(Broadfoot, 1967; Jones and Sharitz, 1998; Schoenholtz and 

others, 2001; Sweeney and Czapka, 2004). Mean basal diameter 

and mean height also were smaller in the Unit 4 bare root seedlings (table 39) when compared to Unit 3 (tables 36 and 37). 

Natural Colonization in Constructed Wetland 

In August 2002, vegetation data were collected from 120, 

1-m2 plots located at multiple elevations within Unit 4 in the 

FRCA. This unit was protected by a levee system and experienced disturbance from agricultural practices before acquisition 

by MDC. After acquisition by MDC, levee repair and agriculture was terminated, the unit was allowed to flood, and vegetation was allowed to colonize naturally. The 120 plots were separated into three elevation classes corresponding to the well 

elevations in Unit 4, using the midpoint between well elevations 

to determine ranges (table 40). Plants were identified to species 

and species cover was estimated for each plot. A master list of 

species sampled in Unit 4 is provided in table 41, at the back of 

this report. 

The terrace was the highest elevation class and had the 

fewest days of inundation during the 2001–2003 sampling 

period. The uppermost soil strata (0 to 0.3 m) sampled at U4W1 

was classified as silty loam, with an organic matter content of 

1.5 percent (table 13). This elevation class was the most fre­
Vegetation Gradients 87 

Table 35. Mortality of bare root, direct seed, and root production method (RPM£) 

seedlings planted in Unit 3, Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[--, no data; RPM®, registered trademark of the Forest Keeling Nursery and denotes a Root Production 

Method tree] 

2002 mortality, 2003 mortality, 

Production method in percent in percent 

Bare root seedlings, well U3W2 (low elevation) 

Carya illinoiensis (pecan) 4.1 6.1 

Quercus palustris (pin oak) .0 .0 

Direct seed, well U3W1 (high elevation) 

Carya illinoiensis -- 2.1 

Quercus palustris -- 4.0 

Direct seed, well U3W3 (middle elevation) 

Carya illinoiensis -- 4.1 

Quercus palustris -- .0 

RPM£

Carya illinoiensis, mounded 0.0 3.9 

Quercus palustris, mounded 1.0 6.9 

Quercus palustris, unmounded .0 5.1 

Table 36. Mean diameter of bare root, direct seed, and root production method (RPM£) seedlings planted in 

Unit 3, Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[cm, centimeters; the number in parentheses indicates ±1 standard deviation of the mean; bare root seedlings indicate results of t-tests and 

remaining indicate results of Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance with a Dunn’s multiple comparison procedure; the letters denote 

statistically significant differences with those values with the same letter not being significantly different; p, probability; <, less than; RPM®, 

registered trademark of the Forest Keeling Nursery and denotes a Root Production Method tree; --, no data] 

2001 diameter 2002 diameter 2003 diameter 

(year 1), (year 2), (year 3), 

Production method in cm in cm in cm 

Bare root seedlings, well U3W2 

(low elevation) 

Carya illinoiensis (pecan) 0.65 (0.16) 0.84 (0.22) 1.44 (0.41) 

Quercus palustris (pin oak) .63 (.15) 1.03 (.24) 1.83 (.41) 

p=.70 p<.001 p<.001 

Direct seed, well U3W1 (high elevation) 

Carya illinoiensis 0.38 (0.10)a 0.56 (0.11)a 0.95 (0.26) 

Quercus palustris .28 (.10)b .46 (.13)a .94 (.35) 

Direct seed, well U3W3 (middle elevation) 

Carya illinoiensis 0.35 (0.07)a 0.54 (0.13)b 0.99 (0.26) 

Quercus palustris .26 (.06)b .46 (.19)b 1.08 (.46) 

p<.001 p<.001 p=.12 

RPM£

Carya illinoiensis, mounded 1.50 (0.36)a 1.74 (0.45)a 2.58 (0.74)a 

Carya illinoiensis, non-mounded 1.16 (.26)b 1.27 (.10)a --

Quercus palustris, mounded 1.78 (.53)a 2.61 (1.54)b 4.10 (1.53)b 

Quercus palustris, non-mounded 1.22 (.13)b 1.63 (.24)a .94 (.20)c 

p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 
88 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 37. Mean height of bare root, direct seed, and root production method (RPM£) seedlings planted in Unit 3, 

Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[cm, centimeters; the number in parentheses indicates ±1 standard deviation of the mean; bare root seedlings indicate results of t-tests and 

remaining indicate results of Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance with a Dunn’s multiple comparison procedure; the letters denote 

statistically significant differences with those values with the same letter not being significantly different; p, probability; <, less than; RPM®, 

registered trademark of the Forest Keeling Nursery and denotes a Root Production Method tree; --, no data] 

2001 height 2002 height 2003 height 

(year 1), (year 2), (year 3), 

Production method in cm in cm in cm 

Bare root seedlings, well U3W2 (low elevation) 

Carya illinoiensis (pecan) 27.32 (5.09) 35.72 (8.81) 61.41 (18.88) 

Quercus palustris (pin oak) 38.16 (8.99) 52.50 (12.72) 80.57 (16.78) 

p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 

Direct seed, well U3W1 (high elevation) 

Carya illinoiensis 21.20 (3.47)a 24.36 (4.67) 42.73 (11.48)a 

Quercus palustris 19.02 (4.26)ab 23.08 (7.54 47.57 (16.94)ab 

Direct seed, well U3W3 (middle elevation) 

Carya illinoiensis 17.46 (3.76)b 23.20 (4.91) 44.86 (13.12)ab 

Quercus palustris 17.08 (5.56)b 25.19 (9.36) 53.05 (19.61)b 

p<.001 p=.36 p=.02 

RPM£

Carya illinoiensis, mounded 64.36 (17.16)a 69.41 (15.53)b 91.71 (23.64)b 

Carya illinoiensis, non-mounded 49.91 (10.90)a 61.60 (10.60)b --

Quercus palustris, mounded 129.66 (29.55)b 137.62 (43.52)a 166.49 (57.43)a 

Quercus palustris, non-mounded 111.37 (11.49)b 103.00 (25.84)b 95.15 (26.21)b 

p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 
Vegetation Gradients 89 

quently cultivated before abandonment, because of its higher 

elevation, providing sufficiently dry planting conditions. 

There were 68 species identified in the terrace plots. Vegetation in the terrace plots was dominated by the vine Campsis 

radicans (trumpet creeper, 14.43 percent cover), the introduced 

herbaceous species Bidens bipinnata (Spanish needles, 11.14 

percent cover), and the native shrub Desmanthus illinoiensis 

(prairie mimosa, 8.05 percent cover). Cover from introduced 

species was much greater on the terrace and there was greater 

cover of facultative upland species and species not used as indicator species because they do not appear in wetland habitat. 

Richness and diversity were significantly greater in the terrace 

plots, compared to the terrace foot and flood plain plots, 

although this probably will be reduced as the shrub and tree species develop. The shrub layer primarily consisted of Desmanthus illinoiensis (Illinois bundleflower, a facultative wetland 

species) and Cephalanthus occidentalis (buttonbush, 1.13 percent cover, an obligate wetland species) for a total of 9.18 percent total cover for shrubs. The tree saplings were 6.47 percent 

of the total cover, primarily dominated by Acer saccharinum 

(silver maple, 2.73 percent) and Populus deltoides (cottonwood, 2.53 percent), facultative wetland and facultative species, respectively. 

The terrace foot was the middle elevation class sampled. 

The uppermost soil strata (0 to 0.3 m) was classified as silty clay 

loam with an average organic matter of 1.6 percent. Cultivation 

here was not as frequent as the terrace and inundation was more 

frequent. 

There were 39 species identified in the terrace foot plots. 

The vegetation was dominated by Ipomea lacunosa (pitted 

morning glory, 32.5 percent cover), a native species that commonly occurs in moist prairies, meadows, and thickets and particularly in alluvial soil (Steyermark, 1963; Gleason and Cronquist, 1991). It also is common along roadsides and railroads, 

which typically are highly disturbed habitats (Steyermark, 

1963). The other dominant species were the introduced species 

Iva annua (annual marshelder, 21.85 percent cover) and 

Polygonum amphibium (water smartweed, 9.59 percent cover). 

Iva annua commonly is detected in disturbed areas and particularly in moist soil (Gleason and Cronquist, 1991), whereas 

Polygonum amphibium usually is observed growing in water 
90 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 38. Comparison of survival between tree species and production types for Unit 4 tree plots, at the Four 

Rivers Conservation Area, using results of 2x2 contingency tables from chi-square analysis. 

[<, less than; RPM®, registered trademark of the Forest Keeling Nursery and denotes a Root Production Method tree; *, indicates 

significant difference in survival for the paired comparison] 

Survival comparison (percent) Chi-square results, p-value 

Bare-root Carya illinoiensis (pecan) seedlings, (26.8) and bare-root 42.025, p<0.001* 

Quercus palustris (pin oak) seedlings (83.3) 

RPM®, Carya illinoiensis (93.2) and Quercus palustris (96.2) 0.0211, p=0.885 

Bare-root Carya illinoiensis seedling (26.8) and RPM® Carya illinoiensis (93.9) 64.396, p<0.001* 

Bare-root Quercus palustris seedling (83.3) and RPM® Quercus palustris (96.2) 3.664, p=0.056 

(Steyermark, 1963; Gleason and Cronquist, 1991). The shrub 

and tree layer was greatly reduced in the terrace foot plots compared to the terrace plots, with shrub cover less than 1 percent 

of total cover, and tree cover 1.36 percent of total cover. The 

presence of facultative upland species was greatly reduced as 

compared to the terrace, with greater cover of facultative, facultative wetland, and obligate wetland species at this lower elevation. Richness and diversity also were reduced in these plots 

compared to the terrace, even though more plots were sampled 

in this elevation range than in the terrace. 

The flood plain was the lowest elevation class and had the 

greatest periods of inundation from 2001 through 2003 of the 

three elevation classes. Cultivation at this elevation probably 

was infrequent, allowing more of the native vegetation to maintain a presence in this area, and providing fewer opportunities 

for invasion by introduced species. 
Vegetation Gradients 91 

Table 39. Mean diameter and mean height of bare root and root production method (RPM£) seedlings planted in 

Unit 4, Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[cm, centimeters; RPM®, registered trademark of the Forest Keeling Nursery and denotes a Root Production Method tree] 

2002 2003 

Mean Mean


(±1 standard (±1 standard 


deviation deviation 


Production method Minimum Maximum of the mean) Minimum Maximum of the mean)

Mean diameter, in cm 

Bare root seedlings 

Carya illinoiensis (pecan) 0.49 1.05 0.99 (0.29) 0.34 1.48 0.95 (0.31) 

Quercus palustris (pin oak) 0.25 1.21 .71 (.22) 0.31 1.19 .67 (.20) 

RPM£

Carya illinoiensis 0.68 2.13 1.17 (0.33) 0.70 2.03 1.18 (0.32) 

Quercus palustris 0.93 2.29 1.51 (.44) 0.99 2.30 1.55 (.42) 

Mean height, in cm 

Bare root seedlings 

Carya illinoiensis 34.29 80.01 55.37 (11.26) 15.24 71.76 46.70 (15.17) 

Quercus palustris 30.48 93.98 62.28 (15.62) 30.48 86.61 59.79 (15.59) 

RPM£

Carya illinoiensis 43.18 198.12 84.55 (42.25) 31.75 208.28 80.17 (45.35) 

Quercus palustris 78.74 213.36 142.44 (40.27) 38.10 210.82 135.78 (41.46) 

Table 40. Elevation range of colonized vegetation quadrat groupings sampled in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area. 

[m, meters; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988] 

Description 

Well 

association 

Elevation range, 

in m 

above NAVD 88 

Mid-point 

elevation 

class 

Number 

of plots 

Terrace 

Terrace foot 

Flood plain 

U4W1 

U4W2 

U4W3 

224.38 and above 

223.36–224.37 

Below 223.36 

223.5 

222.7 

222.6 

50 

55 

15 
92 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

There were 18 species identified in the flood plain plots. 

The vegetation in the flood plain plots was overwhelmingly 

dominated by Ipomea lacunosa (small white morning glory, 

73.69 percent of total cover). The sub-dominant species in the 

flood plain were unidentified Carex spp. (9.74 percent of total 

cover) and a native woody vine, Campsis radicans (4.19 percent of total cover). There were no shrubs or trees present in the 

plots sampled. It appears the flood plain is developing into a wet 

meadow or a sedge meadow; additional sampling in this area 

and more frequent sampling would help to determine the trajectory of vegetation development. Carex species are difficult to 

identify without their flowers and they flower at different times 

throughout the year; therefore, additional sampling would make 

it possible to identify the sedges to species rather than genus. 

Although richness and diversity were much lower in the flood 

plain, the presence of introduced species was much lower than 

the terrace and terrace foot, and may be a result of reduced disturbance (lower frequency of cultivation). 

For all of the plots sampled in Units 1 and 4, there were no 

“species of concern”, as identified in Missouri Department of 

Conservation (1999), sampled in the FRCA and few introduced 

species. An introduced species, Lysimachia nummularia (moneywort), had significant cover levels in the plots where it was 

present. However, other introduced species that are of concern 

in Missouri and elsewhere in the United States were not present 

in the FRCA, most notably Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard), 

Phalaris arundinaceae (reed canary grass), and Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife). 

Richness, evenness, and diversity were all significantly 

greater in the terrace elevation class, whereas the terrace foot 

and flood plain elevation classes were lower and not significantly different from each other (fig. 46). The overall trend 

shows a direct relation between the descriptors and elevation of 

these plots. 

Species were classified as either native or introduced species according to Reed (1988) and the percent of total species 

and percent of total cover calculated for each elevation class. 

When comparing the number of species in each classification, 

introduced species were approximately 11 percent of all species 

for each elevation class, while native species were approximately 89 percent of the species (fig. 47). When comparing 

native and introduced species in terms of their percent cover, 

there was a much greater presence of introduced species in the 

terrace and terrace foot elevation classes (24.92 and 21.97 percent, respectively), whereas there was less than 1 percent in the 

flood plain (fig. 47). 

Wetland indicator status was determined for each species 

using Reed (1988) and the percent of total cover for each indicator class calculated for each elevation class. The terrace was 

dominated by facultative and facultative upland species, the terrace foot was dominated by facultative wetland and facultative 

species, and the flood plain was dominated by facultative wetland species (fig. 48). Obligate wetland species were a low percentage of overall cover, with the greatest percent cover in the 

terrace foot elevation class (fig. 48). The terrace had the greatest 

percent cover of unlisted (not used as indicator species) and 

unknown species (plants collected but not identified to species) 

(20.8 percent), and approximately 10 percent cover in the terrace foot and flood plain (fig. 48). 

Species cover data were used to calculate an ordination 

using DCA. The primary measured determining factors in the 

distribution of herbaceous vegetation in Unit 4 were elevation, 

ponding duration, and soil texture (clay, loam) (fig. 49). Afterthe-fact evaluation using Sorensen’s Coefficient of Similarity 

as a distance measure resulted in 35 percent of the variation 

accounted for by axis 1 and 12 percent by axis 2, for a total of 

47 percent of the variation in the vegetation data explained by 

the gradients associated with each axis. Elevation was significantly and negatively correlated with axis 1 (-0.831, p<0.001). 

Ponding duration (number of calendar days with ponding) in 

2002 also was strongly correlated with axis 1 (0.663, p<0.001). 

It appears that clay content of soil increases with axis 1 score 

and that loam content decreases with axis 1, although because 

soil samples were not collected at each quadrat location, this 

can only be inferred by the soil sample data from the corresponding well site for each elevation class. 

Relations Between Hydrology, Soils, and 

Vegetation Gradients in Four Rivers 

Conservation Area Wetlands 

Study objectives addressed in previous sections included 

quantifying and correlating hydrologic and soil gradients with 

vegetation in remnant bottomland forest, naturally colonized 

constructed wetlands, and reforested riparian areas. Additional 

objectives to be addressed include identifying the primary 

hydrologic and soils factors that affect the distribution of vegetation in the study area, and to provide methods for determining 

how these factors are spatially distributed. 

Primary Factors Affecting Vegetation Distribution in 

Four Rivers Conservation Area 

The complexity of riparian wetlands makes the task of 

managing and restoring them difficult, with many factors that 

should be evaluated if revegetation is to be successful. The primary determining factors affecting vegetation distribution in 

both the remnant wetland and colonized wetland were elevation, duration of inundation (ponding and flooding), and soil 

texture. Soil texture was strongly correlated with elevation and 

landforms at Horton Bottoms (figs. 19 and 20) and landform 

features, elevations, and soil depositional characteristics on the 

flood plain are largely a result of cumulative effects of flooding 

and river channel migration. The identification of landform features in undisturbed settings can be an important aide in predicting the sustainable spatial distribution of various plant species 

in riparian revegetation projects. 
Relations Between Hydrology, Soils, and Vegetation Gradients in Four Rivers Conservation Area Wetlands 93 
94 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Flood frequency and duration are hydrologic factors to be 

considered when selecting vegetation for restoration sites. Different scales of flood frequency determine various vegetation 

types. Naiman and Decamps (1997) use previous studies to 

illustrate the correlation of flood magnitude with regeneration 

of vegetation. Intermediate frequency floods (>2 to 25-year 

recurrence interval) with a “medium” power generally will 

determine zonation of trees species because their time scale for 

generation is similar to this flood type. Alternatively, smaller 

and more frequent floods are the primary determinant of herbaceous vegetation, which has a much smaller time scale for generation (Naiman and Decamps, 1997). This clearly is seen in the 

FRCA. The evident change in the backwater swamp in Unit 1 

has occurred since the drainage ditch altered the inundation 

period of this site and the strong correlation of ground layer 

vegetation composition in all the landforms with elevation and 

inundation duration (table 22). 

The timing and magnitude of flooding also is a major factor in the distribution and germination of the available seed 

source, particularly in the ground flora layer. Year-to-year variability in ground flora vegetation in the Horton Bottoms area 

was strongly correlated to flooding (table 22). Other studies 

have shown that the timing of flooding relative to seed production and the extent and hydraulic characteristics (Nilsson and 

others, 2002; Goodson and others, 2002; Dixon and others, 

2002) of flooding will affect seed distribution and germination 

(Streng and others, 1989; Jones and others, 1994) of riparian 

vegetation.

 While flood frequency and duration define the delivery 

mechanism for inundation on the flood plain, it is the duration 

of ponding and amount of “topographic capture” of these floodwaters in the fluvial landforms that largely determines the survivability and distribution of tree species in both remnant and 

constructed wetlands. The ability to endure soil anoxia is the 

primary determinant of flood tolerance of bottomland tree species (Teskey and Hinckley, 1977a; Kozlowski, 1984a, 1984b, 

2002) although the flood tolerance of trees generally increases 

with age and height (Loucks, 1987; Kennedy and Krinard, 

1974; Harris, 1975; Teskey and Hinckley, 1977a; Broadfoot 

and Williston, 1973). Ponding is an important hydrologic factor 

contributing to soil saturation and anoxic conditions in the 

backwater swamp and alluvial depressions in Unit 1 as well as 

areas of Units 3 and 4 in the FRCA (figs. 14 to 16). Ponding 

duration substantially exceeded flood inundation duration at 

most locations in all study units (tables 8 to 10). Ponding, precipitation, flooding, and bank storage from the adjacent river 

and uplands sources recharge the alluvial aquifer and keep 

ground-water elevations near the ground surface in parts of all 

units in the FRCA (figs. 8, 10, and 12). Shallow ground-water 

levels and the capillary fringe (Abdul and Gillham, 1984), 

which extends the saturated layer above the piezometric surface 

(figs. 14 to 16), kept some soils in some areas of the flood plain 

at or near saturation for several months of the growing season. 

In the Horton Bottoms remnant wetland the hydrology is 

driven by timing and magnitude of floods and precipitation, 

whereas hydrology in constructed wetlands is determined 

largely by management goals. No trend in estimated annual 

peaks at the Marmaton River at Horton Bottoms with time was 

found (fig. 7), and the bottomland forest has developed under a 

natural hydrologic regime. Unit 3 and Unit 4 wetlands in the 

FRCA are somewhat to fully isolated from the natural river 

flooding as a result of levees and control gates, and the hydrology of these units is modified such that the system may be incapable of sustaining a vegetation community similar to that of 

Horton Bottoms. The levees and gate structures in these units 

allow control of hydrologic processes based on management 

goals and priorities. The attainment of a natural bottomland forest community such as what exists in Horton Bottoms may not 

be possible or desired in such management units, and a prediction of the possible sustainable vegetation community will be 

more difficult to determine. 
Relations Between Hydrology, Soils, and Vegetation Gradients in Four Rivers Conservation Area Wetlands 95 

Despite land-use changes in the Marmaton and Little 

Osage River Basins, the remnant bottomland forest community 

appears to be sustained and healthy under the current (2004) 

hydrologic conditions [see previous “Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms), 

Overstory” section] although the backwater swamp is threatened by local drainage ditches (fig. 2). Proposed impoundments 

in the upper Marmaton River Basin (Kansas Water Office, 

2003) may provide additional alteration of the downstream 

hydrology. A reduction in the flood frequency or magnitude of 

flood peaks in the basin results in drier conditions on the flood 

plain as both delivery and topographic capture are reduced. 

Drier conditions likely will result in a conversion of marsh and 

wet prairie to forest and a shift in current forest species to less 

flood-tolerant species. 

Using and Acquiring Hydrologic and Soils Data For 

Developing Revegetation Plans

 For the purpose of this report, the hydrologic characteristics of the remnant bottomland forest wetland (Horton Bottoms) 

were categorized spatially by landforms. The hydrologic and 

vegetation characteristics of these landforms may provide 

insight in the revegetation efforts at similar riparian settings 

elsewhere in the state. Distinct differences were determined in 

the hydrologic and soil characteristics of these landforms as a 

result of fluvial depositional differences. These depositional 

differences also account for significant correlations between 

elevation and soil texture and hydraulic properties in the riparian zone. The hydrologic properties of each landform type 
96 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

include textural and hydraulic characteristics and the amount of 

topographic capture, that is, whether it is enclosed (alluvial 

depression or backwater swamp) or non-enclosed (natural levee 

and flood plain). The mapping of landforms of similar riparian 

areas in the region, along with the relations between these landforms and vegetative characteristics measured in this study, 

may aid in future revegetation efforts. 

Of the landform types categorized in Unit 1, the natural 

levee was the least affected by inundation, had the highest variability in soil moisture and texture, the lowest ground-water levels, and the highest average elevation. The Unit 4 terrace plots 

also showed similarities in these characteristics. The backwater 

swamp and landform in Unit 1 was the most affected by inundation, had the least variability in soil moisture and texture, the 

highest ground-water levels, and the lowest average elevation. 

Elevation, soil, and ground-water settings in Unit 3 were similar 

to that of the backwater swamp; this area differed in period of 

inundation as a result of levees and water control gates. The 

Unit 1 flood plain and alluvial depression landforms were intermediate in conditions between the natural levee and backwater 

swamp landforms. The Unit 4 flood plain was similar to hydrologic and soil characteristics in Unit 1 flood plain sites, but differed greatly in period of inundation as a result of management 

activities. 

