United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-81-164  Sept. 1981
Project Summary
Critical  Factors  Controlling
Vegetation  Growth  on
Completed  Sanitary  Landfills

Edward F. Gilman, Ida A. Leone, and Franklin B. Flower
  This study summarized here identi-
fies some of the critical factors that
affect tree and shrub growth on
reclaimed sanitary landfill sites and
determines which woody species are
adaptable to  the adverse growth
conditions of such sites. Trees planted
at the Edgeboro landfill. East Bruns-
wick.  NJ, produced less shoot and
stem growth and shallower roots than
trees on the adjacent control plot. Of
19 woody species planted 4 years ago
on the 14-year-old landfill, black gum
and Japanese black pine proved to be
the most  tolerant and green ash and
hybrid poplar  the least tolerant to
landfill conditions. Root systems of
the more tolerant species proved to be
shallower than those  of the  landfill-
intolerant species. Smaller planting
stock (30 to 60 cm tall) appeared to be
better suited for landfill planting than
large trees (3 to 4 m tall). Balled and
burlapped trees showed better growth
on the landfill  plot than bare-rooted
material. Of five gas barrier systems
tested, three proved effective: a soil
trench underlaid by plastic sheeting
over gravel and vented by means of
vertical PVC pipes, a 0.9-m mound of
soil underlaid with 30 cm of clay, and a
0.9-m soil mound with no clay barrier.

  This Project  Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory. Cincin-
nati. OH, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully
documented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).

Introduction
  The sanitary landfill is presently the
least expensive environmentally ac-
ceptable means of municipal waste
disposal available. Advantages attributed
to landfilling are neatness, safety, and
relatively low cost. Though early landfill
sites were  located far from residential
areas, rapid urban and suburban expan-
sion has brought  many once-remote
sites within developed areas. As such,
they provide attractive sources of much
needed land for recreational uses, and
some municipalities have even consid-
ered them  acceptable for commercial
purposes.
  Regardless  of the  ultimate use of
landfill sites,  certain disadvantages
exist, including groundwater pollution,
production  of  explosive gases, surface
settlement, and high ground tempera-
tures. Because abnormally high inci-
dences of plant mortality were found on
many landfills, a nationwide mail survey
was initiated to determine whether such
occurrences were common throughout
the United States (Flower et al., 1978).
Results indicated that the problem was
indeed of national magnitude.
  The goal  of this project was to help
develop the scientific knowledge neces-
sary to convert former landfill sites into
recreational areas by determining:
  1. the relative adaptability of 19
    woody species to landfill condi-
    tions,

-------
  2. the relationship of rooting depth to
     the tree's tolerance of landfill soil,
  3. whether small planting stock can
     survive  on completed landfills
     better than large specimens,
  4. whether balled and' burlapped
     plant material is better suited for
     landfill plantings than bare-rooted
     material,
  5. the effects of irrigation on tree
     growth in landfill soil, and
  6. the feasibility of  constructing
     barriers  to the passage of toxic
     gases from the refuse into the root
     zone of gas-sensitive species.
The full report also includes information
on  whether the leaf tissue nutrient
content of trees in  landfill soil differs
from that of trees in nonlandfill soil and
the effects of high concentrations of
landfill gas (carbon dioxide and methane)
on the availability of soil  nutrients.


Methods and Materials

Literature Review
  A literature review was conducted to
determine the extent of existing data on
vegetation growth  on landfills and to
study the effects  of soil moisture on
plant growth, environmental factors on
leaf transpiration, "soil conditions on
nutrient uptake, and soil conditions on
root growth. Detailed reports describing
vegetation on landfills  were scarce.
Many attempts to vegetate completed
sanitary refuse landfills with trees and
shrubs have been unsuccessful (Flower
et at., 1978). Gilman et al. (1980) report
that tree and shrub species have varied
tolerances to  commonly occurring
landfill gases in the soil.

