Cited by 493Heavy metals in environmentHeavy Metals in PlantsHeavy Metal Pollution Remediation

Strategies of heavy metal uptake by three plant species growing near a metal smelter

Dahmani-Muller, H, van Oort, F, Gélie, B, Balabane, M·2000·Environmental Pollution

Abstract

Some higher plant species have developed heavy metal tolerance strategies which enable them to survive and reproduce in highly metal-contaminated soils. We have investigated such heavy metal uptake and accumulation strategies of two absolute metallophyte species (Armeria maritima ssp. halleri and Cardaminopsis halleri) and one pseudometallophyte (Agrostis tenuis) growing near a former metal smelter. Samples of plant parts and soil were analysed for Zn, Cd, Pb, and Cu. In soil, there were two dominant types of metal concentration gradients with depth. Under the absolute metallophytes, extremely high metal contents were measured in the surficial Ah horizon, followed by a strong decrease in the underlying soil horizons (L(11) and L(12)). Under the pseudometallophyte, metal concentrations in the Ah horizon were much lower and fewer differences were observed in metal concentrations among the Ah, L(11), and L(12) horizons. The concentrations of Zn, Cd, Pb, and Cu in Agrostis tenuis roots were greater than concentrations in leaves, indicating significant metal immobilisation by the roots. For C. halleri, Zn and Cd concentrations in leaves were >20,000 and >100 mg kg(-1), respectively, indicating hyperaccumulation of these elements. Armeria maritima ssp. halleri exhibited root concentrations of Pb and Cu that were 20 and 88 times greater, respectively, than those in green leaves, suggesting an exclusion strategy by metal immobilisation in roots. However, Zn, Cd, Pb, and Cu concentrations in brown leaves of Armeria maritima ssp. halleri were 3-8 times greater than in green leaves, suggesting a second strategy, i.e. detoxification mechanism by leaf fall.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0269-7491(99)00262-6

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 493

Authors
Dahmani-Muller, H., van Oort, F., Gélie, B., & Balabane, M.
Affiliations
Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
Venue
Environmental Pollution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-08
Volume
109
Issue
2
Pages
231-238
ISSN
0269-7491 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018257811
Cited by
493
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 24
FWCI
14.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Pollution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Heavy Metals in Plants
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Heavy Metal Pollution Remediation
Keywords
heavy metal uptake, metallophytes, metal hyperaccumulation, Agrostis capillaris, metal exclusion, zinc, cadmium, lead, copper, metal-contaminated soil

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review