The following findings regarding the spatial variability in 

hydrology in the riparian zones at the FRCA may be useful 

when considering revegetation or reforestation projects in riparian wetlands in the Osage Plains of west-central Missouri: 

• 	 Ponding, flooding, ground-water levels, and precipitation all accounted for saturated conditions in the upper 

soil profiles in the FRCA monitoring sites. Of these 

processes, ponding and flooding were the primary factors accounting for soil saturation conditions and some 

of the primary measured determining factors in the spatial distribution of vegetation distribution in the riparian areas of the FRCA. 
• 	 In a riparian area with minimal topographic and hydrologic modifications and lacking detailed topographic 

information, fluvial landforms can serve as an initial 

characterization of hydrologic characteristics and vegetative community potential. Therefore, landform mapping of a site and collection of enough topographic data 

to identify the extent of topographic capture in depressional areas are valuable tools for determining the spatial distribution of successful vegetative plantings. 

• 	 Vegetation data from sampled landforms in this study 

(natural levee, flood plain, alluvial depression, and 

backwater swamp) can provide guidance as to what 

herbaceous and woody vegetation are adapted and 

thrive in a particular riparian landform type and hydrologic setting. 

• 	 The available seed bank and flood potential of a restoration setting are major determinants of the vegetation 

community (particularly ground flora) that can or will 

be supported. Flooding was a primary determinant of 

the year-to-year variation in ground-layer flora in this 

study. 

• 	 Riparian areas with smaller or larger drainages than the 

FRCA may have substantial differences in hillslope 

contributions of runoff (Schumm, 1977), alluvial aquifer characteristics, frequency and duration of flooding, 

and scale and distribution of fluvial landforms and sediment deposition (Heimann and Roell, 2000). Therefore, consideration should be given to acquiring 

hydrologic (frequency and duration of inundation) and 

landform information from the particular setting of 

interest or from similar-sized basins. 

• 	 While elevation is a primary determining factor in vegetation distribution, it alone will not define distribution. 

An example at FRCA was that many flood plain vegetation plots had elevations lower than alluvial depression plots, but because these lower flood plain areas 

were not locally enclosed and were better drained, 

ponding duration, and therefore vegetation distribution, 

was substantially different. 

• 	 Depth to ground-water surface and soil moisture volumes generally were inversely related to the groundsurface elevation at riparian monitoring sites in this 

study. Saturation conditions were rare or non-existent 

in the upper 2.2 m of soil profiles in which groundwater levels did not intersect the profile. Shallow, 

hand-dug monitoring wells could, therefore, provide 

insight into soil saturation conditions in similar sites 

lacking more involved soil moisture monitoring equipment. 

• 	 In relatively disturbed areas that are candidates for 

revegetation, historical aerial photographs may provide 

an indication of the type of vegetation and hydrologic 

conditions previously present and supported at the site. 

While inundation frequency and duration may be 

SUMMARY 97 

altered, the ground-water contributions and soil conditions may be intact. In the remnant wetland area at the 

FRCA the horizontal variability in soil texture between 

landforms was determined to be greater than vertical 

variability within the depth profile. 

SUMMARY 

A study was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) to examine the relations between environmental factors (hydrology, soils) and vegetation distribution in remnant and constructed riparian wetland areas in west-central 

Missouri. The study was conducted at the Four Rivers Conservation Area (hereafter referred to as the FRCA) between January 2001 and March 2004. Hydrologic data were collected primarily in the April through October growing season of each 

sample year and included surface pool inundation depth and 

duration, river stage, and ground-water levels. Soil characteristics including soil moisture, texture, and organic matter were 

collected and used to estimate hydraulic properties. Site elevations, evaporation, precipitation, and light availability (canopy 

density) also were collected during the study period. Vegetation 

sampling included information on the distribution of ground 

flora, understory, and overstory species in a mature bottomland 

area (Horton Bottoms in Unit 1), survival and growth of trees in 

reforestation plots located in constructed wetlands (Units 3 and 

4), and natural colonization of ground flora on converted cropland (Unit 4). 

One hydrologic parameter affecting the distribution and 

establishment of wetland vegetation is inundation (flooding and 

ponding) frequency and duration. All three study units had areas 

inundated during each growing season of the 3-year monitoring 

period, including the leveed units. Low-lying areas in Unit 1 

(Horton Bottoms) were inundated 160, 89, and 84 days during 

the growing seasons of 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively, as a 

result of ponding and flooding. Constructed wetlands in Unit 4 

retained floodwaters for 38, 53, and 258 days during the 2001, 

2002, and 2003 growing seasons with most of this inundation 

the result of controlled ponding. The primary mechanism for 

inundation in Units 1 and 4 was flooding from the Marmaton 

and/or Little Osage Rivers. Unit 3, despite levee protection, still 

had ponding for up to 15, 47, and 10 days in the 2001, 2002, and 

2003 growing seasons resulting from precipitation and groundwater seepage. 

Ground-water elevations and depth to the ground-water 

surface were monitored in the three study units to quantify the 

degree of interaction between the alluvial aquifer and adjacent 

rivers and to determine ground-water contributions to soil saturation and ponding. Mean ground-water levels at the highest 

elevation monitoring site (natural levee) in the remnant wetland 

were about 6 m (meters) below the ground, while ground-water 

levels in the lowest elevation site (backwater swamp) averaged 

about 1 m below the ground surface. The ground-water eleva­
98 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

tion gradient generally was from the low lying interior areas 

(backwater swamp) toward the river, except during high flows 

and bank recharge conditions. Ground-water levels were similar between observation wells in Unit 3 of the FRCA during the 

2001 to 2003 period. Collectively, ground-water levels were 

shallowest in this leveed and constructed wetland unit than 

either the remnant wetland (Unit 1) or remaining constructed 

wetland unit (Unit 4) as mean depths to ground water were less 

than 1 to 3 m at the sites during the study period. The groundwater surface gradient typically followed the land-surface gradient in this unit except for effects from adjacent borrow ditches 

and managed pools. Mean ground-water levels in three monitoring wells in Unit 4 generally were within 1 to 4.5 m of the 

ground surface, depending on the ground-surface elevation of 

the monitoring location. 

Soil moisture varied greatly within the growing season, by 

soil depth, and sampling location within each of the three sampled units. The Unit 1 natural levee site had the lowest soil 

moisture values and most variable soil moisture profiles among 

the three Unit 1 sites, while soil moisture values were highest 

and most consistent at the Unit 1 backwater swamp site. Soil 

moisture profiles at the Unit 3 monitoring sites were similar to 

those of the backwater swamp site in Unit 1 in that groundwater levels were within the monitored soil column throughout 

the growing season and soils were at or near saturation levels 

(greater than 50 percent) at some point in the soil column 

throughout the 2001 through 2003 growing seasons. The Unit 4 

terrace site consistently had the lowest soil moisture values and 

most variable moisture profiles of any of the three Unit 4 sites, 

whereas soils at the lowest elevation flood plain site were at or 

near saturation levels during the growing season of each year, 

particularly during 2003 as floodwaters were ponded in the unit 

for several months during the growing season. 

Planting trees on constructed mounds was one management alternative tested in Unit 3 for the establishment of hardmast species in wet bottomland conditions. The mounds statistically were drier than the adjacent non-mounded sites on all 

monitored dates and the average mounded soil moisture values 

were 3.8 to 20.4 percent less than adjacent non-mounded sites. 

Mound soil moisture levels were below 35 percent moisture by 

volume—a value approximating the wilting point using textural 

characteristics of adjacent flood plain soils—during most of the 

2001 through 2003 growing seasons. 

Soil physical properties including clay, silt, sand, and 

organic matter content were strongly correlated with the distribution of overstory and understory vegetation in the Unit 1 bottomland forests. Soil texture, organic matter, and corresponding 

estimated hydraulic properties varied both spatially, and to a 

lesser extent with depth, at the selected sampling sites in Units 

1, 3, and 4 at the FRCA. The clay, silt, and sand content of soils 

in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) were significantly correlated with 

elevation. Estimated soil hydraulic properties including wilting 

point, field capacity, available water, and saturation levels also 

were strongly and significantly correlated with elevation and 

landform type. 

Similar environmental factors accounted for variation in 

the distribution of ground, understory, and overstory vegetation 

in the remnant bottomland forest plots. The primary measured 

determining factors in the distribution of vegetation in the 

ground layer in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) were elevation, soil 

texture (clay, silt content), flooding inundation duration, and 

ponding duration. Although elevation, soil texture, and ponding 

are variables determining ground-layer community composition, year-to-year variation in ground-layer vegetation is determined by flooding. The primary measured determining factors 

in the distribution of vegetation in the understory layer in Unit 

1 were elevation, soil texture (clay, silt, and sand content), 

flooding and ponding inundation duration, and distance from 

river. The primary measured determining factors in the distribution of overstory vegetation in Unit 1 were elevation, soil texture (clay, silt, and sand content), total flooding and ponding 

inundation, ponding duration, and to some extent, flooding 

inundation duration. 

Overall, the composition and structure of the forest in Unit 

1 is indicative of a healthy, relatively undisturbed flood plain 

forest. Dominant species in each landform type have a distribution of individuals that shows regeneration of these species with 

significant recruitment in the smaller size classes. The flood 

plain forest is an area whose hydrology has not been significantly altered; this supports a healthy, regenerating native forest. However, the backwater swamp has suffered from hydrologic alteration by a drainage ditch that is resulting in the 

displacement of swamp and marsh species by colonizing shrub 

and tree species. This area likely will continue to develop into 

an immature flood plain forest under the current (2004) hydrologic regime. 

Forest stand age varied by landform and corresponding 

frequency and duration of inundation. Mean stand age was 

greatest in the highest elevation plots (natural levee) and least in 

the lowest elevation plots (backwater swamp) as inundation 

was inversely related to site elevation. Tree core samples indicate an average natural levee stand age of 58 years, with a range 

of 21 to 144 years. The average stand age of the flood plain was 

55.4 years, with a range of 13 to 125 years. The average alluvial 

depression stand age was 51.3 years, with a range of 12 to 89 

years. The backwater swamp had a much lower average stand 

age, 38.7 years, than all other landform types, with a range of 9 

to 84 years. Mean stand ages at flood plain and alluvial depression sites, intermediate in elevation and inundation, fell 

between the 38.7- to 58-year range. 

Reforestation plots in the Units 3 and 4 constructed wetlands consisted of sampling growth and survival of multiple tree 

species (Quercus palustris, pin oak; Carya illinoiensis, pecan) 

established under several production methods and planted at 

multiple elevations. Production/planting methods included 

direct seeding, bare root stock, and root production method 

(RPM®, is a registered trademark of Forrest Keeling Nursery, 

Elsberry, Missouri, which reserves the rights to use this name). 

Root production method trees were planted at mounded and 

non-mounded sites on the flood plain. Comparison of survival 

between tree species and production types showed no signifi­
cant differences for all comparisons. Survival was high for both 

species and all production types, with the highest mortality seen 

in mounded RPM® Quercus palustris (pin oak, 6.9 percent). 

Direct seeded Quercus palustris at the middle elevation plot and 

bare root Quercus palustris seedlings at the low elevation plots 

had 100 percent survival. 

Measures of growth (diameter and height) were assessed 

among species, production types, and elevation by analyzing 

relative growth. The greatest growth rate of tree diameter (72.3 

percent) and height (65.3 percent) was observed for direct 

seeded Quercus palustris trees planted at the middle elevation 

Unit 3 site, while mounded RPM® Carya illinoiensis trees had 

the lowest positive diameter (42.6 percent) and height (15.5 percent) growth rate. 

There were significant differences in survival between tree 

species and planting methods in Unit 4 reforestation plots, but 

not among species within planting methods. Bare root Carya 

illinoiensis seedlings had significantly lower survival (26.8 percent) than bare root Quercus palustris seedlings (83.3 percent 

survival) and RPM® Carya illinoiensis trees (93.9 percent survival). There were no significant differences in survival 

between RPM® Carya illinoiensis and RPM® Quercus palustris trees, and bare root Quercus palustris seedlings and RPM® 

Quercus palustris trees. The higher mortality of bare root Carya 

illinoiensis seedlings did not appear to be related to elevation 

and inundation as mortality occurred throughout the range of 

elevations and inundation periods. Bare root seedlings of Carya 

illinoiensis and Quercus palustris had substantially greater 

mortality in Unit 4 than in Unit 3 in the FRCA, with bare root 

Carya illinoiensis seedlings experiencing significant mortality 

in Unit 4. Unit 4 consistently had lower moisture values in monitored soil profiles during the study, and this likely had a significant effect on survival. 

Natural colonized vegetation data were collected at multiple elevations within Unit 4 at the FRCA. The primary measured determining factors in the distribution of herbaceous vegetation in Unit 4 were elevation, ponding inundation duration, 

and soil texture. Richness, evenness, and diversity were all significantly greater in the terrace elevation class, while the terrace 

foot and flood plain were lower and not significantly different 

from each other. 

For all of the plots sampled in Units 1 and 4, there were no 

“species of concern”, as identified by the Missouri Department 

of Conservation, sampled in the FRCA and few introduced species. An introduced species, Lysimachia nummularia (moneywort), had significant cover levels in the plots where it was 

present. However, other introduced species that are of concern 

in Missouri and elsewhere in the United States were not present 

in the FRCA, most notably Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard), 

Phalaris arundinaceae (reed canary grass), and Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife). 

The primary determining factors affecting vegetation distribution in both the remnant and colonized wetlands were elevation, soil texture, and duration of inundation (ponding and/or 

flooding). While flood frequency and duration define the delivery mechanism for inundation and seed dispersal on the flood 

References Cited 99 

plain, it is the duration of ponding and amount of “topographic 

capture” of these floodwaters in fluvial landforms that largely 

determines the survivability and distribution of tree species in 

both remnant and constructed wetlands. Ponding, flooding, 

ground-water levels, and precipitation all accounted for saturated conditions in the upper soil profiles in the FRCA monitoring sites. Of these processes, ponding and flooding were the primary factors accounting for soil saturation conditions. The 

identification of landform features in undisturbed settings, 

therefore, can be an important aide in predicting the sustainable 

spatial distribution of various plant species in riparian revegetation projects. 

The management and restoration of vegetation in Missouri 

wetlands is a complex and challenging task as there are a variety 

of management objectives and interests to consider. Obtaining 

desired vegetation communities is a key component of wetland 

management and one that relies on a number of factors including the hydrologic and soil setting of the wetland area. Documentation of hydrologic and vegetation characteristics of remnant wetland systems along with the successes of revegetation 

efforts in restored systems are means by which wetland management goals can be better attained. 

References Cited 

Abdul, A.S., and Gillham, R.W., 1984, Laboratory studies of 

the effects of the capillary fringe on streamflow generation: 

Water Resources Research v. 20, p. 691–698. 

Alexander, T.W., and Wilson, G.L., 1995, Technique for estimating the 2- to 500-year flood discharges on unregulated 

streams in rural Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 95–4231, 33 p. 

Battaglia, L.L., Minchin, P.R., and Prichart, D.W., 2002, Sixteen years of old-field succession and reestablishment of a 

bottomland hardwood forest in the lower Mississippi alluvial 

valley: Wetlands, v. 22, no. 1, p. 1–17. 

Bayley, P.B., 1991, The flood pulse advantage and the restoration of river-floodplain systems: Regulated Rivers Research 

and Management, v. 6, p. 75–86. 

Bayley, P.B., 1995, Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems: BioScience, v. 45, p. 153–158. 

Bendix, J., and Hupp, C.R., 2000, Hydrological and geomorphical impacts on riparian plant communities: Hydrological processes, v. 14, p. 2,977–2,990. 

Bledsoe, B.P., and Shear, T.H., 2000, Vegetation along hydrologic and edaphic gradients in a North Carolina coastal plain 

creek bottom and implications for restoration: Wetlands, v. 

20, no. 1, p. 126–147. 

Braun-Blanquet, J., 1932, Plant sociology: the study of plant 

communities: New York, McGraw Hill, 439 p. 

Brinson, M.M., 1990, Riverine forest, in Lugo, A.E., Brinson, 

M., and Brown, S., eds., Ecosystems of the World, no. 15: 

New York, Elseview Publishing Co., p. 87–141. 
100 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Brinson, M.M., Swift, B.L., Plantico, R.C., and Barclay, J.S., 

1981, Riparian ecosystems: Their ecology and status: Washington D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-81/17, 151 p. 

Broadfoot, W.M., 1967, Shallow water improvement increases 

soil moisture and growth of hardwoods: Soil Science Society 

of America Proceedings, v. 31, p. 562–564. 

Broadfoot, W.M., and Williston, H.L., 1973, Flooding effects 

on southern forests: Journal of Forestry, v. 71, no. 9, p. 584– 

587. 

Budelsky, R.A., and Galatowitsch, S.M., 2000, Effects of water 

regime and competition on the establishment of a native 

sedge in restored wetlands: The Journal of Applied Ecology, 

v. 37, no. 6, p. 971–985. 

Clark, D.A., and Clark, D.B., 1992, Life history diversity of 

canopy and emergent trees in a neotropical rain forest: Ecological Monographs, v. 62, no. 3, p. 315–344. 

Combs, S.M., and Nathan, M.V., 1998, Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the North Central Region: University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, North Central Regional Publication no. 221, p. 55–57. 

Dixon, M.D., Turner, M.G., and Jin, C., 2002, Riparian tree 

seedling distribution on Wisconsin River sandbars: Controls 

at different spatial scales: Ecological Monographs, v. 72, no. 

4, p. 465–485. 

Gee, G.W., and Bauder, J.W., 1986, Particle size analysis, in: 

A. Klute (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and 

Mineralogical Methods, 2nd edition, no. 9: Madison, Wis., 

American Society of Agronomy, p. 383–411. 

Gleason, H.A., and Cronquist, A., 1991, Manual of Vascular 

Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada: 

New York, The New York Botanical Garden, 910 p. 

Goodson, J.M., Gurnell, A.M., Angold, P.G., and Morrissey, 

I.P., 2002, Riparian seed banks along the lower River Dove, 

UK: their structure and ecological implications: Geomorphology, v. 47, p. 45–60. 

Grossman, B.C., Gold, M.A., and Dey, D.C., 2003, Restoration 

of hard mast species for wildlife in Missouri using precocious 

flowering oak in the Missouri river floodplain, USA: Agroforestry Systems, v. 59, no. 1, p. 3–10. 

Harris, M.D., 1975, Effects of flooding on forest vegetation at 

two Oklahoma lakes: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 30, no. 6, p. 294–295. 

Heimann, D.C., and Roell, M.J., 2000, Sediment loads and 

accumulation in a small riparian wetland system in northern 

Missouri: Wetlands, v. 20, no. 2, p. 219–231. 

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical methods in 

water resources: New York, Elsevier Science Publishing 

Company, 522 p. 

Hill, M.O., 1973, Diversity and evenness: A unifying notation 

and its consequences: Ecology, v. 54, no. 2, p. 427–432. 

Hill, M.O., and Gauch, H.G., 1980, Detrended Correspondence 

Analysis, an improved ordination technique: Vegetatio, v. 

42, p. 47–58. 

Hillel, D., 1982, Introduction to Soil Physics: New York, Academic Press, 364 p. 

Hughes, F.M.R., Adams, W.M., Muller, E., Nilsson, C., Richards, K.S., Barsoum, N., Decamps, H., Foussadier, R., Girel, 

J., Guilloy, H., Hayes, A., Johansson, M., Lambs, L., Pautou, 

G., Peiry, J.L., Perrow, M., Vautier, F., and Winfield, M., 

2001, The importance of different scale processes for the restoration of floodplain woodlands: Regulated Rivers Research 

and Management, v. 17, p. 325–345. 

Hunter, R.G., Combs, D.L., George, D.B., 2000, Growth of 

softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus) in mocrocosms with different hydrologic regimes and media depths: Wetlands, v. 20, 

no. 1, p. 15–22. 

Hupp, C.R., and Osterkamp, W.R., 1985, Bottomland vegetation distribution along Passage Creek, Virginia, in relation to 

fluvial landforms: Ecology, v. 66, no. 3, p. 670–681. 

Jones, R.H., and Sharitz, R.R., 1998, Survival and growth of 

woody plant seedlings in the understory of floodplain forests 

in South Carolina: Journal of Ecology, v. 86, p. 574–587. 

Jones, R.H., Sharitz, R.R., Dixon, P.M., Segal, D.S., and 

Schneider, R.L., 1994, Woody plant regeneration in four 

floodplain forests: Ecological Monographs, v. 64, no. 3, p. 

345–367. 

Junk, W.J., Bayley, P.B., and Sparks, R.E., 1989, The flood 

pulse concept in river-floodplain systems, in: D.P. Dodge 

(ed.), International Large River Symposium: Canadian Special Publications in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, p. 110– 

127. 

Junk, W.J., and Howard-Williams, C., 1984, Ecology of aquatic 

macrophytes in Amazonia: The Amazon: Dordrecht, the 

Netherlands, Limnology and Landscape Ecology of a Mighty 

Tropical River and its Basin: Junk Publishers, p. 269–309. 

Kansas Water Office, 2003, Marais des Cygne Basin Water 

Plan, accessed on February 12, 2004, at http://www.kwo.org/ 

KWP/MDC_basin_nov.pdf . 

Kennedy, H.E., Jr., and Krinard, R.M., 1974, 1973 Mississippi 

River flood’s impact on natural hardwood forests and plantations: U.S. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station Research Note, SO-177, 6 p. 

Kleiss, B.A., 1996, Sediment retention in a bottomland hardwood wetland in eastern Arkansas: Wetlands, v. 16, no. 3, p. 

321–333. 

Kozlowski, T.T., 1984a, Plant responses to flooding of soil: 

BioScience, v. 34, no. 3, p. 162–168. 

Kozlowski, T.T., 1984b, Responses of woody plants to flooding, in: T.T. Kozlowski (ed.), Flooding and Plant Growth: 

San Diego, Calif., Academic Press, Inc., p. 129–163. 

Kozlowski, T.T., 2002, Physiological-ecological impacts of 

flooding on riparian forest ecosystems: Wetlands, v. 22, no. 

3, p. 550–561. 

Kramer, P.J., and Kozlowski, T.T., 1979, Physiology of Woody 

Plants: New York, Academic Press, Inc., 811 p. 

Kramer, K., Thom, R., Iffrig, G., McCarty, K., and Moore, D., 

1996, Directory of Missouri Natural Areas: Jefferson City, 

Mo., Missouri Natural Areas Committee, 156 p. 

Kruse, B.S., and Groninger, J.W., 2003, Vegetative Characteristics of recently reforested bottomlands in the lower Cache 
References Cited 101 

River watershed, Illinois, USA: Restoration Ecology, v. 11, 

no. 3, p. 273–280. 

Larson, J.W., 1978, Those Army Engineers: A History of the 

Chicago District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Chicago, 

Ill., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, 307 p. 

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1964, Fluvial 

Processes in Geomorphology: New York, Dover Publications, 522 p. 

Loucks, W.L., 1987, Flood-tolerant trees: Journal of Forestry, 

March, p. 36–40. 

Lowrance, R., Todd, R., Fail, J., Jr., Hendrickson, O., Jr., 

Leonard, R., and Asmussen, L., 1984, Riparian forests as 

nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds: BioScience, v. 34, 

no. 6, p. 374–377. 