Tree Planting
  The  tree-planting segment of the
study  included a  species screening
experiment and studies  of gas barrier
techniques, irrigation and tree growth:,
and planting stock size and type. Landfill
and control plots were  used to  plant
specimens and observe results. Cultural
methods included applications of 10-6-
4 granular fertilizer, liming, irrigation,
pest control (Sevin* and malathion), use
of chicken wire to protect against rabbit
damage of young seedlings, and weed
control by mowing, pulling, and chemi-
cal  applications (Princep).
  Sampling methods used in this study
included soil measurements (gas con-
tent, temperature, bulk density, moisture
content, and nutrient  concentrations),
tree measurements (shoot length, stem
area, root biomass, leaf weight, tissue
nutrient content, and transpiration
rate), and  meteorologic measurements
(air temperature,  humidity, and  total
wind  movement). Various chemical
analyses were conducted to determine
leaf tissue content. Roots were examined
by excavating  each root system com-
pletely with a  small hand trowel from
the point  of emergence at the main
stump to the root tips.

Results and Discussion

Species Screening Experiment
  During the spring of 1976,  10
replicates of 19 woody species (Table 1)
were planted on both the completed 14-
year-old Edgeboro sanitary landfill in
East Brunswick, NJ, and on a  nea'rby
control site that had not been landfilled.
Data presented  in this report were
collected during 1978 and  1979, and
compiled with portions of data collected
in 1976 and 1977 (Gilman 1978).

Relative Viability of Plants-
  Plant viability after 4 years of  growth
on the completed landfill varied greatly
among species. By the end of 1979, all
of the weeping willows, rhododendrons,
and euonymus had died on the  landfill
plot. Willows and rhododendrons were
obviously unable to  withstand the
  periods of desiccation characteristic 01
  such sites  during midsummer. The
  euonymus shrubs on the site that were
  not girdled by rabbits during the winter
  of  1977-78  also appeared to have
  become desiccated during midsummer
  from lack of soil moisture.  Several
  sweet gum, black gum, bayberry, and
  pin oak died from undetermined causes.
  Landfill gas contamination of  the root
  zone and low  soil moisture during mid-
  July 1978 were suspected as contribu-
  ting factors in the sweet gum deaths.
  Since the concentrations  of carbon
  dioxide, oxygen, and methane at the 20-
  cm (8-in.) soil  depth can reportedly vary
  from day to day, some tree deaths may
  have resulted from undetected landfill
  gas migrations into the root zone (i.e.,
  samples might have been collected only
  on days of low concentrations). Arthur
  (1978) indicates that short  periods of
  high  landfill  gas concentrations may
  adversely affect tree  growth. Also,
  gases other than carbon dioxide and
  methane  may have migrated  into the
  cover soil of the Edgeboro landfill and
  adversely affected plant growth. In spite
  of  the numerous plant deaths, enough
  replicates of  16 of the original 19
  species remained alive during 1978 and
  1979  to  evaluate statistically their
  ability to tolerate landfill soil conditions.

  Relative Growth of Surviving
  Plants-
    Determination of landfill tolerance of
  the surviving trees was based on shoot
  length and stem area increase for each
Table 1.    Species Selected for Vegetation Growth Experiment at Edgeboro Landfill

            Latin name                Common name
 •Mention of trade names or commercial products
 does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
 tion for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 Acer rubrum
 Euonymus alatus
 Fraxinus lanceolate
 Ginkgo
 Gleditsia triancanthos
 Liquidambar styraciflua
 Myrica pensylvanica
 Nyssa sylvatica
 Picea excelsa
 Populus spp.
 Populus spp.
 Plantanus occidentalis
 Pinus strobus
 Pinus thunbergi
 Quercus palustris
 Rhododendron hyb. 'Roseum Elagans'
 Salix babylonica
 Tilia americana
 Taxus cuspidata var. capitata
Red maple
Euonymus
Green ash
Ginkgo
Honey locust
Sweet gum
Bayberry
Black gum
Norway spruce
Hybrid poplar (saplings)
Hybrid poplar (from rooted cuttings)
American sycamore
White pine
Black pine
Pin oak
Rhododendron
Weeping willow
American basswood
Japanese yew