Lyon, J., and Sagers, C.L., 2002, Correspondence analysis of 

functional groups in a riparian landscape: Plant Ecology, v. 

164, p. 171–183. 

McCune, B., and Mefford, M.J., 1999, PC-ORD, Multivariate 

Analysis of Ecological Data: Gleneden Beach, Oreg., MjM 

Software Design, 237 p. 

Menges, E.S., and Waller, D.M., 1983, Plant strategies in relation to elevation and light in floodplain herbs: The American 

Naturalist, v. 122, p. 454–473. 

Mettler-Cherry, P.A., 2004, Population biology of the threatened, floodplain species, Boltonia decurrens: Determination 

of stage based demography and implications for succession: 

Ph.D. Thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Ill., 

238 p. 

Middleton, B.A., 1999, Wetland restoration, flood pulsing and 

disturbance dynamics: New York John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 

400 p. 

Missouri Department of Conservation, 1999, Missouri species 

of conservation concern checklist: Jefferson City, Mo., Missouri Department of Conservation, 30 p. 

Missouri Department of Conservation, 2004a, Forest Keepers 

Bulletin No. 2, accessed on January 27, 2004, at http:// 

stlouis.missouri.org/501c/ forestkeepers/pdfs/2.pdf . 

Missouri Department of Conservation, 2004b, Regional Conservation Priorities, accessed on January 27, 2004, at http:// 

www.conservation.state.mo.us/areas/areaplans . 

Mitsch, W.J., and Gosselink, J.G., 1993, Wetlands: New York, 

Van Nostrand Reinhold, 722 p. 

Mueller-Dombois, D., and Ellenberg, E., 1974, Aims and methods of vegetation ecology: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., 547 p. 

Murray, N.W., and Stauffer, D.F., 1995, Nongame bird use of 

habitat in central Appalachian riparian forest: Journal of 

Wildlife Management, v. 59, p. 78–88. 

Naiman, R.J., and Decamps, H., 1997, The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 28, p. 621–658. 

National Climatic Data Center, 2002, Monthly station normals 

of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree 

days, 1971–2000: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Climatography of the United States No. 81, 

Report 23, 35 p. 

Nelson, P.W., 1985, The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri: Jefferson City, Mo., Missouri Natural Areas Committee, 197 p. 

Nilsson, C., and Svedmark, M., 2002, Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes: Riparian 

plant communities: Environmental Management, v. 30, no. 4, 

p. 468–480. 

Nilsson, C., Andersson, E., Merritt, D.M., and Hohansson, 

M.E., 2002, Differences in riparian flora between riverbanks 

and river lakeshores explained by dispersal traits: Ecology, v. 

83, no. 10, p. 2,878–2,887. 

Ohmart, R.D., and Anderson, B.W., 1986, Riparian habitat, in 

Cooperrider, A.Y., Boyd, R.J., and Stuart, H.R., eds., Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat: U.S. Department of 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 858 p. 

Patterson, W.B., and Adams, J.C., 2003, Soil, hydroperiod and 

bedding effects on restoring bottomland hardwoods on floodprone agricultural lands in north Louisiana, USA: Forestry, v. 

76, no. 2, p. 181–188. 

Peet, R.K., 1974, The measurement of species diversity: Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 5, p. 285–307. 

Perkins, M.W., Johnson, R.J., and Blankenship, E.E., 2003, 

Response of riparian avifauna to percentage and pattern of 

woody cover in an agricultural landscape: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 31, no. 3, p. 642–660. 

Peterjohn, W.T., and Correll, D.L., 1984, Nutrient dynamics in 

an agricultural watershed: Observations on the role of a riparian forest: Ecology, v. 65, p. 1,466–1,475. 

Peterjohn, W.T., and Correll, D.L., 1986, The effect of riparian 

forest on the volume and chemical composition of baseflow 

in an agricultural watershed, in, Correll, D., ed., Watershed 

research perspectives: Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Press, 

p. 244–262. 

Phipps, R.L., 1985, Collecting, preparing, cross-dating, and 

measuring tree-increment cores: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 85–4148, 48 p. 

Pielou, E.C., 1969, An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology: 

New York, John Wiley and Sons, 286 p. 

Poff, I.R., Allan, J.D., Bain, M.B., Jr., Karr, R., Prestegaard, 

K.L., Richter, R.E., Sparks, R.E., and Stromberg, J.C., 1997, 

The natural flow regime: BioScience, v. 47, p. 769–784. 

Preston, G.D., 1977, Soil survey of Vernon county, Missouri: 

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation 

Service, 62 p. 

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982a, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow: Volume 1 measurement of stage and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 

284 p. 

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982b, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow: Volume 2 computation of discharge: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 631 p. 

Reed, P.B., 1988, National List of Plant Species that Occur in 

Wetlands: North Central (Region 3): U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 90 p. 

Saxton, K.E., Rawls, W.J., Romberger, J.S., and Papendick, 

R.I., 1986, Estimating generalized soil water characteristics 
102 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

from texture: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 50, 

no. 4, p. 1,031–1,036. 

Schlosser, I.J., and Karr, J.R., 1981, Riparian vegetation and 

channel morphology impact on spatial patterns of water quality in agricultural watersheds: Environmental Management, 

v. 5, p. 233–243. 

Schoenholtz, S.H., James, J.P., Kaminski, R.M., Leopold, B.D., 

and Ezell, A.W., 2001, Afforestation of bottomland hardwoods in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley: Status and 

trends: Wetlands, v. 21, no. 4, p. 602–613. 

Schumm, S.A., 1977, The Fluvial System: New York, John 

Wiley, 338 p. 

Shannon, C.E., and Weaver, W., 1949, The Mathematical 

Theory of Communication: Urbana, Ill., University of Illinois Press, 125 p. 

Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J., 1996, Biometry, (3d ed.): San 

Francisco, Calif., Freeman, 887 p. 

Sorensen, T., 1948, A method of establishing groups of equal 

emplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species 

content: K. Dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Skrift, v. 5, no. 4, p. 

2–16. 

Sparks, R.E., 1992, Risks of altering the hydrologic regime of 

large rivers, in, Cairns, J., Niederlehner, B.R., and Orvos, 

D.R., eds., Predicting ecosystem risk: Princeton Scientific 

Publishing Co., Advances in modern environmental toxicology, v. 20, p. 119–152. 

Sparks, R.E., 1995, Need for ecosystem management of large 

rivers and their floodplains: BioScience, v. 45, p. 168–182. 

Sparks, R.E., Bayley, P.B., Kohler, S.L., and Osborne, L.L., 

1990, Disturbance and recovery of large floodplain rivers: 

Environmental Management, v. 14, p. 699–709. 

Stanturf, J.A., Schoenholtz, S.H., Schweitzer, C.J., and Schepard, J.P., 2001, Achieving restoration success: Myths in bottomland hardwood forests: Restoration Ecology, v. 9, no. 2, 

p. 189–200. 

Steed, J.E., DeWald, L.E., and Kolb, T.E., 2002, Physiological 

and growth responses of riparian sedge transplants to groundwater depth: International Journal of Plant Science, v. 163, 

no. 6, p. 925–936. 

Steyermark, J.A., 1963, Flora of Missouri: Ames, Iowa, The 

Iowa State University Press, 1,728 p. 

Streng, D.R., Glitzenstein, J.S., and Harcombe, P.A., 1989, 

Woody seedling dynamics in an east Texas floodplain: Ecological Monographs, v. 59, no. 2, p. 177–204. 

Sweeney, B.W., and Czapka, S.J., 2004, Riparian forest restoration: Why each site needs an ecological prescription: Forest 

Ecology and Management, v. 192, p. 361–373. 

Teskey, R.O., and Hinckley, T.M., 1977a, Impact of water level 

changes on woody riparian and wetland communities, 

Volume I: Plant and soil responses to flooding: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological 

Services Program, FWS/OBS-77/58, 30 p. 

Teskey, R.O., and Hinckley, T.M., 1977b, Impact of water level 

changes on woody riparian and wetland communities, 

Volume III: The Central Forest Region: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services 

Program, FWS/OBS-77/60, 36 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004a, accessed August 19, 2004, at 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ks/nwis/peak . 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004b, accessed August 19, 2004, at 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ks/nwis/monthly . 

Vogl, R.J., 1980, The ecological factors that produce perturbation-dependent ecosystems, in: Cairns, J.J., (ed.), The Recovery Process in Damaged Ecosystems: Ann Arbor, Mich., Ann 

Arbor Science, 167 p. 

Washington State University, 2003, Soil Water Properties Calculator, accessed on June 5, 2003, at http:// 

www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soilwater . 

Weaver, J.E., 1960, Flood plain vegetation of the Central Missouri valley and contacts of woodland with prairie: Ecological Monographs, v. 30, no. 1, p. 37–64. 

Whitlow, T.H., and Harris, R.W., 1979, Flood tolerance in 

plants: A state-of-the-art review: Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. 

Army Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report, E79-2, 261 p. 

Yatskievych, G., 1999, Steyermark's Flora of Missouri: Jefferson City, Mo., Missouri Department of Conservation and 

Missouri Botanical Garden Press, 991 p. 

Yatskievych, G., and Turner, J., 1990, Catalogue of the Flora of 

Missouri: St. Louis, Mo., Missouri Botanical Garden Press, 

345 p. 

GLOSSARY 

Available water—The quantity of water in (centimeters per 

meter) that a plant is able to extract from a soil at field capacity, 

calculated by Soil Water Characteristics Properties Calculator 

(Washington State University, 2003) as field capacity minus 

wilting point times the depth of soil. 

Canopy Position Index (CPI)—A measure of a tree’s exposure in 

the canopy structure of the forest; 1=completely exposed vertically; 2=partly exposed vertically; 3=shaded just beneath the 

canopy; and 4=shaded and distant from the canopy. 

Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA)—An eigenanalysis 

based ordination technique; ordination refers to a family of 

mathematical methods used by ecologists that arranges sites 

along axes based on their similarity/dissimilarity to one another 

according to their species composition. 

Evenness—A measure of vegetation that describes the equitability or the relative evenness of the numerical importance of a 

species in a sample. 

Facultative—A species equally likely to occur in wetlands or 

non-wetlands with an estimated probability of 34–66 percent. 

Facultative upland—A species that usually occurs in non-wetlands (with an estimated probability of 67–99 percent), but 

occasionally is detected in wetlands (with an estimated probability of 1–33 percent). 
Facultative wetland—A species that usually occurs in wetlands 


(with an estimated probability of 67–99 percent), but occasion­


ally detected in non-wetlands.


Field capacity—The water content (percent by volume) of the 


soil matrix approximating the water content of a saturated soil 


that has been allowed to freely drain. Estimated by Soil Water 


Characteristics Properties Calculator (Washington State Uni­


versity, 2003) as a hydraulic tension of 33 kPa (kilopascal) (0.33


bar) and dependant on the soil texture.


Hydraulic conductivity—The capability of water to move


within the soil matrix and driven by matrix and gravitational 


potentials dependent on soil texture and moisture content (cen­


timeter per hour).


Importance value—A measurement of vegetation derived from 


the sum of relative density, relative frequency, and relative cov­


erage for a species.


Introduced species—Non-indigenous species (NIS) are those 


plants and animals that have been transported through human 


activities from their native ranges into new ecosystems where 


they did not evolve.


Obligate—A species that almost always occurs under natural 


conditions in wetlands with an estimated probability of greater 


than 99 percent.


Quadrat—A basic sampling unit of vegetation surveys.


Releve plots—A series of nested quadrats; the unit size can vary 


with the type of community but should at least embrace the min­


imal area.


Riparian—Pertaining to or located on the shores or banks of


lakes and streams.


GLOSSARY 103 

Richness—A measurement that describes the number of species. 

Saturation—The saturation moisture content of the soil matrix 

such that the entire soil porosity is filled with water (percent by 

volume), and dependant only on the soil texture. 

Shannon’s Diversity Index—A statistical measurement that 

includes both richness (the number of species present in a sample) and equitability (the relative evenness of the numerical 

importance of a species in a sample). 

Sorensen’s Coefficient of Community Similarity—Also known 

as the quotient of similarity, a measure of community similarity 

based on the number of species in common between comparison sites. 

Tension (soil water potential)—Matrix potential of soil water 

held within the interstices of soil particles by capillary forces, 

dependent upon soil texture and moisture content. 

Texture—The dispersed size fractions of soil particle diameters 

in categories of clay [less than 2 μm (micrometers)], silt (2–50 

μm), and sand (50–2,000 μm) as denoted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Unlisted species—A plant species that does not occur on the 

“National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands: North 

Central (Region 3)” list (Reed, 1988). 

Wilting point—The water content (percent by volume) below 

which plants are generally unable to extract water from the soil. 

Estimated by Soil Water Characteristics Properties Calculator 

(Washington State University, 2003) as a hydraulic tension of 

1,500 kPa (kilopascal) (15 bar) and dependent only on the soil 

texture. 

TABLES


Table	 107 

Table 3.	 Log descriptions for wells in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[m, meters; U, unit; W, well] 

Depth, 


below ground 


surface,


in m	 General observations 

U1W1 

0–2.4	 Silty clay 

2.4 Encountered water table but water continued to drop with depth 

2.4–4.9 Silty clay 

4.9–7.6 Fine sandy clay (granular) 

Constructed 04/19/2001 

U1W2 

0–2.7 Gray clay, mottled with iron concretions, standing water at ground surface

2.7–4.6 Heavy gray clay mottled with iron concretions 

4.6–5.8 Becoming silty, some fine sand 

5.8–7.3 Brown silty clay with some fine sand 

Constructed 04/19/2001 

U1W3 

0–2.7 Gray clay, mottled with iron concretions, water at surface, clay granular

2.7–6.1 Gray clay, dense, some layers with fine sand 

6.1–6.7 Silty gray clay, saturated, mottled with iron concretions 

Constructed 04/19/2001 

U3W1 

0–1.2 Silty clay (dark brown) encountered water table at 0.3–0.6 m 

1.2–3.6 Heavy clay (gray/brown, iron concretions) 

3.6–4.9 Fine sand and clay, increasing sand with depth within this layer, still mottled with iron concretions 

Constructed 03/29/2001 

U3W2 

0–2.4	 Heavy brown clay 

2.4 Encountered water 

2.4–3.8 Heavy clay

3.8–4.0 Saturated clay layer 

4.0 Hard pan clay layer 

4.0–5.5 Light brown heavy clay 

5.5–6.4 Sandy loam 

Constructed 04/06/2001 

U3W3a (deep well) 

0–5.8	 Hole is in gray clay mottled with iron concretions becoming increasingly brown and silty


Bottomed in brown/gray silty clay with some fine sand


Constructed 04/17/2001

108 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 3.	 Log descriptions for wells in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued 

[m, meters; U, unit; W, well] 

Depth, 


below ground 


surface,


in m	 General observations 

U3W3b 

0–2.1	 Gray clay mottled with iron concretions


Constructed 04/17/2001


U4W1 

0–0.3 Clay loam 

0.3–0.9 Clay 

0.9–5.2 Brown clay, iron concretions, some black organic matter, some calcification, dry 

5.2–5.8 Sandy clay layer 

5.8–6.4 Clay 

Constructed 3/24/2001 

U4W2 

0–3 Brown clay, some iron concretions, some black organic matter particulates


3–3.4 Sandy clay


Constructed 03/24/2001


U4W3 

0–0.6 Dark silty clay (dark brown with high organic matter) 

0.6–5.5 Dark clay with varying degrees of wetness, mottled with gray and iron concretions, initially 

encountered water table at 4.0 m 

Constructed 03/29/2001 
Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soilwater/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation, Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 1 

NL1 0–0.30 m 28.3 7.2 64.4 4.0 Silty clay loam 16.9 37.9 57.9 0.21 12.12 1.12 

0.31–0.60 m 24.6 7.5 67.9 1.4 Silt loam 14.4 33.5 52.3 .19 2.01 1.27 0.61–0.90 m 25.0 15.2 59.8 1.2 Silt loam 14.4 32.4 51.2 .18 1.35 1.29 0.91–1.22 m 26.3 11.5 62.2 1.1 Silt loam 14.8 33.0 51.5 .18 1.27 1.29 

NL2 0–0.30 m 32.7 8.5 58.8 4.0 Silty clay loam 19.2 38.8 58.5 .20 8.10 1.10 

0.31–0.60 m 28.6 9.1 62.3 1.4 Silty clay loam 16.3 34.7 52.8 .18 1.32 1.25 0.61–0.90 m 24.5 15.2 60.2 1.2 Silt loam 14.4 32.4 51.2 .18 1.35 1.29 

0.91–1.22 m 28.3 16.5 55.2 1.1 Silty clay loam 15.8 33.2 51.5 .17 .94 1.29 

NL3 0–0.30 m 29.0 9.0 62.0 4.0 Silty clay loam 17.3 38.0 57.9 .21 10.67 1.11 

0.31–0.60 m 27.0 6.8 66.2 1.4 Silt loam/Silty clay loam 15.3 34.1 52.6 .19 1.63 1.26 0.61–0.90 m 23.6 10.2 66.2 1.2 Silt loam 13.9 32.6 51.3 .19 1.60 1.29 

0.91–1.22 m 29.0 7.5 63.5 1.1 Silty clay loam 16.2 34.5 52.4 .18 1.09 1.26 

NL4 0–0.30 m 33.5 10.2 56.2 2.3 Silty clay loam 19.2 37.5 55.4 .18 2.08 1.18 

0.31–0.60 m 28.3 11.2 60.4 1.3 Silty clay loam 15.8 34.1 52.3 .18 1.27 1.26 0.61–0.90 m 37.5 3.5 59.0 1.2 Silty clay loam 21.4 38.9 54.1 .18 .69 1.22 0.91–1.22 m 38.8 2.5 58.7 1.1 Silty clay loam 22.0 39.3 54.0 .17 .58 1.22 

NL5 0–0.30 m 31.1 12.8 56.2 2.3 Silty clay loam 17.7 36.1 54.8 .19 2.36 1.20 

0.31–0.60 m 25.3 12.5 62.2 1.3 Silt loam 14.4 32.8 51.6 .18 1.57 1.28 

0.61–0.90 m 29.9 4.2 65.8 1.2 Silty clay loam 16.7 35.2 52.8 .18 1.12 1.25 0.91–1.22 m 29.5 4.0 66.5 1.1 Silty clay loam 16.7 35.1 52.7 .18 1.09 1.25 

NL6 0–0.30 m 27.9 13.0 59.1 2.3 Silty clay loam 16.2 35.2 54.4 .19 3.05 1.21 

0.31–0.60 m 23.6 15.8 60.6 1.3 Silt loam 14.0 32.2 51.2 .18 1.60 1.29 0.61–0.90 m 27.1 9.8 63.2 1.2 Silty clay loam 15.2 33.6 51.9 .18 1.27 1.27 0.91–1.22 m 21.5 11.5 67.0 1.1 Silt loam 13.1 31.7 50.5 .19 1.70 1.31 

Table 109

Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soil

water/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic

Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation,

Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 1—Continued

U1W1-T1 0–0.30 m 30.6 10.8 58.6 2.9 Silty clay loam 17.9 37.0 56.1 0.19 4.01 1.16 

0.31–0.60 m 28.3 15.0 56.7 2.3 Silty clay loam 16.3 35.0 54.3 .19 3.00 1.21 

U1W1-T2 0–0.30 m 26.9 15.0 58.1 2.9 Silt loam 16.0 35.6 55.3 .20 5.03 1.18 

0.31–0.60 m 33.2 6.5 60.3 2.3 Silty clay loam 19.3 37.9 55.8 .19 2.51 1.17 0.61–0.90 m 35.1 3.5 61.4 1.3 Silty clay loam 19.6 37.5 53.8 .18 .89 1.22 0.91–1.22 m 28.5 7.8 63.8 1.4 Silty clay loam 16.3 34.8 52.9 .19 1.42 1.25 

U1W1-T3 0–0.30 m 27.6 16.8 55.6 2.9 Silty clay loam 16.5 35.5 55.3 .19 4.45 1.18 

0.31–0.60 m 25.4 15.2 59.4 2.3 Silt loam 14.9 34.1 53.6 .19 3.61 1.23 

0.61–0.90 m 30.4 9.9 59.7 1.3 Silty clay loam 16.8 35.0 52.7 .18 1.12 1.25 0.91–1.22 m 29.6 11.5 58.9 1.4 Silty clay loam 16.8 34.9 52.8 .18 1.19 1.25 

NL7 0–0.30 m 41.2 1.0 57.8 6.0 Silt loam a23.6 a41.5 a61.0 a.18 a10.69 a1.03 

0.31–0.60 m 35.4 2.0 62.6 2.6 Silty clay loam 19.9 38.5 56.5 .19 2.92 1.15 0.61–0.90 m 32.0 2.5 65.5 1.5 Silty clay loam 17.9 36.3 53.8 .18 1.32 1.22 0.91–1.22 m 26.8 3.8 69.4 1.3 Silty clay loam 15.3 34.1 52.6 .19 1.63 1.26 

NL8 0–0.30 m 43.6 1.2 55.2 6.0 Silty clay a25.3 a42.1 a61.3 a.17 a9.47 a1.03 

0.31–0.60 m 42.6 .8 56.6 2.6 Silty clay 24.6 41.6 57.4 .17 1.98 1.13 0.61–0.90 m 35.6 1.2 63.2 1.5 Silty clay loam 20.2 38.1 54.5 .18 1.07 1.21 0.91–1.22 m 31.2 2.2 66.6 1.3 Silty clay loam 17.3 35.7 53.3 .18 1.22 1.24 

NL9 0–0.30 m 49.6 .8 49.6 6.0 Silty clay a29.2 a45.2 a61.8 a.16 a7.87 a1.01 

0.31–0.60 m 40.0 2.2 57.8 2.6 Silty clay loam/Silty clay 22.8 40.4 57.0 .18 2.18 1.14 0.61–0.90 m 39.1 .8 60.2 1.5 Silty clay 22.0 39.5 54.9 .18 .91 1.20 0.91–1.22 m 37.2 1.0 61.8 1.3 Silty clay loam 20.8 38.5 54.2 .18 .81 1.21 

110 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soilwater/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation, Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 1—Continued

NL10 0–0.30 m 42.1 2.2 55.6 4.0 Silty clay 24.1 41.5 59.6 0.17 5.61 1.07 

0.31–0.60 m 38.0 3.5 58.5 1.7 Silty clay loam 21.4 39.2 55.1 .18 1.14 1.19 0.61–0.90 m 48.8 2.6 48.5 1.7 Silty clay 28.5 44.6 56.4 .16 .79 1.16 0.91–1.22 m 45.0 1.0 54.0 1.6 Silty clay 25.9 42.4 55.7 .17 .76 1.17 

NL11 0–0.30 m 45.0 1.2 53.8 4.0 Silty clay 25.9 42.3 59.9 .17 5.00 1.06 

0.31–0.60 m 40.9 1.0 58.1 1.7 Silty clay 23.3 40.6 55.6 .17 1.04 1.18 0.61–0.90 m 36.4 2.0 61.6 1.7 Silty clay loam 20.3 38.3 54.9 .18 1.32 1.19 0.91–1.22 m 34.5 3.2 62.2 1.6 Silty clay loam 19.6 37.8 54.6 .18 1.27 1.20 

NL12 0–0.30 m 46.9 2.5 50.6 4.0 Silty clay 27.2 43.6 60.0 .16 4.57 1.06 

0.31–0.60 m 49.9 1.5 48.6 1.7 Silty clay 29.2 45.2 56.6 .16 .79 1.15 0.61–0.90 m 42.2 1.2 56.6 1.7 Silty clay 23.9 41.0 55.7 .17 .99 1.17 0.91–1.22 m 39.9 1.5 58.6 1.6 Silty clay loam 22.7 40.1 55.2 .17 .97 1.19 

FP1 0–0.30 m 34.5 3.8 61.8 3.1 Silty clay loam 20.0 38.9 57.4 .19 4.39 1.13 

0.31–0.60 m 33.4 3.5 63.1 1.3 Silty clay loam 18.4 36.6 53.6 .18 1.04 1.23 0.61–0.90 m 34.7 1.8 63.6 1.3 Silty clay loam 19.6 37.5 53.9 .18 .91 1.22 0.91–1.22 m 46.9 .1 53.0 1.2 Silty clay 27.2 43.6 55.3 .16 .51 1.19 

FP2 0–0.30 m 37.7 2.8 59.6 3.1 Silty clay loam 21.7 39.9 57.6 .18 4.83 1.12 

0.31–0.60 m 32.7 3.2 64.0 1.3 Silty clay loam 18.4 36.6 53.5 .18 .99 1.23 0.61–0.90 m 24.7 3.2 72.0 1.3 Silt loam 14.3 33.3 52.0 .19 1.78 1.13 0.91–1.22 m 42.0 2.0 56.0 1.2 Silty clay 23.9 40.9 54.7 .17 .61 1.20 

FP3 0–0.30 m 35.6 3.2 61.2 3.1 Silty clay loam 20.5 39.2 57.4 .19 3.91 1.13 

0.31–0.60 m 28.1 4.5 67.4 1.3 Silty clay loam 15.8 34.5 52.8 .19 1.50 1.25 0.61–0.90 m 25.3 3.0 71.7 1.3 Silt loam 14.4 33.5 52.2 .19 1.91 1.12 0.91–1.22 m 27.8 6.5 65.7 1.2 Silty clay loam 15.7 34.2 52.3 .19 1.24 1.26 

Table 111

Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soil

water/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic

Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation,

Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 1—Continued

FP4 0–0.30 m 51.8 3.0 45.2 5.4 Silty clay a30.6 a46.3 a51.0 a0.16 a7.54 a1.01 

0.31–0.60 m 46.9 2.8 50.4 3.2 Silty clay 27.2 43.6 58.8 .09 2.74 1.09 0.61–0.90 m 49.2 2.5 48.3 1.6 Silty clay 28.5 44.6 56.2 .16 .71 1.16 0.91–1.22 m 55.0 2.0 43.0 2.7 Silty clay 32.6 47.8 58.7 .15 1.63 1.09 

FP5 0–0.30 m 44.3 2.0 53.7 5.4 Silty clay a25.3 a42.1 a61.3 a.17 a9.47 a1.03 

0.31–0.60 m 34.9 1.0 64.1 3.2 Silty clay loam 20.0 39.0 57.6 .19 4.65 1.12 0.61–0.90 m 55.2 .8 44.0 1.6 Clay 32.6 47.8 56.7 .15 .64 1.15 0.91–1.22 m 44.6 5.0 50.4 2.7 Clay 25.9 42.4 57.8 .17 1.78 1.12 

FP6 0–0.30 m 54.2 2.0 43.8 5.4 Silty clay a31.9 a47.3 a62.1 a.15 a7.29 a1.01 

0.31–0.60 m 50.4 1.2 48.4 3.2 Clay 29.2 45.2 59.1 .16 2.54 1.08 0.61–0.90 m 65.6 1.0 33.4 1.6 Clay 35.9 50.4 57.3 .15 .66 1.13 0.91–1.22 m 52.6 1.0 46.4 2.7 Clay 31.2 46.8 58.4 .16 1.57 1.10 

FP7 0–0.30 m 44.1 3.1 29.0 9.2 Silty clay a25.3 a42.1 a61.3 a.17 a9.47 a1.03 

0.31–0.60 m 40.9 1.8 57.4 2.9 Silty clay 23.4 40.9 57.7 .18 2.64 1.12 0.61–0.90 m 48.2 1.2 50.6 1.7 Silty clay 27.9 44.1 56.3 .16 .79 1.16 0.91–1.22 m 56.2 1.0 42.8 1.5 Silty clay 33.2 48.4 56.7 .15 .61 1.15 

FP8 0–0.30 m 53.4 2.0 44.6 9.2 Silty clay a31.2 a46.8 a62.0 a.16 a7.39 a1.01 

0.31–0.60 m 37.1 2.0 60.9 2.9 Silty clay loam 21.1 39.4 57.3 .18 3.30 1.13 0.61–0.90 m 46.1 .5 53.4 1.7 Silty clay 26.5 43.0 56.1 .17 .84 1.16 0.91–1.22 m 44.3 1.5 54.2 1.5 Silty clay 25.2 41.9 55.5 .17 .76 1.18 

FP9 0–0.30 m 51.3 1.5 47.2 9.2 Silty clay a29.9 a45.7 a61.9 a.16 a7.70 a1.01 

0.31–0.60 m 52.1 1.5 46.4 2.9 Silty clay 30.6 46.3 58.7 .16 1.91 1.09 0.61–0.90 m 42.9 .8 56.4 1.7 Silty clay 24.6 41.5 55.8 .17 .97 1.17 0.91–1.22 m 36.1 .2 63.6 1.5 Silty clay loam 20.2 38.1 54.5 .18 1.07 1.21 

112 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soilwater/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation, Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 1—Continued

FP10 0–0.30 m 51.0 1.5 47.5 3.3 Silty clay 29.9 45.7 59.2 0.16 2.54 1.08 

0.31–0.60 m 56.2 2.8 41.0 3.1 Silty clay 33.2 48.4 59.5 .15 2.18 1.07 0.61–0.90 m 46.8 3.1 50.1 1.8 Silty clay 27.2 43.6 56.3 .16 .86 1.16 0.91–1.22 m 66.0 1.8 32.2 1.5 Clay 35.9 50.4 57.0 .15 .58 1.14 

FP11 0–0.30 m 48.0 .9 51.1 3.3 Silty clay 27.9 44.1 59.0 .16 2.79 1.09 

0.31–0.60 m 34.4 1.8 63.8 3.1 Silty clay loam 19.5 38.6 57.2 .19 4.55 1.13 0.61–0.90 m 30.5 1.5 68.0 1.8 Silty clay loam 17.5 36.2 54.3 .19 1.88 1.21 0.91–1.22 m 35.2 1.5 63.3 1.5 Silty clay loam 19.6 37.7 54.3 .18 1.14 1.21 

FP12 0–0.30 m 45.1 1.5 53.4 3.3 Silty clay 25.9 42.4 58.7 .17 3.00 1.09 

0.31–0.60 m 35.4 1.8 62.8 3.1 Silty clay loam 20.0 38.9 57.4 .19 4.27 1.13 0.61–0.90 m 48.0 1.0 51.0 1.8 Silty clay 27.9 44.1 56.4 .16 .84 1.15 0.91–1.22 m 53.4 .2 46.4 1.5 Silty clay 31.2 46.8 56.5 .16 .61 1.15 

AD1 0–0.30 m 47.8 2.2 50.0 4.4 Silty clay 27.9 44.1 60.7 .16 5.66 1.04 

0.31–0.60 m 42.2 2.0 55.8 1.9 Silty clay 23.9 41.1 56.0 .17 1.14 1.17 0.61–0.90 m 57.4 1.2 41.4 1.8 Silty clay 33.9 48.9 57.4 .15 .79 1.13 0.91–1.22 m 58.3 1.0 40.7 1.6 Silty clay 34.6 49.4 57.1 .15 .66 1.14 

AD2 0–0.30 m 43.3 3.0 53.7 4.4 Silty clay 24.7 41.8 60.0 .17 7.02 1.05 

0.31–0.60 m 36.9 1.0 62.1 1.9 Silty clay loam 20.9 38.9 55.4 .18 1.47 1.18 0.61–0.90 m 34.9 1.2 63.8 1.8 Silty clay loam 19.7 37.9 54.9 .18 1.50 1.19 0.91–1.22 m 58.0 1.2 40.7 1.6 Silty clay 35.2 49.9 57.1 .15 .64 1.14 

Table 113

Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soil

water/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic

Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation,

Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 1—Continued

AD3 0–0.30 m 53.1 1.5 45.4 3.3 Silty clay 31.2 46.8 59.4 0.16 2.46 1.08 

0.31–0.60 m 54.6 3.0 42.4 2.6 Silty clay 32.6 47.8 58.5 .15 1.45 1.10 0.61–0.90 m 53.3 1.8 45.0 1.6 Silty clay 31.2 46.8 56.6 .16 .66 1.15 0.91–1.22 m 50.4 .8 48.8 1.5 Silty clay 29.2 45.2 56.1 .16 .61 1.16 

AD4 0–0.30 m 52.7 2.0 45.3 3.3 Silty clay 31.2 46.8 59.4 .16 2.46 1.08 

0.31–0.60 m 52.0 2.6 45.3 2.6 Silty clay 30.6 46.3 58.3 .16 1.55 1.11 0.61–0.90 m 52.7 1.5 45.8 1.6 Silty clay 31.2 46.8 56.6 .16 .66 1.15 0.91–1.22 m 47.3 .5 52.2 1.5 Silty clay 27.2 43.6 55.8 .16 .66 1.17 

AD5 0–0.30 m 56.1 1.2 42.6 3.3 Silty clay 33.2 48.4 59.8 .15 2.51 1.07 

0.31–0.60 m 49.2 1.5 49.3 2.6 Silty clay 28.5 44.6 57.9 .16 1.60 1.11 0.61–0.90 m 52.5 .5 47.0 1.6 Silty clay 31.2 46.8 56.7 .16 .69 1.15 0.91–1.22 m 48.2 1.2 50.6 1.5 Silty clay 27.9 44.1 55.9 .16 .64 1.17 

U1W2-T1 0–0.30 m 52.6 2.8 44.6 5.2 Silty clay a31.2 a46.8 a62.0 a.16 a7.39 a1.01 

0.31–0.60 m 47.4 2.2 50.4 2.4 Clay 27.2 43.6 57.4 .16 1.45 1.13 0.61–0.90 m 50.7 .5 48.8 1.4 Silty clay 29.9 45.7 56.0 .16 .56 1.17 0.91–1.22 m 46.8 .4 52.8 1.3 Silty clay 27.2 43.6 55.4 .16 .56 1.18 

U1W2-T2 0–0.30 m 45.8 3.5 50.7 5.2 Silty clay a26.5 a43.0 a61.5 a.17 a8.81 a1.02 

0.31–0.60 m 49.6 3.9 46.5 2.4 Silty clay 29.2 45.2 57.8 .16 1.39 1.12 0.61–0.90 m 52.8 2.1 45.0 1.4 Silty clay 31.2 46.8 56.2 .16 .53 1.16 0.91–1.22 m 46.6 1.2 52.2 1.3 Silty clay 27.2 43.6 55.5 .16 .58 1.18 

U1W2-T3 0–0.30 m 50.6 3.9 45.5 5.2 Silty clay a29.9 a45.7 a61.9 a.16 a7.70 a1.01 

0.31–0.60 m 53.6 2.8 43.6 2.4 Silty clay 31.9 47.3 58.1 .15 1.27 1.11 0.61–0.90 m 53.4 1.5 45.2 1.4 Silty clay 31.2 46.8 56.2 .16 .55 1.16 0.91–1.22 m 48.0 2.2 49.8 1.3 Silty clay 27.9 44.1 55.6 .16 .56 1.18 

114 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soilwater/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation, Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 1—Continued

AD6 0–0.30 m 55.4 2.2 42.4 4.4 Clay 32.6 47.8 61.3 0.15 5.03 1.03 

0.31–0.60 m 50.7 1.0 48.3 3.0 Silty clay 29.9 45.7 58.9 .16 2.16 1.09 0.61–0.90 m 50.7 1.0 48.3 1.5 Silty clay 29.9 45.7 56.2 .16 .61 1.16 0.91–1.22 m 49.4 1.5 49.1 2.1 Silty clay 28.5 44.6 57.1 .16 1.07 1.14 

AD7 0–0.30 m 55.0 1.0 44.0 4.4 Clay 32.6 47.8 61.2 .15 4.93 1.03 

0.31–0.60 m 58.9 1.0 40.1 3.0 Clay 35.2 49.9 59.5 .15 2.01 1.07 0.61–0.90 m 59.5 1.0 39.5 1.5 Clay 35.9 50.4 57.1 .15 .61 1.14 0.91–1.22 m 53.8 .2 46.0 2.1 Silty clay 31.9 47.3 57.6 .15 1.02 1.12 

AD8 0–0.30 m 61.3 .9 37.8 4.4 Clay 35.9 50.4 61.6 .15 4.88 1.02 

0.31–0.60 m 55.6 4.8 39.6 3.0 Clay 33.2 48.4 59.3 .15 2.03 1.08 0.61–0.90 m 62.1 1.0 36.9 1.5 Clay 35.9 50.4 57.1 .15 .61 1.14 0.91–1.22 m 60.7 .8 38.6 2.1 Clay 35.9 50.4 58.1 .15 .99 1.11 

AD9 0–0.30 m 49.8 2.0 48.2 4.4 Silty clay 29.2 45.2 60.9 .16 5.36 1.04 

0.31–0.60 m 51.5 2.0 46.5 3.0 Silty clay 30.6 46.3 58.9 .16 2.06 1.09 0.61–0.90 m 47.4 .8 51.8 1.5 Silty clay 27.2 46.3 55.8 .16 .69 1.17 0.91–1.22 m 43.4 .0 56.6 2.1 Silty clay 24.6 41.5 56.5 .17 1.32 1.15 

AD10 0–0.30 m 50.5 3.0 46.5 4.4 Silty clay 29.9 45.7 60.9 .16 5.26 1.04 

0.31–0.60 m 54.6 3.2 42.2 3.0 Silty clay 32.6 47.8 59.2 .15 1.98 1.08 0.61–0.90 m 45.7 1.2 53.0 1.5 Silty clay 26.5 43.0 55.7 .17 .71 1.17 0.91–1.22 m 45.0 .8 54.2 2.1 Silty clay 25.9 42.4 56.7 .17 1.19 1.15 

Table 115

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- --

Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soil

water/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic

Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation,

Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 1—Continued

S1 0–0.30 m 63.0 2.4 34.7 

0.31–0.60 m 51.4 3.4 45.2 0.61–0.90 m 48.4 .9 50.7 0.91–1.22 m 59.6 2.1 38.3 

BS2 0–0.30 m 56.6 2.9 40.5

0.31–0.60 m 48.2 3.1 48.6 0.61–0.90 m -- -- -­0.61–0.90 m -- -- -­0.91–1.22 m 59.8 1.4 38.8 

BS3 0–0.30 m 59.0 2.2 38.8 

0.31–0.60 m 54.6 1.5 43.9 0.61–0.90 m 51.8 1.5 46.8 0.91–1.22 m 54.4 .2 45.4 

BS4 0–0.30 m 55.6 .8 43.6 

0.31–0.60 m 56.1 1.4 42.5 0.61–0.90 m 59.0 1.1 39.9 0.91–1.22 m -- -- -­

BS5 0–0.30 m 59.5 .5 40.0 

0.31–0.60 m 52.7 2.4 44.9 0.61–0.90 m 62.2 2.2 35.6 0.91–1.22 m 54.5 1.0 44.5 

U1W3-T1 0–0.30 m 51.7 3.2 45.0 

0.31–0.60 m 54.3 1.5 44.2 0.61–0.90 m 51.3 2.0 46.7 0.91–1.22 m 51.2 1.5 47.4 

9.2 

2.1 1.6 2.1 

9.2 

2.1

1.6 

2.1 

5.6 

2.4

1.5

1.5 

5.6

2.4

1.5

1.5 

5.6 

2.4 1.5 1.5 5.6 

2.4 1.5 1.5 

Clay a35.9 a50.4 a62.5 a0.15 a6.93 a0.99 

Silty clay 29.9 45.7 57.3 .16 1.07 1.13 Silty clay 27.9 44.1 56.1 .16 .71 1.16 Clay 35.9 50.4 58.1 .15 1.02 1.11 

Clay a33.9 a48.9 a62.3 a.15 a7.04 a1.00 

Silty clay 27.9 44.1 57.0 .16 1.09 1.14 

Clay 35.9 50.4 58.1 .15 .99 1.11 

Clay a35.2 a49.9 a62.4 a.15 a6.96 a1.00

Silty clay 32.6 47.8 58.2 .15 1.24 1.11 

Silty clay 30.6 46.3 56.4 .16 .62 1.16 

Clay 31.9 47.3 56.6 .15 .61 1.15 

Silty clay a33.2 a48.4 a62.2 a.15 a7.11 a1.00 

Silty clay 33.2 48.4 58.2 .15 1.25 1.11 

Silty clay 34.6 49.9 57.0 .15 .60 1.14 

Clay a35.9 a50.4 a32.5 a.15 a6.93 a

.99 

Silty clay 31.2 46.8 58.0 .16 1.28 1.11 Clay 35.9 50.4 57.0 .15 .58 1.14 Clay 32.6 47.8 56.6 .15 .58 1.15 Clay a30.6 a46.3 a61.9 a.16 a7.54 a1.01 

Clay 31.9 47.3 58.1 .15 1.27 1.11 Silty clay 29.9 45.7 56.3 .16 .63 1.16 Silty clay 29.9 45.7 56.3 .16 .63 1.16 

116 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soilwater/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation, Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 1—Continued

U1W3-T2 0–0.30 m 55.0 1.2 43.8 

0.31–0.60 m 58.4 1.2 40.4 0.61–0.90 m 56.6 1.5 41.9 0.91–1.22 m 59.2 1.2 39.6 

U1W3-T3 0–0.30 m 59.4 1.2 39.4 

0.31–0.60 m 50.8 2.5 46.7 0.61–0.90 m 46.6 .5 52.9 0.91–1.22 m 56.1 1.0 42.9 

BS6 0–0.30 m 59.5 1.2 39.2 

0.31–0.60 m 51.9 .8 47.4 0.61–0.90 m 55.8 1.8 42.4 0.91–1.22 m 54.6 1.2 44.2 

BS7 0–0.30 m 59.7 2.5 37.8 

0.31–0.60 m 57.1 1.5 41.4 0.61–0.90 m 53.5 1.4 45.1 0.91–1.22 m 62.0 1.2 36.8 

BS8 0–0.30 m 56.3 .8 43.0 

0.31–0.60 m 52.8 1.8 45.4 0.61–0.90 m 57.2 .8 42.0 0.91–1.22 m 60.7 1.8 37.6 

BS9 0–0.30 m 60.2 1.4 38.5 

0.31–0.60 m 53.0 2.0 45.0 0.61–0.90 m 65.1 1.0 33.9 0.91–1.22 m 60.7 .5 38.8 

5.6

2.4

1.5

1.5 

5.6

2.4

1.5

1.5

4.2 3.2 3.0 1.5 

4.2 

3.2 

3.0

1.5 

4.2

3.2

3.0 

1.5 

4.2 

3.2

3.0 

1.5 

Silty clay a32.6 a47.8 a62.1 a0.15 a7.19 a1.00 

Silty clay loam 34.6 49.4 58.5 .15 1.27 1.10 

Silty clay loam 33.9 48.9 56.8 .15 .58 1.15 

Clay 35.2 49.9 56.9 .15 .58 1.14 

Clay a35.2 a49.9 a62.4 a.15 a6.96 a1.00 

Silty clay 29.9 45.7 57.9 .16 1.37 1.12 

Silty clay 27.2 43.6 55.8 .16 .66 1.17 

Silty clay 33.2 48.4 56.7 .15 .58 1.15 

Silty clay 35.9 50.4 61.3 .15 4.27 1.03 Silty clay 30.6 46.3 29.3 .16 2.44 1.08 Silty clay 33.2 48.4 59.2 .15 1.98 1.08 Clay 32.6 47.8 56.6 .15 .58 1.15 

Clay 35.9 50.4 61.3 .15 4.27 1.03 

Clay 33.9 48.9 59.6 .15 2.24 1.07 

Silty clay 31.9 47.3 59.1 .15 2.06 1.03 

Clay 35.9 50.4 57.0 .15 .58 1.14 

Silty clay 33.2 48.4 61.0 .15 4.34 1.03 

Silty clay 31.2 46.8 59.4 .16 2.39 1.08 

Clay 33.9 48.9 59.4 .15 2.01 1.08 

Clay 35.9 50.4 57.0 .15 .58 1.14 

Clay 35.9 50.4 61.4 .15 4.47 1.02 

Silty clay 31.2 46.8 59.4 .16 2.39 1.08 

Clay 35.9 50.4 59.6 .15 2.01 1.07 

Clay 35.9 50.4 57.1 .15 .61 1.14 

Table 117

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soilwater/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/c

m3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic

Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation,

Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 1—Continued

BS10 0–0.30 m 64.6 1.2 34.2 

0.31–0.60 m -- -- -­0.61–0.90 m 56.2 .8 43.0 0.91–1.22 m 58.6 1.2 40.2 

BS11 0–0.30 m 58.2 1.8 40.0 

0.31–0.60 m 60.0 .5 39.5 0.61–0.90 m 60.3 1.0 38.7 0.91–1.22 m 55.2 .8 44.0 

U3W1-T1 0–0.30 m 49.6 0.8 49.7 

0.31–0.60 m 47.3 2.0 50.7 0.61–0.90 m 55.6 4.6 39.8 0.91–1.22 m 54.2 2.1 43.6 

U3W1-T2 0–0.30 m 60.5 .9 38.6 

0.31–0.60 m 45.2 2.6 52.1 0.61–0.90 m 49.8 3.4 46.9 0.91–1.22 m 50.0 11.8 38.3 

U3W1-T3 0–0.30 m 62.0 .6 37.4 

0.31–0.60 m 41.8 1.3 56.9 0.61–0.90 m 53.8 2.2 43.9 0.91–1.22 m 54.0 1.8 44.2 

4.2 

3.2 

3.0 

1.5

4.2 

3.2 

3.0 

1.5 

3.2 3.5 1.9 1.9 

3.2 

3.5

1.9

1.9

3.2 

3.5

1.91.9 

Clay 35.9 50.4 61.4 0.15 4.37 1.02 

Clay 33.2 48.4 59.3 .15 2.03 1.08


Silty clay 35.2 49.9 57.0 .15 .61 1.14


Clay 34.6 49.4 61.2 .15 4.37 1.03 

Clay 35.9 50.4 59.8 .15 2.24 1.06 

Clay 35.9 50.4 59.5 .15 1.96 1.07 

Clay 32.6 47.8 56.6 .15 .58 1.15 

Soil texture Unit 3 

Silty clay 29.2 45.2 59.2 0.16 2.59 1.08 Silty clay 27.2 43.6 59.3 .16 3.30 1.08 Clay 33.2 48.4 57.3 .15 .81 1.13 Silty clay 31.9 47.3 57.2 .15 .81 1.14 