-------
species on both the landfill and control
plots.  Relative tolerance of  landfill
conditions depended both on the growth
parameter measured and the growing
season in which measurements were
collected. During  the  1978 growing
season when landfill plot growth was
compared with that of the control plot,
black pine shoot and stem growth was
better  than that for any other species.
During 1979, however, shoot growth of
black pine on the landfill was fourth and
stem growth was tenth  best of  all
species. Thus, black pine appeared to be
less tolerant of  landfill conditions in
1979  than in 1978. In'the 1978
comparison, honey locust shoot and
stem growth were fifteenth and sixteenth
in rank, respectively, among the species
tested; but during  1979, honey locust
shoot  growth  was  best, and stem
growth was fifth  best of  all species
tested. Evidently, a tolerance list based
on  growth measurements  during one
particular growing season does  not
necessarily*epresent a reliable estimate
of  an  overall tolerance  to  landfill
conditions.
  Since landfill tolerance also appears
to depend on the particular growth
measurement in question, the critical
growth criteria must be identified when.
selecting species. For example, either
shoot growth, stem growth, or both may
be  critical for a particular vegetation
project.
  When the total amount of shoot
growth produced on the landfill from
1976 through 1979 was compared with
that in the control plot, ginkgo, black
gum, and Japanese yew appeared to be
most tolerant; green  ash, sweet gum,
and hybrid poplar saplings appeared
least tolerant of landfill  conditions. But
.comparisons.of percent stem area
increase show  Japanese yew, white
pine, and Norway spruce  to be most
tolerant and hybrid  poplar cuttings,
hybrid poplar saplings, and green ash to
be least tolerant of landfill conditions.
  Since no single growth parameter is
best suited for comparing tree growth
on the  landfill with that on the control
plot, shoot and stem growth data were
combined  for 1976, 1977, 1978, and
1979 and analyzed as a unit. Two
different  statistical methods were
chosen to analyze the combined growth
rate to  rank the test species for overall
tolerance to landfill conditions.
  One  method consisted of averaging*
 hoot growth during 1976 (when stem
 rowth was not available) and shoot and
stem growth for  1977 through 1979
control plot. A rank of one was given the
species that produced the greatest
amount of shoot or stem growth on the
landfill as compared with that on the
control plot. The species that grew most
poorly on the landfill as compared with
its  growth on  the control plot was
ranked last (16th). Thus seven rank lists
were formed, and the tolerance rank
values from the lists were totaled for
each species  for an overall  landfill
tolerance rank (Table 2).
  Principal components  analyses of
shoot and stem data from 1976 through
1979 made up the second method
(Table 3). A factor score was calculated
for  each species on each plot. The
differences  in scores between plots
were aligned from smallest to largest.
The  ranking of species from most to
least landfill tolerant by this system was
similar to  the first analytical method.
Only two  species changed positions
dramatically; Japanese  yew  moved
from most tolerant by the first method to
eighth according to the principal com-
ponents analysis, and hybrid  poplar
cuttings moved from eighth in tolerance
by the first method to least tolerant by
the  second analysis. As a result  of both
methods of analysis, black gum, black
pine, and bayberry appeared to be most
tolerant, and hybrid poplar saplings.
green ash, and honey locust appeared
least tolerant of landfill conditions.
  A final way of assessing relative
tolerance to landfill conditions is to total
the rank values from the two methods of
analysis  (Table 4). Black gum appears
most  tolerant and Japanese yew is
second most tolerant of landfill condi-
tions. Japanese  yew appears to have
been  ranked  very tolerant because
growth on the control was inhibited by
"wet feet" conditions.
  In all the landfill tolerance lists, the
species were generally distributed in a
similar manner  throughout  tolerance
ranks: That is, those at the top of one list
generally appeared toward the top of the
other lists and vice versa.
  Stress on the intolerant trees provided
by  low  moisture, or  elevated carbon
dioxide and methane concentrations, or
both was reflected in greater variability
in growth on the landfill plot than on the
control.   Since tolerant species were
apparently  more capable than the
intolerant species of withstanding  the
low soil  moisture and elevated gas
levels of the  landfill  plot, the lower
variability among tolerant trees on  the
landfill comes as no surprise.
  From  the previous discussion, the
following questions must be answered
before plant material is selected: Should
the plant produce a  quick vegetative
Table 2.    Sum of Landfill Tolerance Ranks* for Shoot and Stem Measurements
           1976-1979
Species
Japanese yew
Japanese black pine
Black gum
Bayberry
Ginkgo
White pine
Norway spruce
Hybrid poplar (rooted cuttings)
American basswood
American sycamore
Red maple
Honey locust
Pin oak
Sweet gum
Green ash
Hybrid poplar (saplings)
Sum of
Tolerance
Rank Values*
37
42
45
45
46
49
50
50
54
60
60
72
77
83
87
102
Landfill
Tolerance
Rank
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
7
9
10
10
12
13
14
15
16
 *Each number is the sum of that species' rank in seven rank lists relative to the other
  species. The seven rank lists are the following: stem area increase measurements
  from 1977, 1978, and 1979, and shoot length measurements from 1976, 1977,
  1978, and 1979.
 *The lower the number, the more tolerant the species is to landfill conditions.