Clay 35.9 50.4 59.8 .15 2.24 1.06 

Silty clay 25.9 42.4 59.1 .17 3.51 1.08 

Silty clay 29.2 45.2 56.8 .16 .89 1.14 

Silty clay 29.0 44.4 56.4 .15 .74 1.16 

Clay 35.9 50.4 59.8 .15 2.24 1.06 

Silty clay 24.1 41.4 58.8 .17 3.94 1.09 

Silty clay 31.9 47.3 57.3 .15 .86 1.13 Silty clay 31.9 47.3 57.3 .15 .86 1.13 

118 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soilwater/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation, Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 3—Continued

U3W2-T1 0–0.30 m 65.1 1.5 33.4 3.5 Clay 35.9 50.4 60.4 0.15 2.82 1.05 

0.31–0.60 m 64.2 1.4 34.4 2.0 Clay 35.9 50.4 57.9 .15 .89 1.12 0.61–0.90 m 58.0 3.0 39.0 2.0 Clay 34.6 49.4 57.7 .15 .89 1.12 0.91–1.22 m 51.0 3.6 45.4 1.3 Silty clay 29.9 45.7 55.8 .16 .48 1.17 

U3W2-T2 0–0.30 m 66.3 1.1 32.6 3.5 Clay 35.9 50.4 60.3 .15 2.74 1.05 

0.31–0.60 m 61.6 2.1 36.3 2.0 Clay 35.9 50.4 57.9 .15 .89 1.12 0.61–0.90 m -- -- -­0.91–1.22 m 54.4 4.0 41.6 1.3 Silty clay 31.9 47.3 56.1 .15 .48 1.16 

U3W2-T3 0–0.30 m 59.7 2.2 38.0 3.5 Clay 35.9 50.4 60.4 .15 2.82 1.05 

0.31–0.60 m 66.4 1.6 32.0 2.0 Clay 35.9 50.4 57.9 .15 .91 1.11 0.61–0.90 m 57.2 3.0 39.8 2.0 Clay 33.9 48.9 57.7 .15 .91 1.12 0.91–1.22 m 49.2 4.8 46.0 1.3 Silty clay 28.5 44.6 55.6 .16 .53 1.18 

U3W3-T1 0–0.30 m 56.0 1.2 42.7 4.3 Silty clay 33.2 48.4 61.2 .15 4.65 1.03 

0.31–0.60 m 60.1 2.2 37.6 2.8 Clay 35.9 50.4 59.2 .15 1.70 1.08 0.61–0.90 m 54.8 3.0 42.2 2.0 Silty clay 32.6 47.8 57.5 .15 .89 1.13 0.91–1.22 m 43.7 4.1 52.2 1.7 Silty clay 25.2 42.0 55.9 .17 .91 1.17 

U3W3-T2 0–0.30 m 62.0 1.1 36.9 4.3 Clay 35.9 50.4 61.5 .15 4.57 1.02 

0.31–0.60 m 58.2 2.0 39.8 2.8 Clay 34.6 49.4 59.2 .15 1.75 1.08 0.61–0.90 m 48.8 3.1 48.0 2.0 Silty clay 28.5 44.6 57.0 .16 1.02 1.14 0.91–1.22 m 43.7 2.0 54.3 1.7 Silty clay 25.2 42.0 55.9 .17 .89 1.17 

U3W3-T3 0–0.30 m 54.7 2.4 42.8 4.3 Silty clay 32.6 47.8 61.1 .15 4.70 1.03 

0.31–0.60 m 61.6 2.0 36.4 2.8 Clay 35.9 50.4 59.2 .15 1.65 1.08 0.61–0.90 m 58.2 2.2 39.6 2.0 Clay 34.6 49.4 57.7 .15 .89 1.12 0.91–1.22 m 45.6 3.5 50.9 1.7 Silty clay 26.5 43.0 56.2 .17 .86 1.16 

Table 119

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

--

Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soil

water/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic

Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation,

Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 4 

U4W1-T1 0–0.30 m 22.5 10.2 67.2 1.5 Silty loam 13.6 32.8 51.8 0.19 2.36 1.28 

0.31–0.60 m 50.4 4.9 42.9 1.4 Silty clay 29.2 45.2 55.9 .16 .56 1.17 0.61–0.90 m 38.8 7.9 53.4 1.2 Silty clay loam 22.0 39.2 54.1 .17 .64 1.17 

U4W1-T2 0–0.30 m 22.4 9.5 68.1 1.5 Silty loam 13.3 32.5 51.6 .19 2.59 1.28 

0.31–0.60 m 42.0 5.5 52.4 1.4 Silty clay 23.9 40.9 55.0 .17 .71 1.19 0.61–0.90 m -- -- -­ 1.2 

U4W1-T3 0–0.30 m 26.1 11.2 62.6 1.5 Silty loam 14.9 33.7 52.4 .19 1.85 1.26 

0.31–0.60 m 45.6 6.5 47.9 1.4 Silty clay 26.5 42.9 55.3 .16 .58 1.18 0.61–0.90 m 39.5 9.2 51.2 Silty clay loam 22.6 39.6 54.1 .17 .58 1.22 

U4W2-T1 0–0.30 m 30.0 16.8 53.2 1.5 Silty clay loam 16.9 34.4 52.7 .18 1.17 1.25 

0.31–0.60 m 39.9 12.0 48.1 1.7 Silty clay loam 22.6 39.5 54.9 .17 .86 1.20 0.61–0.90 m 36.4 12.1 51.5 .6 Silty clay loam 20.0 37.0 52.2 .17 .38 1.27 

U4W2-T2 0–0.30 m 33.0 16.8 50.2 1.5 Silty clay loam 18.5 35.6 53.2 .17 .97 1.24 

0.31–0.60 m 37.4 15.5 47.0 1.7 Silty clay loam 20.8 37.6 54.3 .17 .94 1.21 0.61–0.90 m 42.0 6.4 51.7 .6 Silty clay 23.8 40.7 53.4 .17 .33 1.23 

U4W2-T3 0–0.30 m 34.4 15.2 50.4 1.5 Silty clay loam 19.0 36.3 53.4 .17 .91 1.23 

0.31–0.60 m 33.2 25.0 41.8 1.7 Clay loam 18.6 34.6 53.1 .16 .97 1.24 0.61–0.90 m 40.0 15.0 45.0 .6 Silty clay loam 22.5 38.7 52.4 .16 .28 1.26 

120 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 13. Soil texture and estimated hydraulic properties data for soil profiles in Units 1, 3, and 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[Organic matter percentages in bold also are used for sites indicated by the enclosing box outline; hydraulic properties are estimated from a computer program (Soil Water Characteristics Hydraulic Properties Calculator found athttp://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/soilwater/ developed from equations derived by Saxton and others (1986) using measured textural characteristics; cm/cm, centimeters per centimeter; cm/h, centimeters per hour; g/cm3, grams 

per cubic centimeter; m, meters; --, no data]

Measured textural characteristics Estimated hydraulic properties 

Organic Wilting Field

Clay, Sand, Silt, matter, point, capacity, Saturation, Available Saturated Estimated 

Site percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage water, conductivity, bulk density,

(figs. 3–5) Depth by weight by weight by weight by weight Texture class by volume by volume by volume in cm/cm in cm/h in g/cm3 

Soil texture Unit 4—Continued

U4W3-T1 0–0.30 m 42.4 1.4 56.2 3.4 Silty clay 24.7 41.7 58.8 0.17 3.58 1.09 

0.31–0.60 m 46.6 2.4 51.1 2.6 Silty clay 27.2 43.6 57.8 .16 1.68 1.12 0.61–0.90 m 61.6 2.9 35.6 2.0 Clay 35.9 50.4 57.9 .15 .91 1.11 0.91–1.22 m 48.2 6.8 45.0 1.3 Silty clay 27.8 43.9 55.4 .16 .51 1.18 

U4W3-T2 0–0.30 m 53.0 2.1 44.8 3.4 Silty clay 31.2 46.8 59.7 .16 2.79 1.07 

0.31–0.60 m 54.4 3.6 41.9 2.6 Silty clay 32.6 47.8 58.5 .15 1.50 1.10 0.61–0.90 m 54.6 4.8 40.6 2.0 Silty clay 32.6 47.8 57.5 .15 .89 1.13 0.91–1.22 m 47.2 5.0 47.8 1.3 Silty clay 27.2 43.6 55.3 .16 .53 1.18 

U4W3-T3 0–0.30 m 55.7 3.2 41.0 3.4 Silty clay 33.2 48.4 59.8 .15 2.57 1.06 

0.31–0.60 m 49.7 6.1 44.2 2.6 Silty clay 29.2 45.1 58.0 .16 1.57 1.11 0.61–0.90 m 49.9 5.9 44.2 2.0 Silty clay 29.2 45.1 57.0 .16 .97 1.14 0.91–1.22 m 54.2 3.2 42.6 1.3 Clay 31.9 47.3 56.1 .15 .48 1.16 

aThe hydraulic properties utility can only accept organic matter values of as much as 5 percent and when actual values exceed this value then the actual hydraulic properties also will vary. 

Table 121

Ta

ble 15. Species master list for ground layer, understory, and overstory species sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area in

2002 and 2003.[WIS, wetland indicator status; N/I, native/introduced; FAC, facultative; FACU, facultative upland; FACW, facultative wetland; OBL, obligate; UL, unlisted as an indicator species; A, annual; B, biennial; P, perennial; S, shrub; T, tree; V, vine; W, woody; --, none]

Code Species name Com

mon name Family WIS Habit N/I 

Ground Layer Species

AARTEM Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Common ragweed Asteraceae 

FACU A N 

ABRACT Amphicarpaea bracteata (L.) Fern. American Hog Peanut Fabaceae FAC APV N ACANAB Apocynum cannabinum L. Indian Hemp Apocynaceae FAC P N ADRACO Arisaema draconitum (L.) Schott. Green Dragon Araceae FACW P N AINCAR Asclepias incarnata L. Swamp milkweed Asclepiadaceae OBL P N 

ALAEVI Arabis laevigata (Muhl.) Poir. Smooth rock cress Brassicaceae UL B N ALANCE Aster lanceolatus Willd. Panicled aster Asteraceae FACW P N 

ALLIUM Allium spp. Wild onion/garlic Liliaceae -- P -­ANEGUN Acer negundo L. Boxelder Aceraceae FACW T N 

APLANT Alisma triviale Pursh. Northern water plantain Alismataceae OBL P N ARUDIS Amaranthus rudis Sauer. Amaranth Amaranthaceae FACW A N 

ASACCA Acer saccharinum L. Silver Maple Aceraceae FACW T N ASPINO Aralia spinosa L. Hercules' Club Araliaceae FACW T N ASTERS Aster spp. -- Asteraceae -- -- -­ATRIFI Ambrosia trifida L. Giant ragweed Asteraceae FAC A N 

ATRILO Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal Pawpaw Annonaceae FAC T N BCYLIN Boehmeria cylindrica (L.) Sw. False Nettle Urticaceae OBL P N 

CAMPHI Carex amphibola Steud. -- Cyperaceae FAC P N CARUND Cinna arundinaceae L. Wood reed grass Poaceae FACU A N CBLAND Carex blanda Dewey -- Cyperaceae FAC P N 

CCANAD Cercis canadensis L. Eastern redbud Caesalpiniaceae FACU T N 

CCOMMU Commelina communis L. Day flower Commelinaceae FAC A I CCORDI Carya cordiformis (Wang.) K. Koch Bitternut or Pignut Hickory Juglandaceae FAC T N 

CCRUSC Carex crus-corvi Shuttlew. Ex. Kunze. -- Cyperaceae OBL P N 

CDAVIS Carex davisii Schwein. & Torr. -- Cyperaceae FAC P N CDRUMM Cornus drummondi Meyer Rough leaved dogwood Cornaceae FAC T N CEOCCI Cephalanthus occidentalis L. Buttonbush Rubiaceae OBL T N CFRANK Carex frankii Kunth -- Cyperaceae OBL P N CGRAYI Carex grayii J. Carey Globe sedge Cyperaceae FACW P N 

CGRISE Carex grisea Wahlenb. -- Cyperaceae FAC P N 

CHYALI Carex hyalinolepis Steud. -- Cyperaceae OBL P N 

CILLIN Carya illinoiensis (Wang.) K. Koch Pecan Juglandaceae FACW T N CJAMES Carex jamesii Schwein. -- Cyperaceae UL P N 

122 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 15. Species master list for ground layer, understory, and overstory species sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area in

2002 and 2003.—Continued

[WIS, wetland indicator status; N/I, native/introduced; FAC, facultative; FACU, facultative upland; FACW, facultative wetland; OBL, obligate; UL, unlisted as an indicator species; A, annual; B, biennial; P, perennial; S, shrub; T, tree; V, vine; W, woody; --, none]

Code Species name Common name Family WIS Habit N/I 

Ground Layer Species—Continued

CLACIN Carya laciniosa (Michx.) Loud. Big Shellbark Hickory Juglandaceae FACW T N CLAEVE Cynachum laeve (Michx.) Pers. Climbing milkweed Asclepiadaceae FAC PV N CLATIF Chasmanthium latifolium (Michx.) H.O. Yates River oats Poaceae FACW P N CLUPUL Carex lupulina Muhl. ex. Willd. Hop sedge Cyperaceae OBL P N CMOLLI Crataegus mollis (T. & G.) Scheele Downy hawthorne Rosaceae FACW T N CMUSKI Carex muskingumensis Schwein. Palm sedge Cyperaceae OBL P N CNORMA Carex normalis Mackenz. -- Cyperaceae FACW P N COCCID Celtis occidentalis L. Hackberry Ulmaceae FAC T N COLIGO Carex oligocarpa Schkuhr ex Willd. -- Cyperaceae UL P N 

CRADIC Campsis radicans (L.) Seem. Trumpet creeper Bignoniaceae FAC WV N CRCANA Cryptotaenia canadensis (L.) DC. Wild chervil Apiaceae FAC P N 

CSEPIU Convolvulus sepium (L.) R. Br. Hedge bindweed Convolvulaceae UL A V CSQUAR Carex squarrosa L. -- Cyperaceae OBL P N 

CTRIBU Carex tribuloides Wahlenb. -- Cyperaceae FACW P N CTYPHI Carex typhina Michx. -- Cyperaceae OBL P N 

CVULPI Carex vulpinoidea Michx. -- Cyperaceae OBL P N 

DVILLO Dioscorea villosa L. Yam Dioscoreaceae FAC PV N EATROP Euonymus atropurpureus Jacq. Wahoo, burning bush Celastraceae FAC S N ECANAD Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Horseweed Asteraceae FAC A N EHIERA Erechtites hieracifolia (L.) Raf. Fireweed Asteraceae FACU A N EPALUS Eleocharis palustris L. Spike rush Cyperaceae OBL P N 

ESUPIN Euphorbia supina Raf. Milk purslane Euphorbiaceae UL A N EVIRGI Elymus virginicus L. Virginia wild rye Poaceae FACW P N FPENNS Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall Green Ash Oleaceae FACW T N 

FSUBVE Festuca subverticillata (Pers.) E.B. Alexeev Nodding fescue Poaceae FACU P N GAPARI Galium aparaine L. Goose grass Rubiaceae FACU A N GCANAD Geum canadense Jacq. White avens Rosaceae FAC P N 

GDIOIC Gymnocladus dioica (L.) K. Koch Kentucky Coffee Tree Caesalpiniaceae UL T N 

GTRIAC Gleditsia triacanthos L. Honey locust Caesalpiniaceae FAC T N HINDIC Heliotropium indicum L. Indian Heliotrope Boraginaceae FACW A I 

HMILIT Hibiscus laevis All. Rose mallow Malvaceae OBL P N 

IDECID Ilex decidua Walt. Deciduous holly Aquifoliaceae FACW T N 

ILACUN Ipomoea lacunosa L. Small white morning glory Convoluvlaceae FACW AV N 

Table 123

Ta

ble 15. Species master list for ground layer, understory, and overstory species sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area in

2002 and 2003.—Continued

[WIS, wetland indicator status; N/I, native/introduced; FAC, facultative; FACU, facultative upland; FACW, facultative wetland; OBL, obligate; UL, unlisted as an indicator species; A, annual; B, biennial; P, perennial; S, shrub; T, tree; V, vine; W, woody; --, none]

Code Species name Com

mon name Family WIS Habit N/I 

Ground Layer Species—Continued

IPALLI Impatiens pallida Nutt. 

Pale touch-me-not Balsaminaceae 

FACW A N 

IPINNA Iodanthus pinnatifidus (Michx.) Steud. Purple rocket Brassicaceae FACW P N 

LCANAD Laportea canadensis (L.) Wedd. Wood nettle Urticaceae FACW P N 

LLANCE Phyla lanceolata (Michx.) E. Greene Fog fruit Verbenaceae OBL P N LLENTI Leersia lenticularis Michx. Catchfly grass Poaceae OBL P N LNUMMU Lysimachia nummularia L. Moneywort Primulaceae FACW P I 

LORYZO Leersia oryzoides (L.) Sw. Rice cutgrass Poaceae OBL P N LVIRGI Lycopus virginicus L. Bugle weed Lamiaceae OBL P N MCANAD Menispermum canadense L. Moonseed Menispermaceae FAC WV N MRUBRA Morus rubra L. Red mulberry Moraceae FAC T N PAMERI Prunus americana Marsh. Wild plum Rosaceae UL T N 

PAMPHI Polygonum amphibium L. Water smartweed Polygonaceae OBL P N 

PDIVAR Phlox divaricata L. Woodland phlox Polemoniaceae FACU P N PHYDRO Polygonum hydropiperoides Michx. Wild water pepper Polygonaceae OBL P N PPUMIL Pilea pumila (L.) Gray Clearweed Urticaceae FACW A N

PQUINQ Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. Virginia creeper Vitaceae FAC WV N PSYLVE Poa sylvestris A. Gray Woodland bluegrass Poaceae FAC P N 

PVIRGI Polygonum virginianum L. Virginia knotweed Polygonaceae FAC AP N QMACRO Quercus macrocarpa Michx. Bur Oak Fagaceae FAC T N 

QMUEHL Quercus muehlenbergii Engelm. Chinkapin Oak Fagaceae NI T N QPALUS Quercus palustris Muenchh. Pin Oak Fagaceae FACW T N RABORT Ranunculus abortivus L. Small flowered crowfoot Ranunculaceae FACW BP N 

RCAROL Rosa carolina L. Pasture rose Rosaceae FACU S N RLACIN Rudbeckia laciniata L. Cutleaf coneflower Asteraceae FACW P N 

RRADIC Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze. Poison Ivy Anacardiaceae FAC WV N RSEPTE Ranunculus hispidus Michx. Var. caricetorum (E. Greene) T. Duncan Swamp buttercup Ranunculaceae FACW P N 

RSTREP Ruellia strepens L. Wild petunia Acanthaceae FAC P N RUBUSSP Rubus spp. -- Rosaceae -- S -­

RVERTI Rumex verticillatus L. Swamp dock Polygonaceae OBL P N SANIODOR Sanicula odorata (Raf.) KM Pryer & LR Phillippe Clustered black snakeroot Apiaceae FAC P N SBREVI Sagittaria brevirostra Mackenzie & Bush. Midwestern arrowhead Alismataceae OBL P N SCANAD Sambucus canadensis L. Common elderberry Caprifoliaceae FACW S N 

SCERNU Saururus cernuus L. Lizard's tail Saururaceae OBL P N 

124 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 15. Species master list for ground layer, understory, and overstory species sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area in

2002 and 2003.—Continued

[WIS, wetland indicator status; N/I, native/introduced; FAC, facultative; FACU, facultative upland; FACW, facultative wetland; OBL, obligate; UL, unlisted as an indicator species; A, annual; B, biennial; P, perennial; S, shrub; T, tree; V, vine; W, woody; --, none]

Code Species name Common name Family WIS Habit N/I 

Ground Layer Species—Continued

SECIRR Smilax ecirrhata (Engelm.) Wats. Carrion flower Smilacaceae UL V N SLASIO Spermacoce glabra Michx. Smooth buttonweed Rubiaceae FACW P N SLATER Scutellaria lateriflora L. Mad-dog skullcap Lamiaceae OBL P NSNIGRA Salix nigra Marsh. Black willow Salicaceae OBL T N SORBIC Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Moench. Coral berry Caprifoliaceae FACU S N SPECTI Spartina pectinata Link Cord grass Poaceae FACW P N SPERFO Silphium perfoliatum L. Cup plant Asteraceae FACW P N STAMNO Smilax tamnoides L. var. hispida Catbrier Smilacaceae FAC WV N STENUI Stachys tenuifolia Willd. Hedgenettle Lamiaceae OBL P N 

TAMERI Tilia americana L. Basswood Tiliaceae FACU T N TLATIF Typha latifolia L. Common cattail Typhaceae OBL P N 

UAMERI Ulmus americana L. American Elm Ulmaceae FACW T N 

URUBRA Ulmus rubra Muhl. Slippery Elm Ulmaceae FAC T N VAESTA Vitis aestivalis var. argentifolia (Munson) Fern. Summer grape Vitaceae FACU WV N 

VAESTI Vitis aestivalis Michx. Summer grape Vitaceae FACU WV N 

VITISS Vitis spp. Grapevine Vitaceae -- WV -­

VMISSO Viola missouriensis E. Greene Missouri violet Violaceae FACW P N VOCCID Verbsina occidentalis (L.) Walter Southern sunflower Asteraceae UL A N VPRUNI Viburnum prunifolium L. Black haw Caprifoliaceae FACU ST N VPUBES Viola pubescens Ait. Downy yellow violet Violaceae FACU P N

VSOROR Viola sororia Willd. Wooly blue violet Violaceae FAC P N 

VSTRIA Viola striata Aiton. Creamy violet Violaceae FACW P N VVULPI Vitis vulpina L. Winter grape Vitaceae FACW WV N 

Table 125

Ta

ble 15. Species master list for ground layer, understory, and overstory species sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area in

2002 and 2003.—Continued

[WIS, wetland indicator status; N/I, native/introduced; FAC, facultative; FACU, facultative upland; FACW, facultative wetland; OBL, obligate; UL, unlisted as an indicator species; A, annual; B, biennial; P, perennial; S, shrub; T, tree; V, vine; W, woody; --, none]

Code Species name Com

mon name Family WIS Habit N/I 

Understory Species

ANEGUN Acer negundo L. Boxelder Aceraceae FACW T N 

ASACCA Acer saccharinum L. Silver Maple 

Aceraceae 

FA

CW T N 

ATRILO Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal Pawpaw Annonaceae FAC T N CCORDI Carya cordiformis (Wang.) K. Koch Bitternut or Pignut Hickory Juglandaceae FAC T N 

CILLIN Carya illinoiensis (Wang.) K. Koch Pecan Juglandaceae FACW T N CLACIN Carya laciniosa (Michx.) Loud. Big Shellbark Hickory Juglandaceae FACW T N COCCID Celtis occidentalis L. Hackberry Ulmaceae FAC T N CEOCCI Cephalanthus occidentalis L. Buttonbush Rubiaceae OBL T N CCANAD Cercis canadensis L. Eastern redbud Caesalpiniaceae FACU T N 

CDRUMM Cornus drummondi Meyer Rough leaved dogwood Cornaceae FAC T N CMOLLI Crataegus mollis (T. & G.) Scheele Downy hawthorne Rosaceae FACW T N COVATA Carya ovata (Miller) Sweet. Shagbark hickory Juglandaceae FACU T N DVIRGI Diospyros virginiana L. Persimmon Ebenaceae FAC T N EATROP Euonymus atropurpureus Jacq. Wahoo, burning bush Celastraceae FAC S N FPENNS Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall Green Ash Oleaceae FACW T N 

GTRIAC Gleditsia triacanthos L. Honey locust Caesalpiniaceae FAC T NGDIOIC Gymnocladus dioica (L.) K. Koch Kentucky Coffee Tree Caesalpiniaceae UL T N 

IDECID Ilex decidua Walt. Deciduous holly Aquifoliaceae FACW T N JNIGRA Juglans nigra L. Walnut Juglandaceae FACU T N 

MRUBRA Morus rubra L. Red mulberry Moraceae FAC T N PAMERI Prunus americana Marsh. Wild plum Rosaceae UL T N 

QBICOL Quercus bicolor Willd. Swamp White Oak Fagaceae FACW T N 

QMACRO Quercus macrocarpa Michx. Bur Oak Fagaceae FAC T N 

QPALUS Quercus palustris Muenchh. Pin Oak Fagaceae FACW T N SNIGRA Salix nigra Marsh. Black willow Salicaceae OBL T NSCANAD Sambucus canadensis L. Common elderberry Caprifoliaceae FACW S N 

SORBIC Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Moench. Coral berry Caprifoliaceae FACU S N TAMERI Tilia americana L. Basswood Tiliaceae FACU T N UAMERI Ulmus americana L. American Elm Ulmaceae FACW T N 

URUBRA Ulmus rubra Muhl. Slippery Elm Ulmaceae FAC T N VPRUNI Viburnum prunifolium L. Black haw Caprifoliaceae FACU ST N 

126 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 15. Species master list for ground layer, understory, and overstory species sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area in

2002 and 2003.—Continued

[WIS, wetland indicator status; N/I, native/introduced; FAC, facultative; FACU, facultative upland; FACW, facultative wetland; OBL, obligate; UL, unlisted as an indicator species; A, annual; B, biennial; P, perennial; S, shrub; T, tree; V, vine; W, woody; --, none]

Code Species name Common name Family WIS Habit N/I 

Overstory Species

ANEGUN Acer negundo L. Boxelder Aceraceae FACW T N 

ASACCA Acer saccharinum L. Silver Maple Aceraceae FACW T N CCORDI Carya cordiformis (Wang.) K. Koch Bitternut or Pignut Hickory Juglandaceae FAC T N 

CILLIN Carya illinoiensis (Wang.) K. Koch Pecan Juglandaceae FACW T N 

CLACIN Carya laciniosa (Michx.) Loud. Big Shellbark Hickory Juglandaceae FACW T N COVATA Carya ovata (Miller) K. Koch Shagbark Hickory Juglandaceae FACU T N COCCID Celtis occidentalis L. Hackberry Ulmaceae FAC T N CMOLLI Crataegus mollis (T. & G.) Scheele Downy hawthorne Rosaceae FACW T N FPENNS Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall Green Ash Oleaceae FACW T N GTRIAC Gleditsia triacanthos L. Honey locust Caesalpiniaceae FAC T N GDIOIC Gymnocladus dioica (L.) K. Koch Kentucky Coffee Tree Caesalpiniaceae UL T N JNIGRA Juglans nigra L. Walnut Juglandaceae FACU T N 

MRUBRA Morus rubra L. Red mulberry Moraceae FAC T N QMACRO Quercus macrocarpa Michx. Bur Oak Fagaceae FAC T N 

QPALUS Quercus palustris Muenchh. Pin Oak Fagaceae FACW T N 

SNIGRA Salix nigra Marsh. Black willow Salicaceae OBL T NTAMERI Tilia americana L. Basswood Tiliaceae FACU T N 

UAMERI Ulmus americana L. American Elm Ulmaceae FACW T N URUBRA Ulmus rubra Muhl. Slippery Elm Ulmaceae FAC T N

Table 127

Ta

ble 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area.

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent]

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code NL1 NL2 NL3 NL4 NL5 NL6 NL7 NL8 NL9 NL10 NL11 NL12 in percent in percent in percent 

Natural levee

ABRACT 0 0 2.5 10.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.9 0.0 ADRACO 0 0 .5 .5 .5 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 .2 .1 .5ALAEVI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.6 .0 10.2

ALANCE 0 0 .5 10.5 10.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .9 1.4 .0 

ALLIUM .5 .5 .5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 .5 .5 .5 ANEGUN 2.5 .5 .5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 .7 .6 .8 ASACCA 0 0 0 10.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 0 0 10.5 2.5 0 1.5 .9 2.5

ASPINO 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 

ATRIFI 2.5 0 .5 0 0 .5 0 0 0 15 0 2.5 .8 .2 1.8 ATRILO 0 2.5 10.5 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .5 .8 .0 BCYLIN .5 0 .5 .5 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 C

A

M

P

HI 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 10.5 0 62.5 0 0 0 0 2.9 .9 6.6 

CARUND 0 0 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 CBLAND 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 1.8 .0CCANAD 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 .3 .2 .5CCORDI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.5 0 0 .4 .0 1.1 C

D

AVIS 2.5 .5 .5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 .5 .0 

CDRUMM 2.5 0 .5 0 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 .2 .2 .3 CEOCCI .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 CGRAYI 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 15 15 15 2.5 3.3 1.3 6.8 CGRISE .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 C

H

YA

LI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 .1 .0 .3

CILLIN 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 .1 .0 .3 CJAMES 2.5 20.5 39.5 0 2.5 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 4.4 .0CLACIN .5 .5 2.5 2.5 10.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 .8 1.0 .5 CLATIF 0 0 0 .5 2.5 0 0 62.5 87.5 37.5 0 2.5 7.2 .2 20.0 C

M

O

L

LI .5 0 0 .5 0 .5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 .2 .1 .3 

CMUSKI 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0

COCCID .5 .5 .5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 .8 .5 1.3 

CRADIC 0 0 20.5 10.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 15 0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.1 

128 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent] 

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code NL1 NL2 NL3 NL4 NL5 NL6 NL7 NL8 NL9 NL10 NL11 NL12 in percent in percent in percent 

Natural levee—Continued

CRCANA 2.5 0.5 10.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 2.2 0.0CSQUAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 2.5 .7 .0 1.8 CVULPI 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 EATROP .5 .5 .5 0 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 EVIRGI 87.5 87.5 87.5 20.5 10.5 39.5 37.5 0 2.5 37.5 15 15 16.5 19.4 11.3 FPENNS .5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 .8 .6 1.0 FSUBVE 39.5 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 2.3 .0 GAPARI .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 GCANAD 2.5 0 .5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 2.5 .4 .2 .8 GDIOIC 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 GTRIAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 .2 .0 .5 IDECID .5 0 .5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 .3 .2 .5 IPALLI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 .1 .0 .3 IPINNA 0 0 2.5 .5 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .2 .0 LCANAD 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 LNUMMU 0 0 0 39.5 20.5 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 2.8 3.5 1.6 LVIRGI 2.5 0 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 MCANAD .5 0 .5 2.5 10.5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 .6 .8 .3 MRUBRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 .2 .0 .5 PAMPHI 0 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 PDIVAR 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 1.8 .0 POLYGS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 .1 .0 .3 PPUMIL .5 0 .5 .5 2.5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .3 .0 PQUINQ 10.5 2.5 10.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.1 2.7 1.0 PSYLVE 62.5 62.5 62.5 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.1 11.1 .0 PVIRGI 2.5 .5 2.5 10.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 1.0 1.2 .5 QMACRO 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 .5 .2 1.0 QPALUS .5 0 .5 39.5 10.5 .5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 2.2 3.0 .8 RABORT 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 RLACIN 0 0 0 .5 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .8 1.2 .0 

Table 129

Ta

ble 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area.—Continued

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent] 

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code NL1 NL2 NL3 NL4 NL5 NL6 NL7 NL8 NL9 NL10 NL11 NL12 in percent in percent in percent 

Natural levee—Continued

RRADIC 10.5 0 2.5 62.5 39.5 2.5 15 2.5 15 15 15 37.5 8.2 6.8 10.5 RSEPTE 0 0 .5 2.5 10.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .6 .9 .0 RSTREP .5 0 .5 2.5 10.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 .8 1.0 .5 RUBUSSP 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 SANIODOR 10.5 39.5 39.5 2.5 10.5 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 7.2 .0 SC

A

NAD 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 

SECIRR 0 0 0 0 0 .5 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 .2 .0 .5 SLASIO 0 0 .5 10.5 .5 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 1.0 .7 1.6 SORBIC 10.5 .5 20.5 20.5 20.5 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 4.8 .0 STAMNO 2.5 2.5 10.5 20.5 20.5 10.5 2.5 0 2.5 15 0 0 3.3 3.9 2.1 ST

E

N

UI 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 

TAMERI 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 UAMERI .5 .5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 .8 .6 1.0 URUBRA .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 VAESTA 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 .1 .0 .3 VAESTI 0 0 0 .5 0 .5 0 0 0 2.5 15 0 .7 .1 1.8 VITISS 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 VMISSO .5 2.5 .5 20.5 10.5 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.6 VPRUNI 2.5 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 VPUBES .5 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 .5 .0 VSO

R

OR 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 

VSTRIA 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 .1 .0 .3 

130 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent] 

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6 FP7 FP8 FP9 FP10 FP11 FP12 in percent in percent in percent 

Flood plain 

AARTEM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2.5 0 0.7 0.0 1.9 ABRACT .5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .3 .0 ADRACO .5 .5 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 .2 .1 .5 ALAEVI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 15 2.5 0 .8 .0 2.2 ALANCE 2.5 0 2.5 20.5 20.5 39.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 5.2 .0 ALLIUM 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 .1 .0 .3 ANEGUN 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 ASACCA .5 .5 0 2.5 2.5 39.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 0 2.9 2.8 3.1 ATRILO 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 BCYLIN 0 10.5 .5 2.5 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .6 .9 .0 CAMPHI 0 0 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .4 .6 .0 CARUND 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 CBLAND 2.5 2.5 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .6 1.0 .0 CCANAD .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 .2 .0 .5 CCORDI 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 CCRUSC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2.5 0 .7 .0 1.9 CDAVIS 10.5 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .8 1.3 .0 CDRUMM 0 2.5 2.5 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .3 .0 CEOCCI 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 .3 .3 .3 CFRANK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 .6 .0 1.6 CGRAYI 39.5 39.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 2.5 15 15 37.5 2.5 0 7.6 7.4 7.8 CILLIN 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 .2 .2 .3 CJAMES 0 2.5 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 1.0 1.4 .3 CLACIN 0 10.5 2.5 0 .5 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 .8 .8 .8 CLAEVE 0 0 0 0 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 CLATIF 0 0 0 39.5 39.5 20.5 0 2.5 0 37.5 0 2.5 5.6 6.1 4.6 CLUPUL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 .1 .0 .3 CMOLLI 0 0 .5 .5 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 .2 .2 .3 CMUSKI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 15 0 2.5 .8 .0 2.2 CNORMA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 .1 .0 .3 

Table 131

Ta

ble 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area.—Continued

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent] 

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6 FP7 FP8 FP9 FP10 FP11 FP12 in percent in percent in percent 

Flood plain—Continued

COCCID 0 2.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 CRADIC 2.5 10.5 10.5 2.5 2.5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.8 .0 CRCANA 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 .5 .0 CSQUAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 2.5 2.5 1.4 .0 3.8 CVULPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 .6 .0 1.6 D

VIL

LO 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 

EATROP .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 ECANAD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 .1 .0 .3 EVIRGI 87.5 87.5 62.5 0 0 0 0 37.5 62.5 15 62.5 2.5 16.3 14.6 19.4 FPENNS 0 10.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 2.5 10.5 0 0 1.8 1.3 2.8 FSUBVE 20.5 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 2.5 .0 G

A

PA

RI 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 

GCANAD .5 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 .2 .1 .5 GDIOIC .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 GTRIAC 0 .5 .5 .5 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .1 .0 IDECID 0 0 .5 2.5 .5 10.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 .6 .9 .3 IPALLI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 .3 .0 .8 IPIN

NA 2.5 2.5 .5 0 2.5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 .5 .0 

LCANAD 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 .5 .0 LLENTI 0 0 0 0 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .4 .6 .0 LNUMMU 0 0 0 87.5 87.5 87.5 0 37.5 0 37.5 15 15 14.4 16.1 11.3 

LVIRGI 0 0 0 39.5 10.5 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 4.3 .0 

MCANAD 0 2.5 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 

MRUBRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 .1 .0 .3 PAMERI 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 

PDIVAR 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 .5 .0 POLYGS 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 .3 .0 .8 PPUMIL 0 2.5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 P

Q

UINQ 2.5 10.5 10.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 1.1 1.4 .5 

PSYLVE 62.5 20.5 39.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.8 7.5 .0 

132 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent] 

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6 FP7 FP8 FP9 FP10 FP11 FP12 in percent in percent in percent 

Flood plain—Continued

PVIRGI 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0.9 0.5 1.6 QMACRO 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 .2 .0 .5 QMUEHL 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 QPALUS 0 2.5 10.5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 1.0 1.1 .8 RABORT 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 RLACIN 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 RRADIC 10.5 10.5 2.5 10.5 .5 2.5 15 2.5 87.5 37.5 15 15 8.2 2.3 18.6 RSEPTE 0 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 RSTREP 10.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 .7 1.0 .3 RUBUSSP .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 RVERTI 0 .5 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 SANIODOR 10.5 10.5 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 2.5 .0 SECIRR 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 .2 .2 .3 SGLABR 0 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 SLASIO 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 SLATER 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 SORBIC 20.5 2.5 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 2.0 .0 SPERFO 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .4 .6 .0 STAMNO 2.5 10.5 2.5 .5 2.5 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 1.0 1.1 .8 STENUI .5 .5 .5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 .4 .6 .3 UAMERI 0 2.5 2.5 .5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 2.5 0 0 1.0 .5 1.9 VAESTA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 .1 .0 .3 VAESTI 0 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 .2 .0 .5 VMISSO 2.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 2.5 1.9 2.4 1.1 VPUBES .5 2.5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 VVULPI 0 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 .1 .0 .3 

Table 133

Ta

ble 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area.—Continued

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent] 

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 AD10 in percent in percent in percent 

Alluvial depression

ADRACO 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.0 ALAEVI 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 2.5 0 1.3 .0 1.8 ALANCE 2.5 2.5 10.5 2.5 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 4.3 .0 ANEGUN 0 .5 0 .5 0 10.5 10.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.2 .2 1.6

APLANT 0 0 .5 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .0 

ASACCA 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 62.5 10.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 9.5 10.8 9.0 ASTERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 .1 .0 .1 ATRIFI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 .2 .0 .3 BCYLIN 0 .5 0 .5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .5 .0 CCANAD 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 15 0 0 .8 .0 1.1 CCRUSC 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 37.5 0 2.5 2.2 .0 3.1 CDRUMM 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 CEOCCI 0 .5 2.5 2.5 10.5 0 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.4 .4 CGRAYI 10.5 10.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 37.5 15 0 15 2.5 4.7 6.6 3.9 CHYALI 0 0 0 0 .5 37.5 15 2.5 0 2.5 2.4 .1 3.2 CILLIN 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 .1 .0 .1 CLACIN .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 CLATIF .5 .5 2.5 10.5 2.5 62.5 62.5 15 0 0 6.4 2.5 7.9 CMOLLI 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 CMUSKI 0 0 0 0 0 15 37.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.4 .0 3.2 C

O

C

CID .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 .1 .1 .1 

COLIGO 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 CRADIC 0 20.5 .5 .5 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 1.0 3.2 .1 CSQUAR 0 0 0 0 0 37.5 15 0 2.5 2.5 2.4 .0 3.2 CTRIBU 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 .1 .0 .1 C

T

Y

P

HI 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .4 .0 

CVULPI 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 2.5 0 1.9 .0 2.7 EPALUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 .6 .0 .8 EVIRGI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 .1 .0 .1 FPENNS 2.5 20.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 4.0 8.1 2.5 

134 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent] 

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 AD10 in percent in percent in percent 

Alluvial depression—Continued

GDIOIC 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0.3 0.0 0.4 GTRIAC 0 .5 0 .5 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 .2 .2 .3 HMILIT 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 62.5 0 2.5 2.7 .1 3.6 IDECID 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 .4 .8 .3 IPALLI 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 .2 .0 .3 LLANCE 0 0 2.5 0 10.5 0 0 37.5 0 0 2.1 1.9 2.1 LLENTI .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 LNUMMU 0 0 62.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 37.5 37.5 87.5 23.5 35.5 18.9 LORYZO 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 62.5 0 0 37.5 4.2 .4 5.6 LVIRGI 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 1.1 .0 MRUBRA 0 0 0 .5 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 .2 .1 .3 PAMERI 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 POLYGS 0 0 0 0 0 37.5 37.5 15 2.5 37.5 5.3 .0 7.3 QMACRO 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 .1 .0 .1 QPALUS 39.5 10.5 0 0 2.5 10.5 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.8 7.8 .9 RCAROL .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 RRADIC .5 10.5 0 .5 0 37.5 37.5 2.5 15 15 4.9 1.7 6.0 RSEPTE .5 .5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .5 .0 RSTREP .5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .4 .0 RVERTI 0 0 10.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 15 0 2.5 1.4 2.3 1.1 SCERNU 0 0 0 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 .4 1.6 .0 SLATER 0 0 0 2.5 .5 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 .3 .4 .3 SNIGRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 37.5 0 0 1.6 .0 2.2 SORBIC 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 STAMNO 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .4 1.6 .0 

Table 135

Ta

ble 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area.—Continued

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent] 

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 AD10 in percent in percent in percent 

Alluvial depression—Continued

STENUI 0 0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5 0 37.5 15 2.5 0 2.5 0.9 3.1 UAMERI 0 .5 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 .4 .4 .4 VAESTA 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 .1 .0 .1 VAESTI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 .3 .0 .4 VMISSO .5 10.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 .6 1.6 .3 V

O

C

CID 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 .1 .0 .1 

VSOROR .5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .4 .0 VVULPI 0 0 .5 .5 000000 .0 .2 .0 

136 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent] 

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BS5 BS6 BS7 BS8 BS9 BS10 BS11 in percent in percent in percent 

Backwater swamp

ACANAB 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 15 1.3 0.0 2.5 AINCAR 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 .5 .4 .6 ALANCE 0 .5 0 .5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .5 .0 ALLIUM 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .4 .0 ANEGUN 0 0 0 .5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 .5 .1 .9 APLANT 0 .5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .4 .0 ARUDIS .5 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .1 .0 ASACCA 10.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.4 3.8 1.2

ASTERS 0 0 0 0 0 15 2.5 0 0 0 0 1.2 .0 2.2 

BCYLIN 2.5 2.5 0 10.5 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 5.2 .0 CAMPHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 0 .5 .0 .9 CCOMMU 0 0 0 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .7 1.5 .0 CEOCCI 2.5 2.5 2.5 39.5 10.5 2.5 10.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 6.5 8.3 4.9 CHYALI 0 0 0 39.5 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 8.6 .0

CILLIN 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 .5 .0 .9 

COCCID 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 CSEPIU 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .4 .0 EHIERA 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 ESUPIN .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 EVIRGI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2.5 0 1.2 .0 2.2 FPENNS 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 10.5 10.5 0 10.5 0 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.6 3.3 GTRIAC .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 .4 .1 .6 HINDIC 2.5 2.5 .5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .5 1.2 .0 HMILIT 39.5 10.5 20.5 62.5 20.5 62.5 2.5 15 37.5 62.5 2.5 22.5 22.1 22.9 IDECID 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .0 .3 ILACUN 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 LLANCE 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 .7 .7 .6 LLENTI .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 LNUMMU 0 0 87.5 62.5 62.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 14.4 30.6 .3 LORYZO 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .4 .0 

Table 137

Ta

ble 16. Ground layer species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area.—Continued

[See table 15 for explanation of species codes; species cover values for each site identifier are shown in percent] 

2002–2003 2002 mean 2003 mean 

mean species species species 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site cover, cover, cover, 

code BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BS5 BS6 BS7 BS8 BS9 BS10 BS11 in percent in percent in percent 

Backwater swamp—Continued

MRUBRA 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.0 0.3 PAMPHI .5 .5 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .8 1.7 .0 PHYDRO 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 15 0 2.5 2.5 0 1.5 .0 2.8POLYGS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 .3 .0 .6 PVIRGI 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 .7 .0 1.2 QPALUS .5 0 0 2.5 .5 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 .6 .5 .6 RCRISP .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 RRADIC 0 0 0 .5 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 .1 1.9 RVERTI 0 2.5 10.5 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 1.7 3.4 .3 SBREVI 0 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .7 1.5 .0 SG

L

A

BR 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .1 .0 

SLATER 2.5 .5 2.5 10.5 10.5 15 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 3.1 3.8 2.5

SNIGRA .5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 10.5 10.5 0 1.8 .8 2.6 

SPECTI 0 0 0 0 0 37.5 87.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 15 21.9 .0 41.0 STENUI 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 .7 .0 1.2 TLATIF 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 .4 .0 UAMERI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 .2 .0 .3 VVULPI .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .1 .0 

138 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 17. Basal area for understory species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area (see table 15 for explanation of species 

codes).[Basal area values for each site identifier are shown in square decimeters per hectare]

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Total basal 

code NL1 NL2 NL3 NL4 NL5 NL6 NL7 NL8 NL9 NL10 NL11 NL12 area 

Natural levee

ANEGUN 5.14 1.22 0.23 0.33 0 0 0.32 2.89 2.09 0 0.62 0.2 13.04 ATRILO .39 2.41 .82 0 0 .68 .2 0 0 0 0 0 4.50 CCORDI 1.67 14 .11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.18 0 0 16.96 CILLIN .82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.21 0 2.03 CLACIN 3.46 1.42 2.39 1.52 1.7 .61 0 0 .27 0 0 .73 12.10 COCCID 3.39 .6 .06 2.41 2.27 1.23 .16 2.44 .68 0 .62 .05 13.91 CCANAD 3.18 0 0 0 0 1.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.42 CDRUMM 0 0 .11 0 .06 1.82 0 0 .05 0 .06 0 2.10 CMOLLI 0 0 0 .01 0 .23 0 .43 .68 0 0 0 1.35 EATROP 0 0 0 .32 0 .11 0 0 0 0 0 0 .43 FPENNS 1.61 0 .06 .38 .03 1.58 .26 0 0 .84 .32 0 5.08 GTRIAC .81 00000000000 .81 GDIOIC .11 0 .05 1.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .05 1.22 IDECID 0 0 .01 .34 .04 .52 0 0 .34 .49 .02 .01 1.77 JNIGRA 0 0 0 0 .03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .03 MRUBRA 0 .43 0 0 0 .05 0 0 0 1.79 0 0 2.27 QBICOL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .25 0 0 0 .25 QMACRO .2 0 0 0 .47 1.62 .15 0 .59 0 .32 .11 3.46 QPALUS .43 0 0 0 0 .46 0 0 0 .11 0 0 1.00 SCANAD 0 0 0 0 .01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .01 SORBIC .01 0 .16 .22 .03 .2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .62 TAMERI 0 1.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .05 0 0 1.18 UAMERI 0 .32 .05 .81 3.66 5.65 .55 1.6 0 0 0 0 12.64 URUBRA .2 .01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .21 VPRUNI .56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .56 Total 21.98 21.54 4.05 7.35 8.3 16 1.64 7.36 4.95 4.46 3.17 1.15 101.95 