-------
Table3.    Average Factor Scores* for 16 Species from Landfill and Control Plot
           Data, 1976-1979
Species
Black gum
Japanese black pine
Bayberry
Ginkgo
White pine
American basswood
Norway spruce
Japanese yew
Sweet gum
American sycamore
Red maple
Pin oak
Hybrid poplar
(saplings)
Green ash
Honey locust
Hybrid poplar
(rooted cuttings)
Landfill
-0.02
-0.23
-0.65
-1.08
-0.61
-0.57
-0.57
-0.43
0.18
0.02
0.15
-0.22

0.12
-0.57
0.31

2.96
Control
-0.14
-0.28
-0.69
-1.11
-0.63
-0.54
-0.50
-0.36
0.31
0.17
0.53
0.36

0.71
0.30
1.33

4.04
Difference
(control-landfill)
-0.12
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.03
-0.07
-0.07
0.13
0.15
0.38
0.58$

0.59%
0.57$
1.02%

2.96%
Landfill
Tolerance
Rank*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15

16
 * Principal Axis Factor Method was used to calculate factor patterns and factor scores
  for shoot and stem data from 1976 through 1979.
 "The lower the number, the more tolerant the species is to landfill conditions.
 ^Significant @ P< 0.05.
cover? Must it grow in a manner similar
to trees on sites that are not landfilled?
Should it produce good shoot growth,
good stem area increase, or both?

Tolerance of Rapid Versus
Slow Growers
  Seven of the eight  most intolerant
species have  been classified as rapid
growers (Table 4); most of the tolerant
species are slow growers. Apparently,
those species with the capacity to grow
very-quickly cannot maintain this rapid
growth rate on  completed  landfills,
whereas species that naturally have a
slower growth rate can maintain a rate
on the landfill comparable with that on
the control. Since fast growing trees are
likely to withdraw more moisture from
the soil, they may-become subjected to
water stress more quickly than the slow
growers,  and irrigation may be  more
essential for their establishment. Thus
when growth  on the  landfill was
compared with growth on the control,
rapidly growing trees proved intolerant
of landfill conditions. But many of these
supposedly intolerant (based on landfill
growth compared with control growth)
rapid-growing species (hybrid poplar
rooted cuttings, honey locust, and
American sycamore) actually produced
more absolute vegetative growth on the
landfill than other so-called tolerant
species growing on the landfill.

Tolerance of Drought-Sensitive
and Flood-Tolerant Species
  The characteristic low-moisture-
holding capacity of landfill cover soils
was demonstrated on the experimental
landfill plot during the years 1977 and
1978. Species most likely to be affected
by water stress are those that naturally
grow in areas  associated with  a high
water table.  Five of the eight species
(green ash, honey locust, sweet gum,
pin oak, and red maple)  observed to be
landfill-stressed in these investigations
(Table 4) cannot  tolerate drought,
whereas only one of the eight tolerant
species is reported drought sensitive.
Several of these intolerant species
(green ash, red maple,  honey  locust)
may have proved to be landfill tolerant if
adequate amounts of water had been
provided.
  A reasonable assumption may be that
those species that can withstand periods
of flooding can also tolerate landfill
conditions, since both  environments
generally lack sufficient oxygen for
normal root respiration. But since  the
soil on the Edgeboro landfill was often
lacking in moisture, these species were
probably not afforded the opportunity to
exhibit their low-oxygen adaptability.
Thus their growth on the landfill was
much reduced  compared with the
control.