Table 139

Ta

ble 1

7. Basal area for understory species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area (see table 15 for explanation of species 

codes).—Continued

[Basal area values for each site identifier are shown in square decimeters per hectare] 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Total basal 

code FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6 FP7 FP8 FP9 FP10 FP11 FP12 area 

Flood plain 

ANEGUN 0.84 0.57 0 0.09 0 0 0.35 3.84 0 0.01 1.48 0.05 7.23 ASACCA .47 0 0 4.88 .05 8.18 .03 0 0 .74 .84 .23 15.42 CCORDI .2 0 .2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .40 CILLIN 0 0 0 .11 0 .11 .99 0 0 0 0 .25 1.46 CLACIN .03 2.28 3.04 0 0 0 .46 .29 0 0 .54 0 6.64 COCCID .77 .3 3.18 0 .01 0 0 0 1.11 0 0 0 5.37 C

E

O

C

CI 0 0 0 0 0 .03 0 0 0 0 0 0 .03

CCANAD 0 .62 .47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.09 

CDRUMM 1.76 .38 .2 0 0 0 .44 0 0 0 0 0 2.78

CMOLLI 0 .39 .41 0 0 0 0 0 1.04 0 0 0 1.84 

DVIRGI 0 0 0 0 0 0 .12 0 0 0 0 0 .12 FPENNS .04 3.96 0 1.09 0 .01 1.18 .19 0 .58 0 0 7.05 GDIOIC .2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .20 IDECID 0 .68 .27 .27 .66 1.55 .93 0 .06 0 1.58 .13 6.13 MRUBRA 0 0 .47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .32 .79 PAMERI .11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .11 QBICOL 0 0 0 0 0 0 .81 00000 .81 QMACRO .01 .81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .11 .93 QOVATA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .05 .05 QPALUS .9 2.7 0 1.44 .47 1.57 .62 .02 .59 0 .01 1.3 9.62 SO

R

BIC .06 .01 .32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .39 

UAMERI 0 1.72 0 .62 0 .13 2.14 0 0 1.39 0 0 6.00 Total 5.39 14.42 8.56 8.5 1.19 11.58 8.07 4.34 2.8 2.72 4.45 2.44 74.46 

140 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 17. Basal area for understory species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area (see table 15 for explanation of species 

codes).—Continued

[Basal area values for each site identifier are shown in square decimeters per hectare] 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Total basal 

code AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 AD10 area 

Alluvial depression

ASACCA 0 3.01 3.77 12.24 29.06 3.8 2.12 2.89 1.3 4.94 63.13 CILLIN .62 000000000 .62 COCCID 0 0 2.2 .01 0 0 0 0 .01 0 2.22 CEOCCI 0 0 0 0 1.55 0 .27 .58 0 0 2.40 CDRUMM 0 1.3 00000000 1.30 FPENNS .04 1.52 1.67 0 .94 0 .27 .28 .01 .22 4.95 GTRIAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .05 .05 IDECID .14 .63 .82 0 0 0 0 0 .11 0 1.70 QMACRO .32 000000000 .32 QPALUS 0 6.16 .04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.20 SNIGRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.85 00 5.85 UAMERI 0 .49 .03 1.62 .98 0 0 0 .81 0 3.93 Total 1.12 13.11 8.53 13.87 32.53 3.8 2.66 9.6 2.24 5.21 92.67 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Total basal 

code BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BS5 BS6 BS7 BS8 BS9 BS10 BS11 area 

Backwater swamp

ANEGUN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 ASACCA 4.32 3.98 .04 7.51 .01 0 .01 0 0 1.41 .03 17.31 CCORDI 0 0 0 .01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .01 COCCID 0 .76 0 0 0 0 0 1.87 1.61 .25 0 4.49 CEOCCI 3.52 0 .63 1.08 1.32 .13 5.12 0 0 0 2.87 14.67 FPENNS 2 2.39 .05 .53 .85 1.03 0 .69 0 1.24 .02 8.80 GTRIAC .01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .46 .47 IDECID 0 0 0 0 0 .01 0 0 0 0 0 .01 SNIGRA .51 .32 .43 6.94 0 0 6.36 0 2.8 1.74 0 19.10 Total 10.36 7.45 1.15 16.07 2.18 1.17 11.49 2.56 4.41 4.64 3.4 64.88 

Table 141

Ta

ble 18. Basal area for overstory species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Botto

ms) at the Four 

Rivers Conservation Area (see table 15 for explanation of species 

codes).[Basal area values for each site identifier are shown in square decimeters per hectare; --, no overstory vegetation at site]

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site

Total basal 

code NL1 NL2 NL3 NL4 NL5 NL6 NL7 NL8 NL9 NL10 NL11 NL12 area 

Natural levee

ANEGUN 3.75 29.64 8.56 1.82 90.33 16.02 0 48.69 39.13 0 4.59 15.59 258.12 ASACCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.05 0 0 0 0 58.05 CCORDI 0 6.95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.95 CILLIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.66 22.22 41.88 CLACIN 0 1.27 7.92 3.65 0 4.1 39.03 0 0 22.35 0 42.32 120.64 COCCID 0 82.26 28.62 5.07 2.48 1.53 49.76 35.51 50.89 0 15.27 0 271.39 CMOLLI 0 0 1.27 0 0 0 0 0 1.12 0 0 0 2.39 FPENNS 2.29 0 3.66 7.77 0 7.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.13 GDIOIC 0 0 26.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.35 JNIGRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 4.20 MRUBRA 10.65 2.85 15.3 0 5.33 1.27 16.53 11.87 3.24 0 1.82 0 68.86 QMACRO 20.27 3.36 11.92 0 3.75 2.53 1.27 0 0 0 2.63 2.41 48.14 QOVATA 0 0 0 25.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.65 QPALUS 0 0 0 88.71 0 4.94 0 0 0 0 0 0 93.65 TAMERI 0 17.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.80 UAMERI 0 0 9.93 2.48 0 3.88 0 0 0 12.03 0 2.77 31.09 URUBRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.22 0 0 0 1.22 Total 36.96 144.13 113.53 135.15 101.89 41.68 110.79 154.12 95.6 34.38 43.97 85.31 1,097.51 

142 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 18. Basal area for overstory species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area (see table 15 for explanation of species 

codes).—Continued

[Basal area values for each site identifier are shown in square decimeters per hectare; --, no overstory vegetation at site] 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Total basal

code FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6 FP7 FP8 FP9 FP10 FP11 FP12 area 

Flood plain

ANEGUN 9.87 7.3 6.13 6.28 0 0 0 14.05 17.71 2.41 5.11 0 68.86 ASACCA 0 0 0 28.79 0 3.8 0 132.76 0 30.65 0 0 196.00 CCORDI 5.59 0 3.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.25 CILLIN 0 0 2.48 0 9.23 1.53 12.17 0 0 0 0 13.32 38.73 CLACIN 1.82 44.55 3.83 0 0 0 2.34 0 29.43 0 0 0 81.97 COCCID 37.94 1.03 0 0 10.24 0 0 0 13.24 0 0 0 62.45 FPENNS 36.71 14.42 16.06 36.74 69.01 42.07 37.11 27.49 0 54.78 38 7.3 379.69 GTRIAC 0 0 44.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.92 GDIOIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.51 0 0 0 12.51 MRUBRA 27.77 2.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.07 0 35.32 QMACRO 11.4 13.8 26.93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.02 0 56.15 QOVATA 0 0 5.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.64 QPALUS 3.75 2.14 18.56 2.48 27.53 47.14 41.82 0 0 0 5.69 13.8 162.91 UAMERI 0 0 0 24.92 20.39 0 0 0 55.05 3.16 12.36 5.27 121.15Total 134.85 85.72 128.21 99.21 136.4 94.54 93.44 174.3 127.94 91 70.25 39.69 1,275.55 

Table 143

Ta

ble 18. Basal area for overstory species, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Botto

ms) at the Four 

Rivers Conservation Area (see table 15 for explanation of species 

codes).—Continued

[Basal area values for each site identifier are shown in square decimeters per hectare; --, no overstory vegetation at site] 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Total basal 

code AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 AD10 area 

Alluvial depression

ANEGUN 0 0 0 0 0 11.27 0 0 0 0 11.27 ASACCA 0 1.27 54.12 50.02 11.67 11.92 16.36 0 11.66 20.05 177.07 CILLIN 1.82 15.72 5.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.28 37.89 COCCID 0 0 2.48 0 0 2.55 0 0 0 0 5.03 FPENNS 8.56 6.09 58.11 26.17 22.83 51.64 67.01 71.42 127.89 36.39 476.11 GTRIAC 0 10.65 0 0 0 3.56 0 0 0 0 14.21 JNIG

RA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31.92 31.92 

QPALUS 120.59 53.39 0 0 0 7.18 0 0 0 4.87 186.03 SNIGRA 0 0 13.14 44.11 0 0 0 29.85 0 0 87.1 UAMERI 0 17.47 26.69 26.78 15.16 0 0 0 4.63 8.47 99.2 Total 130.97 104.59 159.61 147.08 49.66 88.12 83.37 101.27 144.18 116.98 1,125.83 

Species Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Total basal 

code BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BS5 BS6 BS7 BS8 BS9 BS10 BS11 area 

Backwater swamp

ASACCA 1.53 0 0 0 7.92 0 -- 0 0 0 0 9.45 CIL

LIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 29.26 0 0 0 29.26 

FPENNS 57.92 107.27 12.17 0 21.65 2.62 -- 31.18 13.67 44.5 0 290.98 GTRIAC 0 0 0 0 0 1.53 -- 0 0 0 0 1.53 SNIGRA 1.27 0 10.96 67.05 0 23.58 -- 3.66 19.28 21.56 16.27 163.63 UA

M

E

RI 0 0 0 0 11.16 0 -- 0 0 0 0 11.16 

Total 60.72 107.27 23.13 67.05 40.73 27.73 -- 64.1 32.95 66.06 16.27 506.01 

144 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 145 

Table 19. Ground layer families by landform type in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

Natural levee, Flood plain, Alluvial depression, Backwater swamp, 

number of species / number of species / number of species / number of species / 

Family name percentage of species percentage of species percentage of species percentage of species 

Acanthaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 0 

Aceraceae 2 / 2.4 2 / 2.3 2 / 3.2 2 / 4.2 

Alismataceae 0 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 3 / 6.3 

Amaranthaceae 0 0 0 1 / 2.1 

Anacardiaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 1 /1.6 1 / 2.1 

Annonaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 0 0 

Apiaceae 2 / 2.4 2 / 2.3 0 0 

Apocynaceae 0 0 0 1 / 2.1 

Aquifoliaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 1 / 2.1 

Araceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 0 

Araliaceae 1 / 1.2 0 0 0 

Asclepiadaceae 0 1 / 1.2 0 1 / 2.1 

Asteraceae 3 / 3.7 5 / 5.8 4 / 6.3 3 / 6.3 

Balsaminaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 0 

Bignoniaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 0 

Boraginaceae 0 0 0 1 / 2.1 

Brassicaceae 2 / 2.4 2 / 2.3 1 / 1.6 0 

Caesalpiniaceae 2 / 2.4 2 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 0 

Caprifoliaceae 3 / 3.7 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 0 

Celastraceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 0 0 

Commelinaceae 0 1 / 1.2 0 1 / 2.1 

Convolvulaceae 0 0 0 2 / 4.2 

Cornaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 0 

Cyperaceae 10 / 12.2 12 / 14.0 10 / 15.9 3 / 6.3 

Dioscoreaceae 0 1 / 1.2 0 0 

Euphorbiaceae 0 0 0 1 / 2.1 

Fabaceae 2 / 2.4 4 / 4.7 3 / 4.8 2 / 4.2 

Fagaceae 2 / 2.4 3 / 3.5 2 / 3.2 1 / 2.1 

Juglandaceae 3 / 3.7 2 / 2.3 2 / 3.2 1 / 2.1 

Lamiaceae 2 / 2.4 2 / 2.3 2 / 3.2 1 / 2.1 

Liliaceae 3 / 3.7 3 / 3.5 1 / 1.6 1 / 2.1 

Malvaceae 0 0 1 / 1.6 1 / 2.1 

Menispermaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 0 0 

Moraceae 0 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 1 / 2.1 

Oleaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 1 / 2.1 

Poaceae 5 / 6.1 6 / 7.0 4 / 6.3 3 / 6.3 

Polemoniaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 0 0 

Polygonaceae 3 / 3.7 3 / 3.5 1 / 1.6 6 / 12.5 

Primulaceae 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.2 1 / 1.6 1 / 2.1 

Ranunculaceae 2 / 2.4 2 / 2.3 1 / 1.6 0 

Rosaceae 3 / 3.7 4 / 4.7 3 / 4.8 0 

Rubiaceae 3 / 3.7 3 / 3.5 1 / 1.6 1 / 2.1 

Salicaceae 0 0 1 / 1.6 1 / 2.1 

Saururaceae 0 0 1 / 1.6 0 

Tiliaceae 1 / 1.2 0 0 0 

Typhaceae 0 0 0 1 / 2.1 

Ulmaceae 3 / 3.7 2 / 2.3 2 / 3.2 1 / 4.2 

Urticaceae 3 / 3.7 3 / 3.5 1 / 1.6 1 / 2.1 

Verbenaceae 0 0 1 / 1.6 1 / 2.1 

Violaceae 4 / 4.9 2 / 2.3 2 / 3.2 0 

Vitaceae 4 / 4.9 4 / 4.7 3 / 4.8 1 / 2.1 

Total number families 37 39 35 31 
146 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 21. Ground layer species unique to each landform type and their wetland indicator status for vegetation 

sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[FACW, facultative wetland species, 67–99 percent occurrence in wetlands; FAC, facultative species, 34–66 percent occurrence in wetlands; 

FACU, facultative upland species, 1–33 percent occurrence in wetlands; UL, unlisted as an indicator species; OBL, obligate wetland 

species, greater than 99 percent occurrence in wetlands] 

Landform type	 Species name Wetland indicator status 

Natural levee	 Aralia spinosa FACW 

Carex grisea FAC 

Sambucus canadensis FACW 

Tilia americana FACU 

Ulmus rubra FAC 

Virburnum prunifolium FACU 

Viola pubescens FACU 

Viola striata FACW 

Flood plain	 Ambrosia artemissiifolia FACU 

Carex frankii OBL 

Cynachum laeve FAC 

Carex luplina OBL 

Carex normalis FACW 

Dioscorea villosa FAC 

Erigeron canadensis FAC 

Quercus muehlenbergii UL 

Silphium perfoliatum FACW 

Viola pubescens FACU 

Alluvial depression	 Carex oligocarpa UL 

Carex tribuloides FACW 

Carex typhina OBL 

Eleocharis palustris OBL 

Rosa carolina FACU 

Saururus cernuus OBL 

Verbsina occidentalis UL 

Backwater swamp	 Apocynum cannabinum FAC 

Asclepias incarnata OBL 

Amaranthus rudis FACW 

Commelina communis FAC 

Convolvulus sepium UL 

Erechtites hieracifolia FACU 

Euphorbia supina UL 

Heliotropium indicum FACW 

Ipomoea lacunosa FACW 

Polygonum hydropiperoides OBL 

Rumex crispus FAC 

Sagittaria brevirostra OBL 

Typha latifolia OBL 
Table 147 

Table 24. Understory species unique to each landform type and their wetland indicator status for vegetation 

sampled in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[FAC, facultative species, 34–66 percent occurrence in wetlands; FACU, facultative upland species, 1–33 percent occurrence in wetlands; 

FACW, facultative wetland species, 67–99 percent occurrence in wetlands; UL, unlisted as an indicator species] 

Landform type Species name	 Wetland indicator status 

Natural levee	 Asimina triloba FAC 

Euonymus atropurpureus FAC 

Juglans nigra FACU 

Sambucus canadensis FACW 

Tilia americana FACU 

Ulmus rubra FAC 

Viburnum prunifolium FACU 

Flood plain	 Diospyros virginiana FAC 

Prunus americana UL 

Carya ovata FACU 

Alluvial depression	 No unique species 

Backwater swamp	 No unique species 
148 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 26. Flood tolerance of understory woody species for each landform type in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at 

the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[1, very tolerant: able to survive deep, prolonged flooding for more than 1 year; 2, tolerant: able to survive deep flooding for one growing 

season, with significant mortality occurring if flooding is repeated the following year; 3, somewhat tolerant: able to survive flooding or 

saturated soils for 30 consecutive days during the growing season; 4, intolerant: unable to survive more than a few days of flooding during 

the growing season without significant mortality; --, no data] 

Natural Flood Alluvial Backwater 

Species levee plain depression swamp 

Acer negundo 2 2 2 2 

Acer saccharinum 2 2 2 2 

Asimina triloba 4 -- -- --

Carya cordiformis 4 4 -- 4 

Carya illinoiensis -- 1 1 --

Carya laciniosa -- 4 -- --

Celtis occidentalis -- 2 2 2 

Carya ovata -- 4 -- --

Cephalanthus occidentalis -- 1 1 1 

Cercis canadensis 4 4 -- --

Cornus drummondi 4 4 4 --

Crataegus mollis 3 3 -- --

Diospyros virginiana -- 2 -- --

Eunonymus atropurpureus 4 -- -- --

Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1 1 1 1 

Gleditsia triacanthos 3 -- 3 3 

Gymnocladus dioica -- 4 4 --

Ilex deciduas 1 1 1 1 

Juglans nigra 4 -- -- --

Morus rubra 4 4 -- --

Prunus americana -- 4 -- --

Quercus bicolor 3 3 -- --

Quercus macrocarpa 3 3 3 --

Quercus palustris 2 2 2 2 

Salix nigra -- -- 1 1 

Sumbucus canadensis 4 -- -- --

Symphoricarpos orbiculata 4 4 -- --

Tilia americana 4 -- -- --

Ulmus americana 3 3 3 --

Ulmus rubra 3 -- -- --

Viburnum prunifolium 3 -- -- --
Table 149 

Table 28. Flood tolerance of overstory woody species by landform type in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four 

Rivers Conservation Area. 

[1, very tolerant: able to survive deep, prolonged flooding for more than 1 year; 2, tolerant: able to survive deep flooding for one growing 

season, with significant mortality occurring if flooding is repeated the following year; 3, somewhat tolerant: able to survive flooding or 

saturated soils for 30 consecutive days during the growing season; 4, intolerant: unable to survive more than a few days of flooding during 

the growing season without significant mortality; --, no data] 

Natural Flood Alluvial Backwater 

Species levee plain depression swamp 

Acer negundo 2 2 2 --

Acer saccharinum 2 2 2 2 

Carya cordiformis 4 4 -- --

Carya illinoiensis 1 1 1 1 

Carya laciniosa 4 4 -- --

Celtis occidentalis 2 2 2 --

Carya ovata 4 4 -- --

Crataegus mollis 3 -- -- --

Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1 1 1 1 

Gleditsia triacanthos --3 3 3 

Gymnocladus dioica 4 4 -- --

Juglans nigra 4 -- 4--

Morus rubra 4 4 -- --

Quercus macrocarpa 3 3 -- --

Quercus palustris 2 2 2 --

Salix nigra -- -- 1 1 

Tilia americana 4 -- -- --

Ulmus americana 3 3 3 3 

Ulmus rubra 3 -- -- -­
150 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 30. Age and circumference of selected canopy (tree numbers 1–3) and sub-canopy (tree numbers >3) 

sampled trees, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area. 