Effect of pH on  Tolerance
  Evidence exists to show that soil pH
may affect species tolerance to landfill
conditions. Stem area increase data
indicated that acid-loving plants (Japa-
nese black pine,  Norway spruce, black
gum, and bayberry) were more tolerant
of landfill soil with a low pH (4.5 as
opposed to 6.2). Shoot-length data,
however, showed no recognizable rela-
tionship between soil pH and landfill
tolerance. Stem area increase may thus
be a more sensitive indicator for the
tolerance of woody  species to landfill
conditions.

Effect of Soil Compaction on
Tolerance
  High soil bulkdensity isanotherfactor
that may have influenced the response
of a number of the test species to the soil
environment created on the landfill plot.
Optimum levels of soil bulk density for a
variety of crops vary between 1.3 and
1.5 g/cm3. Since bulk density on the
landfill plot during the current investiga-.
tions was 1.8 g/cm3, the lowered oxygen
content  of the soil may  have affected
some species.

Tolerance of Shallow-
Versus Deep-Rooted Species
  The species that adapted  to the
landfill  plot most quickly (Japanese
black pine, Norway  spruce) had shal-
lower and more extensive root systems
on the landfill than  did  the intolerant
species (honey locust, green ash, hybrid
poplar).  This study presents  evidence
that the root systems of these presently
intolerant species are making their way
toward  the soil  surface and may  in
several years be able to tolerate landfill
conditions. Their root  systems will
probably grow away from the high
carbon dioxide and methane concentra-
tions (and, consequently, low oxygen
concentrations) in the deeper soil strata,
and they will probably require extensive
irrigation to maintain growth comparable
with the control.

Root Adaptations
  The root adaptation mechanism  of
hybrid poplar associated with  landfill
tolerance appeared to be  different from
that of green ash. Deep poplar roots (30,
cm) grew toward the soil surface and]

-------
Table 4.    Relative Tolerance of 16 Species to Landfill Conditions*
                       Species
                  Sum of Landfill
               Tolerance Rank Values
 Black gum (4, 8f -R$
 Japanese yew (9, 4) -
 Japanese black pine (10, 9) -
 Ginkgo (7, 9) -S
 White pine (10. 10) -S
 Bayberry (9, 9) -
 Norway spruce (8, 8) -S
 American basswood (9, 10) -S
 American sycamore (10, 10) -R
 Red maple (9,  10) -I
 Hybrid poplar (rooted cuttings) (10, 5) -R
 Pin oak (9, 10) -R
 Sweet gum (1, 6) -R
 Honey locust (10,  10) -R
 Green ash (10, 10) -R
 Hybrid poplar (saplings) (2, 7) -R
                        10
                        13
                        14
                        17
                        21
                        23
                        26
                        31
                        34
                        41
                        44
                        48
                        51
                        52
                        59
                        60
  *Tolerance was established by totaling the landfill tolerance rank values for each
  species from Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11.
  ^Number of replicates living on the landfill and control plots respectively at the end of
  1979.
  \R=rapid growth rate, ^intermediate growth rate, S=slow growth rate, N=data not
  available - from Powells (1965).
proliferated there, whereas ash roots at
the same depth did not extend to the soil
surface. Instead, a shallow root system
was provided for by roots that sprouted
from the root collar 2 cm below the soil
surface. The ash roots proliferated at
this depth, resulting  in a shallow root
system.
  American basswoods suffered  a
decrease  in  total  root  length and  a
reduction in the depth of maximum root
penetration when levels of soil carbon
dioxide and methane were  high and
oxygen concentrations were low. This
result  indicates that at least  1 in. of
irrigation  per week is needed on
completed  landfills to  maintain  good
tree growth. Though American bass-
wood  roots  did  not maintain  good
growth when landfill gas concentrations
were high, moderate gas concentrations
permitted roots to grow toward the soil
surface and avoid the contaminated soil
environment below.

Tolerance of Small Versus
Large Trees
  Small trees(30 to 60cm tall)appearto
be more adaptable to landfills than large
trees (3 to 4 m tall). Shoot growth for
small trees of four (pin oak, green ash,
sugar maple, hybrid poplar) out of five
species tested was  as good  on the
 andfill as  on the control,  but shoot
growth on the large specimens (saplings)
was significantly lower (P <0.10) on the
landfill.

Tolerance of Balled and
Burlapped Versus Bare-
Hooted Material
  Another practice involving root char-
acteristics that may help trees adapt to
stressed environments is the use of
balled and burlapped material  rather
than bare-rooted stock. In this investi-
gation with  a single species (sugar
maple),  balled and burlapped trees
produced longer shoots and greater leaf
volume than  bare-rooted trees on the
landfill plot, but not on the control plot.
Obviously there was some advantage in
having a less pruned root stock.  Better
mycorrhizae inoculum may also have
existed in the soil ball. Whether this is a
characteristic of one species or many
remains to be determined.

Tolerance of Irrigated Versus
Nonirrigated Plants
  Sugar maple was used to assess the
value of supplemental irrigation in
adapting trees to landfill  cover soils.
This species generally grew better in the
control soil, with its higher moisture and
oxygen and lower carbon dioxide, than
in the landfill. Irrigated maples produced
significantly more (P < 0.01) leaf tissue
than nonirrigated trees on the landfill,
but not on the control plot during 1978
and 1979. Shoot length was enhanced
by  irrigation  in both plots,  but the
increase was not  statistically signifi-
cant. Possibly the failure of irrigation to
stimulate growth in the control plot was
a result of the sufficient rainfall that
occurred during the growing season;
thus moisture was not a limiting factor
for growth of sugar maple on the control
as it was on the landfill.
  Decreased height of sugar maples on
the  landfill  plot  was   undoubtedly
because of the combined effects of low
soil  moisture, slightly  elevated soil
carbon dioxide, and depressed oxygen
concentration. Also, the elevated carbon
dioxide  levels may have caused the
production of a shallower root system
on the landfill than on the control and
may therefore have predisposed the
maples to drought damage. Gingrich
and Russell  (1957) report that oxygen
and moisture content interact so that at
high oxygen concentrations, low mois-
ture content  has a  more deleterious
effect  on corn growth  than at low
oxygen contents.  Since the oxygen
concentration  in the landfill soil  was
only slightly depressed, low soil moisture
could have had a strong effect on maple
development.
  Arthur (1978) observed an increase in
stomatal resistance and hence reduced
transpiration of sugar maples after
several days of exposure to simulated
landfill gas mixtures. A similar effect
was observed in sugar maples growing
in the landfill plot. Elevated soil carbon
dioxide concentrations  (7.8%)  in the
nonirrigated  portion of the landfill
caused significantly increased stomatal
resistance in the sugar maples from late
morning until early evening over that of
the trees located on the landfill where
carbon dioxide averaged 2.8%. Irrigation
throughout the growing season did not
significantly reduce the stomatal resist-
ance below that of  the nonirrigated
area.
  Air temperature, relative humidity,
and other meteorological parameters
are also known to  affect stomatal
aperture. But the effects of an adverse
gas environment and  reduced moisture
content on stomatal aperture in the
landfill plot  apparently  overrode the
recognized effects of temperature,
humidity, and wind.

Gas Barrier Experiment
  Landfill gases (primarily carbon diox-
ide  and methane) must  be  kept away

-------
from the root system of trees and shrubs
to promote good vegetation growth. Five
gas barrier  systems were tested, and
three proved to be effective: (a) a soil
trench underlaid with plastic sheeting
over gravel and vented by means  of
vertical PVC pipes, (b) a 0.9-m mound of
soil underlaid with 30 cm of clay, and (c)
a 0.9-m soil mound with no clay barrier.
Concentrations  of  carbon  dioxide,
oxygen, and methane in the two mounds
and in the trench were similar to those
in the control plots, thus indicating that
these gas barrier techniques are suitable
for application in  landfill  vegetation
projects.
  Evaluations were made of the effects
of varied soil environments on American
basswood growth  and on the  total
nutrients they accumulated in each gas
barrier test area. American  basswoods
growing in 0.9-m (36-in.) soil mounds
(either unlined or lined with a 30-cm
(12-in.) clay  barrier) and in the gravel/
plastic/vents trench generally produced
more stem and shoot growth than trees
in unmodified landfill soil. The other two
gas barrier  trench systems did  not
promote  better tree  growth than the
unmodified landfill areas. Basswoods  in
the gravel/plastic/vents trench and  in
the clay-lined mound accumulated
more of eight plant nutrients (nitrogen,
potassium, magnesium, calcium, man-
ganese, iron, zinc, and copper) than did
the trees in the  unmodified landfill
screening area.