[>, greater than; cm, centimeters; m, meters] 

Tree age 

Collection Tree Common Circumference, Diameter, in 2003, in 

Site date number name Scientific name in cm in cm yearsa 

NL1 	10/11/2002 1 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 150 48 97 

10/11/2002 2 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 137 44 71 

10/11/2002 3 Burr Oak Quercus macrocarpa 160 51 72 

10/11/2002 4 Boxelder Acer negundo 65 21 32 

10/11/2002 5 Burr Oak Quercus macrocarpa 61 19 21 

10/11/2002 6 Hickory Carya spp. 61 19 44 

NL2 	10/11/2002 1 Hickory Carya spp. 162 52 -­

10/11/2002 2 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 142 45 81 

10/11/2002 3 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 154 49 65 

10/11/2002 4 Basswood Tilia americana 95 30 60 

10/11/2002 5 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 104 33 97

10/11/2002 6 Hickory Carya spp. 90 29 70 

NL3 	10/11/2002 1 Hickory Carya spp. 146 46 41 

10/11/2002 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 150 48 44 

10/11/2002 3 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 151 48 62

10/11/2002 4 Burr Oak Quercus macrocarpa 67 21 69

10/11/2002 5 American Elm Ulmus americana 109 35 107 

10/11/2002 6 Hickory Carya spp. 105 33 56 

NL4 	09/26/2002 1 Oak Quercus spp. 124 39 53 

09/26/2002 2 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 120 38 48 

09/26/2002 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica -- -- 52

09/26/2002 3B Pin Oak Quercus palustris 170 54 45 

09/26/2002 4 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica -- 22 53 

09/26/2002 5 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 90 29 -­

09/26/2002 5B Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 90 29 48 

09/26/2002 6 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 77 25 23 

NL5	 09/26/2002 1 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 188 60 55 

09/26/2002 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 128 41 45 

09/26/2002 3 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 178 57 43

09/26/2002 4 Boxelder Acer negundo 99 32 46 

09/26/2002 5 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 108 34 54 

09/26/2002 6 Boxelder Acer negundo 107 34 62 
Table	 151 

Table 30. Age and circumference of selected canopy (tree numbers 1–3) and sub-canopy (tree numbers >3) 

sampled trees, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued 

[>, greater than; cm, centimeters; m, meters] 

Tree age 

Collection Tree Common Circumference, Diameter, in 2003, in 

Site date number name Scientific name in cm in cm yearsa 

NL6 	09/26/2002 1 Shellbark Carya laciniosa 156 50 -­

09/26/2002 1B Shellbark Carya laciniosa 156 50 71 

09/26/2002 2 Shellbark Carya laciniosa 143 46 57 

09/26/2002 3 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 138 44 41 

09/26/2002 4 Shellbark Carya laciniosa 69 22 38 

09/26/2002 5 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 75 24 34

09/26/2002 6 Shellbark Carya laciniosa 80 25 36 

NL7 	06/10/2003 1 Shellbark Carya laciniosa 181 58 109 

06/10/2003 2 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 155 49 91 

06/10/2003 3 Hickory Carya spp. 198 63 102 

06/10/2003 4 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 66 21 73 

06/10/2003 5 Shellbark Carya laciniosa 55 18 48 

06/10/2003 6 Boxelder Acer negundo 61 19 43 

NL8	 05/15/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 193 61 92 

05/15/2003 2 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 197 63 94 

05/15/2003 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 197 63 73 

05/15/2003 4 Boxelder Acer negundo 84 27 48 

05/15/2003 5 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 77 25 52 

05/15/2003 6 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 71 23 48 

NL9	 05/15/2003 1 Burr Oak Quercus macrocarpa 200 64 119 

05/15/2003 2 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 132 42 61 

05/15/2003 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 156 50 58 

05/15/2003 4 Basswood Tilia americana 65 21 42 

05/15/2003 5 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 53 17 33 

05/15/2003 6 Hickory Carya spp. 66 21 41 

NL10 	09/23/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 130 41 74 

09/23/2003 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 172 55 75 

09/23/2003 3 White Oak Quercus alba 127 40 63

09/23/2003 4 American Elm Ulmus americana 51 16 51

09/23/2003 5 Boxelder Acer negundo 35 11 22 

09/23/2003 6 Burr Oak Quercus macrocarpa 74 24 45 
152 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 30. Age and circumference of selected canopy (tree numbers 1–3) and sub-canopy (tree numbers >3) 

sampled trees, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued 

[>, greater than; cm, centimeters; m, meters] 

Tree age 

Collection Tree Common Circumference, Diameter, in 2003, in 

Site date number name Scientific name in cm in cm yearsa 

NL11	 09/23/2003 1 Hickory Carya spp. 211 67 144 

09/23/2003 2 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 186 59 49 

09/23/2003 3 Hickory Carya spp. 251 80 -­

09/23/2003 4 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 61 19 48 

09/23/2003 5 Burr Oak Quercus macrocarpa 59 19 42 

09/23/2003 6 Hickory Carya spp. 52 17 39 

NL12	 06/11/2003 1 Post Oak Quercus stellata 193 61 41 

06/11/2003 2 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 160 51 56 

06/11/2003 3 Hickory Carya spp. 180 57 89 

06/11/2003 4 White Oak Quercus alba 76 24 34 

06/11/2003 5 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 61 19 33 

06/11/2003 6 White Oak Quercus alba 60 19 21 

FP1	 10/10/2002 1 Hickory Carya spp. 153 49 76 

10/10/2002 2 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 171 54 77 

10/10/2002 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 111 35 60 

10/10/2002 4 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 103 33 80 

10/10/2002 5 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 75 24 74 

10/10/2002 6 American Elm Ulmus americana 102 32 94 

FP2	 10/10/2002 1 Hickory Carya spp. 142 45 120 

10/10/2002 2 Hickory Carya spp. 146 46 99 

10/10/2002 3 Hickory Carya spp. 117 37 73 

10/10/2002 4 Burr Oak Quercus macrocarpa 77 25 37 

10/10/2002 5 Hickory Carya spp. 72 23 43 

10/10/2002 6 Hickory Carya spp. 97 31 65 

FP3 	10/10/2002 1 Burr Oak Quercus macrocarpa 138 44 76 

10/10/2002 2 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 150 48 71 

10/10/2002 3 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 127 40 63 

10/10/2002 4 Boxelder Acer negundo 82 26 47 

10/10/2002 5 Burr Oak Quercus macrocarpa 84 27 66 

10/10/2002 6 Hickory Carya spp. 68 22 38 

FP4	 10/09/2002 1 American Elm Ulmus americana 123 39 75 

10/09/2002 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 174 55 88 

10/09/2002 3 American Elm Ulmus americana 131 42 73 

10/09/2002 4 American Elm Ulmus americana 62 20 78 

10/09/2002 5 American Elm Ulmus americana 86 27 44 

10/09/2002 6 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 48 15 24 
Table	 153 

Table 30. Age and circumference of selected canopy (tree numbers 1–3) and sub-canopy (tree numbers >3) 

sampled trees, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued 

[>, greater than; cm, centimeters; m, meters] 

Tree age 

Collection Tree Common Circumference, Diameter, in 2003, in 

Site date number name Scientific name in cm in cm yearsa 

FP5	 10/09/2002 1 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 166 53 -­

10/09/2002 2 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 173 55 49

10/09/2002 3 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 195 62 54 

10/09/2002 4 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 61 19 31 

10/09/2002 5 American Elm Ulmus americana 53 17 61 

10/09/2002 6 American Elm Ulmus americana 84 27 66 

FP6	 10/09/2002 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 132 42 78 

10/09/2002 2 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 238 76 48 

10/09/2002 3 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 148 47 32

10/09/2002 4 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 49 16 31 

10/09/2002 5 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 111 35 47 

10/09/2002 6 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 50 16 23 

FP7 	06/10/2003 1 Pin Oak Quercus palustrus 139 44 50 

06/10/2003 2 Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos 230 73 69 

06/10/2003 3 White Oak Quercus alba 143 46 77 

06/10/2003 4 Hickory Carya spp. 53 17 37 

06/10/2003 5 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 67 21 54 

06/10/2003 6 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 56 18 38 

06/10/2003 7 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 134 43 44

FP8 	05/15/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 116 37 41 

05/15/2003 2 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 143 46 43 

05/15/2003 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 185 59 88 

05/15/2003 4 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 63 20 41 

05/15/2003 5 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 73 23 -­

05/15/2003 5B Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 73 23 43 

05/15/2003 6 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 64 20 40 

FP9 	05/15/2003 1 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 198 63 48 

05/15/2003 2 Hickory Carya spp. 197 63 125 

05/15/2003 3 Elm Ulmus spp. 118 38 53 

05/15/2003 4 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 73 23 47 

05/15/2003 5 Elm Ulmus spp. 87 28 56 

05/15/2003 6 Elm Ulmus spp. 67 21 62 
154 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 30. Age and circumference of selected canopy (tree numbers 1–3) and sub-canopy (tree numbers >3) 

sampled trees, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued 

[>, greater than; cm, centimeters; m, meters] 

Tree age 

Collection Tree Common Circumference, Diameter, in 2003, in 

Site date number name Scientific name in cm in cm yearsa 

FP10 	09/23/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 90 29 48 

09/23/2003 2 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 124 39 33 

09/23/2003 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 118 38 43 

09/23/2003 4 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 42 13 42 

09/23/2003 5 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 72 23 32 

09/23/2003 6 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 92 29 24 

FP11 	09/23/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 164 52 49 

09/23/2003 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 154 49 -­

09/23/2003 3 Hickory Carya spp. 180 57 75 

09/23/2003 4 Boxelder Acer negundo 57 18 18 

09/23/2003 5 Shagbark Carya ovata 57 18 13 

09/23/2003 6 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 42 13 17 

FP12 	06/11/2003 1 Pecan Carya illinoensis 203 65 63 

06/11/2003 2 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 165 53 61 

06/11/2003 3 White Oak Quercus alba 216 69 92 

06/11/2003 4 American Elm Ulmus americana 64 20 36 

06/11/2003 5 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 61 19 38 

06/11/2003 6 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 56 18 35 

AD1 	10/10/2002 1 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 141 45 45 

10/10/2002 2 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 145 46 -­

10/10/2002 3 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 132 42 49 

10/10/2002 4 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 82 26 48 

10/10/2002 5 American Elm Ulmus americana 150 48 80 

10/10/2002 6 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 100 32 43 

AD2 	10/10/2002 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 172 55 76 

10/10/2002 2 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 157 50 52 

10/10/2002 3 Pecan Carya illinoensis 106 34 73 

10/10/2002 4 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 82 26 32

10/10/2002 5 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 83 26 45

10/10/2002 6 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 77 25 36 

AD3 	09/26/2002 1 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 132 42 36 

09/26/2002 2 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 88 28 -­

09/26/2002 4 Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 95 30 72 

09/26/2002 5 American Elm Ulmus americana 60 19 36 

09/26/2002 6 American Elm Ulmus americana 43 14 41 
Table	 155 

Table 30. Age and circumference of selected canopy (tree numbers 1–3) and sub-canopy (tree numbers >3) 

sampled trees, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued 

[>, greater than; cm, centimeters; m, meters] 

Tree age 

Collection Tree Common Circumference, Diameter, in 2003, in 

Site date number name Scientific name in cm in cm yearsa 

AD4 	09/26/2002 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 182 58 81 

09/26/2002 2 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 112 36 51 

09/26/2002 4 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 89 28 42 

09/26/2002 5 American Elm Ulmus americana 80 25 42 

AD5 	09/26/2002 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 98 31 61 

09/26/2002 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 102 32 79 

09/26/2002 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 87 28 76 

09/26/2002 3B Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 87 28 -­

09/26/2002 4 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 66 21 64 

09/26/2002 5 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 62 20 72 

09/26/2002 6 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 53 17 22 

AD6 	09/22/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 125 40 71 

09/22/2003 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 125 40 62

09/22/2003 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 118 38 89 

09/22/2003 4 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 61 19 44 

09/22/2003 5 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 67 21 36 

09/22/2003 6 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 56 18 24 

AD7 	09/22/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 123 39 63 

09/22/2003 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 105 33 69 

09/22/2003 3 Hickory Carya spp. 131 42 75 

09/22/2003 4 Boxelder Acer negundo 67 21 20 

09/22/2003 5 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 73 23 33 

09/22/2003 6 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 62 20 38 

AD8 	09/23/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 105 33 75 

09/23/2003 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 126 40 76 

09/23/2003 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 78 25 42 

09/23/2003 4 Black Willow Salix nigra 57 18 17 

09/23/2003 5 Black Willow Salix nigra 53 17 12 

09/23/2003 6 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 50 16 22 

AD9 	09/23/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 107 34 76 

09/23/2003 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 116 37 79 

09/23/2003 2B Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 116 37 -­

09/23/2003 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 142 45 76 

09/23/2003 4 American Elm Ulmus americana 52 17 31 

09/23/2003 5 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 40 13 25 

09/23/2003 6 Boxelder Acer negundo 37 12 37 
156 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

Table 30. Age and circumference of selected canopy (tree numbers 1–3) and sub-canopy (tree numbers >3) 

sampled trees, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued 

[>, greater than; cm, centimeters; m, meters] 

Tree age 

Collection Tree Common Circumference, Diameter, in 2003, in 

Site date number name Scientific name in cm in cm yearsa 

AD10	 06/11/2003 1 Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 130 41 83 

06/11/2003 2 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 89 28 60 

06/11/2003 3 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 213 68 50 

06/11/2003 4 American Elm Ulmus americana 43 14 24 

06/11/2003 5 American Elm Ulmus americana 71 23 27 

06/11/2003 6 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 61 19 34 

BS1 	10/10/2002 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 168 54 57

10/10/2002 2 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 127 40 52 

10/10/2002 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 150 48 70 

10/10/2002 4 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 60 19 46 

10/10/2002 5 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 112 36 -­

10/10/2002 6 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 59 19 25 

BS2 	10/10/2002 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 130 41 63

10/10/2002 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 134 43 78 

10/10/2002 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 185 59 73 

10/10/2002 4 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 78 25 38 

10/10/2002 5 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 109 35 82 

10/10/2002 6 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 122 39 34 

BS3 	10/09/2002 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 167 53 81 

10/09/2002 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 124 39 76 

10/09/2002 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 118 38 -­

10/09/2002 4 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 71 23 72 

10/09/2002 5 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 84 27 -­

10/09/2002 6 Silver Maple Acer saccarinum 72 23 41 

BS4 	10/09/2002 1 Black Willow Salix nigra 151 48 41 

10/09/2002 2 Black Willow Salix nigra 154 49 -­

10/09/2002 3 Black Willow Salix nigra 159 51 28 

10/09/2002 4 Black Willow Salix nigra 65 21 21 

10/09/2002 5 Black Willow Salix nigra 60 19 24 

10/09/2002 6 Black Willow Salix nigra 36 11 21 

BS5 	10/09/2002 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 151 48 65 

10/09/2002 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 146 46 73 

10/09/2002 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 163 52 -­

10/09/2002 4 American Elm Ulmus americana 59 19 41 

10/09/2002 5 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 73 23 42 

10/09/2002 6 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 60 19 41 
Table	 157 

Table 30. Age and circumference of selected canopy (tree numbers 1–3) and sub-canopy (tree numbers >3) 

sampled trees, by site, in Unit 1 (Horton Bottoms) at the Four Rivers Conservation Area.—Continued 

[>, greater than; cm, centimeters; m, meters] 

Tree age 

Collection Tree Common Circumference, Diameter, in 2003, in 

Site date number name Scientific name in cm in cm yearsa 

BS6 	09/16/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 105 33 31 

09/16/2003 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 67 21 18 

09/16/2003 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 87 28 21 

09/16/2003 4 Black Willow Salix nigra 94 30 16 

09/16/2003 5 Black Willow Salix nigra 61 19 29 

09/16/2003 6 Black Willow Salix nigra 46 15 13 

BS7 	09/16/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 60 19 23 

09/16/2003 4 Black Willow Salix nigra 50 16 12 

BS8 	09/17/2003 1 Pecan Carya illinoiensis 137 44 84 

09/17/2003 2 Black Willow Salix nigra 100 32 26 

09/17/2003 3 Black Willow Salix nigra 100 32 21 

09/17/2003 4 Black Willow Salix nigra 79 25 30 

09/17/2003 5 Black Willow Salix nigra 61 19 -­

09/17/2003 6 Black Willow Salix nigra 76 24 20 

BS9 	09/17/2003 1 Black Willow Salix nigra 98 31 -­

09/17/2003 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 83 26 52 

09/17/2003 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 95 30 26 

09/17/2003 4 Black Willow Salix nigra 71 23 45 

09/17/2003 5 Black Willow Salix nigra 42 13 13 

09/17/2003 6 Black Willow Salix nigra 39 12 16 

BS10 	09/17/2003 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 134 43 70 

09/17/2003 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 105 33 53 

09/17/2003 3 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 101 32 71 

09/17/2003 4 Black Willow Salix nigra 85 27 20 

09/17/2003 5 Black Willow Salix nigra 70 22 25 

09/17/2003 6 Black Willow Salix nigra 81 26 20 

BS11 	09/16/2003 1 Black Willow Salix nigra 75 24 16 

09/16/2003 2 Black Willow Salix nigra 75 24 18 

09/16/2003 3 Black Willow Salix nigra 82 26 20 

09/16/2003 4 Black Willow Salix nigra 38 12 9 

09/16/2003 5 Black Willow Salix nigra 43 14 11 

09/16/2003 6 Black Willow Salix nigra 80 25 16 

a

Tree age determined at breast height (approximately 1.37 meters). 
Ta

ble 41. Species master list for vegetation sampled in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area in 2002.

[WIS, wetland indicator status; FACW, facultative wetland species, 67–99 percent occurrence in wetlands; FAC, facultative species, 34–66 percent occurrence in wetlands; FACU, facultative upland 
species, 1–33 percent occurrence in wetlands; UL, unlisted as an indicator species; O

BL obligate wetland species, greater than 99 percent occurrence in wetlands; A, annual; 

T, tree; P, perennial; W

V, woody vine; 


V, vine; B, biennial; N, native; I, introduced; --, no data]


Species code Scientific name Common name Family WIS Habit N/I 

AB

U

TTHEO Abutilon theophrasti Medic. 

Velvet leaf Malvaceae FACU A I 

ACALVIRG Acalypha virginica L. Three seeded mercury Euphorbiaceae FACU A N ACERNEGU Acer negundo L. Boxelder Aceraceae FACW T N ACERSACCI Acer saccharinum L. Silver maple Aceraceae FACW T N AESC_SPP Asclepias spp. Milkweed Asclepiadaceeae -- P N ALLI_SPP Allium spp. Wild onion, garlic Liliaceae -- -- -­

AMARRUDI Amaranthus rudis Amaranth Amaranthaceae FACW A N AMBRARTI Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Annual ragweed Asteraceae FACU A N 

AMBRTRIF Ambrosia trifida L. Ragweed Asteraceae FAC A N APOCCANA Apocynum cannabinum L. Indian Hemp Apocynaceae FAC P N ASTE_SPP Aster spp. -- Asteraceae -- -- -­

ASTEPILO Aster pilosus Willd. White Heath Aster Asteraceae FACU P N BIDE_SPP Bidens spp. -- Asteraceae -- -- -­

BIDEBIPI Bidens bipinnata L. Spanish needles Asteraceae UL P I CAMPRADI Campsis radicans (L.) Seem. Trumpet creeper Bignoniaceae FAC WV N 

CARE_SPP Carex spp. -- Cyperaceae -- -- -­CAREMUSK Carex muskingumensis Schwein. Palm sedge Cyperaceae OBL P N CAREOVAL Carex leporina L. -- Cyperaceae UL A I CARYILLI Carya illinoiensis (Wang.) K. Koch Pecan Juglandaceae FACW T N CEPHOCCI Cephalanthus occidentalis L. Buttonbush Rubiaceae OBL T N CLEMPITC Clematis pitcheri T & G Pitcher's virgin's bower Ranunculaceae FACU V N COMMCOMM Commelina communis L. Asiatic day flower Commelinaceae FAC A I CONVSEPI Convolvulus sepium L. Hedge bindweed Convolvulaceae UL A V CONYCANA Erigeron canadensis L. Horseweed Asteraceae FAC A N CYNALAEV Cynachum laeve (Michx.) Pers. Climbing milkweed Asclepiadaceae FAC P N DESMILLI Desmanthus illinoiensis (Michx) Macmil. Illinois bundleflower Mimosaceae FAC P N DIGISANG Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. Hairy crabgrass Poaceae FACU P NDIOSVIRG Diospyros virginiana L. Persimmon Ebenaceae FAC T N EUPARUGO Eupatorium rugosum Houtt. White snakeroot Asteraceae UL P N 

EUPASERO Eupatorium serotinum Michx. Black snakeroot Asteraceae FAC P N EUPHMACU Euphorbia maculata L. Spotted broomspurge Euphorbiaceae FACU A N EUPHSUPI Euphorbia supina Raf. Milk purslane Euphorbiaceae UL A N 

158 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 
Table 41. Species master list for vegetation sampled in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers Conservation Area in 2002.—Continued

[WIS, wetland indicator status; FACW, facultative wetland species, 67–99 percent occurrence in wetlands; FAC, facultative species, 34–66 percent occurrence in wetlands; FACU, facultative upland 
species, 1–33 percent occurrence in wetlands; UL, unlisted as an indicator species; OBL obligate wetland species, greater than 99 percent occurrence in wetlands; A, annual; T, tree; P, perennial; WV, woody vine; 
V, vine; B, biennial; N, native; I, introduced; --, no data]


Species code Scientific name Common name Family WIS Habit N/I 

FRAXPENN Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall Green Ash Oleaceae FACW T N HELI_SPP Helianthus spp. -- Asteraceae -- -- -­HELIANNU Helianthus annuus L. Common sunflower Asteraceae FAC A N HIBILACI Hibiscus moscheutos L. Rose mallow Malvaceae OBL P N HORDPUSI Hordeum pusillum Nutt. Little barley Poaceae FAC A N HYPEPERF Hypericum perforatum L. Common St. John's Wort Clusiaceae UL P I IPOMLACU Ipomoea lacunosa L. Small white morning glory Convolvulaceae FACW A N IVA_ANNU Iva annua L. Annual sumpweed Asteraceae FAC A I LEERLENT Leersia lenticularis Michx. Catchfly grass Poaceae OBL P N LEERVIRG Leersia virginica Willd. Whitegrass Poaceae FACW P N LESPSTIP Lespedeza stipulaceae Maxim. Korean lespedeza Fabaceae FACU A F LIPPLANC Phyla lanceolata (Michx.) Greene Fog fruit Verbenaceae OBL P N LYCOAMER Lycopus americanus Muhl. American bugleweed Lamiaceae OBL P N MOLLVERT Mollugo verticillata L. Green carpet weed Molluginaceae FAC A N OENOBIEN Oenothera biennis L. Common evening primrose Primulaceae FACU B I OXAL_SPP Oxalis spp. -- Oxalidaceae -- -- -­

OXALSTRI Oxalis stricta L. Common yellow wood sorrel Oxalidaceae UL P N PANI_SPP Panicum spp. -- Poaceae -- -- -­

PHYSVIRG Physostegia virginiana (L.) Benth False dragonhead Lamiaceae FACW P N POLY_SPP Polygonum spp. -- Polygonaceae -- -- -­

POLYAMPH Polygonum amphibium L. Water smartweed Polygonaceae OBL P N POLYPENS Polygonum pensylvanicum L. Smartweed Polygonaceae FACW A N POPUDELT Populus deltoides W. Bartram Cottonwood Salicaceae FAC T N 

PORTOLER Portulaca oleracea L. Common purslane Portulacaceae FAC A N POTERECT Potentilla recta L. Sulphur cinquefoil Rosaceae UL P I PRUNSERO Prunus serotina Ehrh. Black cherry Rosaceae FACU T N QUERPALU Quercus palustris Muenchh. Pin Oak Fagaceae FACW T N 

SALINIGR Salix nigra Marsh. Black willow Salicaceae OBL T N 

SCHISCOP Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx) Nash Little bluestem Poaceae UL P N 

SETAFABE Setaria faberi Herrm. Nodding foxtail Poaceae FACU A I 

SETAGLAU Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. Yellow foxtail Poaceae FAC A I SIDASPIN Sida spinosa L. Prickly mallow Malvaceae FACU A N SOLAAMER Solanum americanum L. Black nightshade Solanaceae FACU A N 

Table 159

Ta

ble 41. Species master list for vegetation sampled in Unit 4 at the Four Rivers 

Conservation Area in 2002.—Continued

[WIS, wetland indicator status; FACW, facultative wetland species, 67–99 percent occurrence in wetlands; FAC, facultative species, 34–66 percent occurrence in wetlands; FACU, facultative upland 
species, 1–33 percent occurrence in wetlands; UL, unlisted as an indicator species; O

BL obligate wetland species, greater than 99 percent occurrence in wetlands; A, annual; 

T, tree; P, perennial; W

V, woody vine; 


V, vine; B, biennial; N, native; I, introduced; --, no data]


Species code Scientific name Common name Family WIS Habit N/I 

SOLIGIGA Solidago gigantea Ait. Giant golden rod Asteraceae 

FACW P N


SPERGLAB Spermacoce glabra Michx. Smooth buttonweed Rubiaceae FACW P N
STROUMBE Strohpostyles umbellata (Michx. Ex. Willd) Britton Pink wildbean Fabaceae FACU P N
TRAGDUBI Tragopogon duius Scop. Fistulous goatsbeard Asteraceae UL B I
ULMU_SPP Ulmus spp. -- Ulmaceae -- -- -­
ULMUAMER Ulmus americana L. American Elm Ulmaceae FACW T N
VITICINE Vitis cinerea Engelm. Pigeon grape Vitaceae FACW WV N
XANTSTRU Xanthium strumarium L. Rough cocklebur Asteraceae FAC A N


160 Hydrologic, Soil, and Vegetation Gradients in Remnant and Constructed Riparian Wetlands in West-Central MO, 2001–04 

For additional information contact: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Discipline 

1400 Independence Road 

Mail Stop 100 

Rolla, MO 65401 

(573) 308-3664 or


http://mo.water.usgs.gov