Conclusions
1. Woody species differ in their adapta-
   bility to landfill soil.
2. Slow-growing trees appear to be
   better adapted to landfill  conditions
   than rapid-growing trees.
3. Trees and shrubs planted as small
   specimens appear to  be  better
   adapted to  landfill  conditions than
   large specimens.
4. Species with a natural propensityfor
   producing shallow  roots  are better
   suited for landfill vegetation projects
   than naturally deeper-rooted species.
5. Species reportedly tolerant  to  low
   oxygen environments will not grow
   well on landfills unless they  are
   irrigated very thoroughly.
6. Balled and burlapped plant material
   appears to  be better adapted than
   bare-rooted material to landfill soil.
7. Landfill gases (primarily carbon
   dioxide and methane) must be kept
   away from the root system of trees
   and shrubs to promote good vegeta-
   tion growth. Two types of methods
   shown to be effective are (a) a mound
   of  soil (0.9 m)  over existing cover
   (with or without a clay liner), and (b) a
   lined  and  vented  trench backfilled
   with suitable soil.
  The  full report  was submitted in
fulfillment of Contract No. R-805907-
01  by Rutgers University under the
sponsorship of the  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

References
Arthur,  J.J. The Effect of Simulated
  Sanitary Landfill Generated Gas Con-
  tamination of the Root Zone of Tomato
  Plants  and Two  Maple Species.
  Masters Thesis,  Rutgers University,
  N.J. 1978.
Flower, F.B., I.A. Leone, E.F. Gilmanand
  J.J. Arthur. A Study of Vegetation
  Problems Associated with Refuse
  Landfills. EPA-600/2-78-094. U.S.
  Environmental  Protection Agency,
  Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
Powells,  H.A.  Silvics of Forest Trees
  of the United States. USDA Handbook
  No. 271. U.S. Department of Agricul-
  ture, Washington, D.C. 762 pp. 1965.
Gilman, E.F. Screening of Woody Species
  and Planting Techniques for Suitabil-
  ity in Vegetating  Completed Sanitary
  Refuse Landfills. M.S. Thesis, Rutgers
  University, N.J. 130 pp.,  1978.
Gilman, E.F., I.A. Leone and F.B. Flower.
  Determining the Adaptability of Woody
  Species for Vegetating Completed
  Refuse  Landfill  Sites.  For. Sci.  (in
  press). 1980.
Gingrich, J.R.  and  M.B.  Russell.  A
  Comparison of Effects of Soil Mois-
  ture Tension and Osmotic Stress on
  Root Growth. Soil  Science. 84:185-
  194, 1957.
   Edward F. Gilman, Ida A. Leone, and Franklin B. Flower are with Cook College,
     Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.
   Robert E. Landreth is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
   The complete report, entitled "Critical Factors Controlling Vegetation Growth
     on Completed Sanitary Landfills," (Order No. PB 81-246 324; Cost: $17.00,
     subject to change) will be available only from:
          National Technical Information Service
          5285 Port Royal Road
          Springfield. VA22161
          Telephone: 703-487-4650
   The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
          Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Cincinnati, OH 45268
                                                                          •ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1981 - 757-012/7351

-------
United States                      Center for Environmental Research                               cfflfp! H
Environmental Protection             Information                                                C   aia
Agency                          Cincinnati OH 45268
                                                                                      Agency
                                                                                      EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
                                                                                      Third-Class
                                                                                      Bulk Rate


      MESL0063240
   •  LOU  N TILLEY
      REGION  V £PA
      LIBRARIAN
      230  S DEARBORN  ST
      CHICAGO IL 60604

-------