Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 263–275 | Cite as

Environmental variation between habitats and uptake of heavy metals by Urtica dioica

  • M. L. Otte
  • A. H. B. M. Wijte


The observation from previous surveys, that Urtica dioica plants that had grown in metal contaminated soil in the floodplains of the former Rhine estuary in different habitats, but at comparable total soil metal concentrations, showed significant differences in tissue metal concentrations, led to the hypothesis that variation in other environmental characteristics than soil composition and chemical speciation of metals between habitats is also important in determining uptake and translocation of metals in plants. A field survey indicated that differences in root Cd, Cu and Zn concentrations might partly be explained by variation in speciation of metals in different habitats. However, shoot concentrations showed a different pattern that did not relate to variation in soil metal concentrations. In a habitat experiment Urtica dioica plants were grown in artificially contaminated soil in pots that were placed in the four habitats (grassland, pure reed, mixed reed, osier bed) that were also included in the field survey. After seven weeks the plants showed significant differences in Cu and Zn concentrations in roots and aboveground plant parts and in distribution of the metals in the plants between habitats. It was concluded that variation between habitats in environmental characteristics other than soil composition can explain as much variation in plants as can variation in soil metal concentrations and/or speciation. The implications for assessment of soil metal contamination and uptake by plants are discussed.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barkman, J.J. and Stoutjesdijk, Ph.: 1987, Microklimaat, Vegetatie en Fauna, Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  2. Baumeister, W. and Ernst, W.H.O.: 1978, Mineralstoffe und Pflanzenwachstum, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, P.G.C., Lewis, A.G., Chapman, P.M., Crowder, A.A., Fletcher, W.K., Imber, B., Luoma, S.N., Stokes, P.M., and Winfrey, M.: 1988, ‘Biologically Available Metals in Sediments’, Associate committee on scientific criteria for environmental quality, National Research Council Canada, NRCC, No. 77694.Google Scholar
  4. De Vries, M.P.C. and Tiller, K.G.: 1978, ‘Sewage Sludge As a Soil Amendment, With Special Reference to Cd, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn. Comparison of Results from Experiments Conducted inside and outside a Glasshouse’, Environ. Pollut. 16, 231–240.Google Scholar
  5. Dirksz, P.W., Otte, M.L., and Palsma, A.J.: 1990, Onderzoek Ruimtelijke Verspreiding en Gedrag van Microverontreinigingen in de Biesbosch. Research report for the Dutch Waterways Authorities (Rijkswaterstaat, directie Zuid-Holland). Dept. of Physical Geography and Soil Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam/Dept. of Ecology and Ecotoxicology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam/Dept. of Geochemistry, State University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Duvigneaud, P. and Denaeyer-De Smet, S.: 1970, ‘Biological Cycling of Minerals in Temperate Deciduous Forests’, in: Reichle, D.E. (ed.), Analysis of Temperature Forest Ecosystems, Ecological Studies 1, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 199–225.Google Scholar
  7. Ernst, W.H.O.: 1990, ‘Element Allocation and (Re)translocation in Plants and Its Impact on Representative Sampling’, in: Lieth, H. and Markert, B. (eds.), Element Concentration Cadasters in Ecosystems, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim, pp. 17–40.Google Scholar
  8. Greig-Smith, P.: 1948, ‘Urtica dioica L.’, J. Ecol. 36, 339–355.Google Scholar
  9. Hempfling, R., Teckelmann, M., and Zucker, A.: 1988, ‘Zur Stickstoffernährung von Urtica dioica L. auf Böden unterschiedlichen Wasserhaushaltes’, Flora 181, 371–377.Google Scholar
  10. Hofstra, R., Lanting, L., and De Visser, R.: 1985, ‘Metabolism of Urtica dioica as Dependent on the Supply of Mineral Nutrients’, Physiol. Plant. 63, 13–18.Google Scholar
  11. Juste, C.: 1988, ‘Appreciation de la Mobilité et de la Biodisponibilité des Elements en Traces du Sol’, Sci. Sol 26, 103–112.Google Scholar
  12. Kuiters, L.: 1987, Phenolic Acids and Plant Growth in Forest Ecosystems, Ph.D. thesis. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Kuiters, A.T. and Mulder, W.: 1989, ‘Metal Complexation by Water-Soluble Organic Substances in Forest Soils’, Proc. Second Int. Symp. on Metals Speciation, Separation and Recovery, Rome. Water Research Institute, National Research Council, Rome, Italy/Industrial Waste Elimination Research Center, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Larcher, W.: 1983, Physiological Plant Ecology, 2nd ed. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  15. Liddle, M.L. and Chitty, L.D.: 1981, ‘The Nutrient-Budget of Horse Tracks on an English Lowland Heath’, J. Appl. Ecol. 18, 841–848.Google Scholar
  16. Marschner, H.: 1988, Mineral Nutrition in Higher Plants, 3rd edition. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  17. Martin, M.H. and Coughtrey, P.J.: 1982, Biological Monitoring of Heavy Metal Pollution: Land and Air, Applied Science Publishers, London/New York.Google Scholar
  18. Merry, R.H., Tiller, K.G., and Alston, A.M.: 1986, ‘The Effects of Contamination with Copper, Lead and Arsenic on the Growth and Composition of Plants. I: Effect of Season, Genotype, Soil Temperature and Fertilizers’, Plant Soil 91, 115–128.Google Scholar
  19. Nassery, H.: 1970, ‘Phosphate Absorption by Plants from Habitats of Different Phosphate Status. II Absorbtion and Incorporation of Phosphate by Intact Plants’, New Phytol. 69, 197–203.Google Scholar
  20. Nassery, H. and Harley, J.L.: 1969, ‘Phosphate Absorption by Plants from Habitats of Different Phosphate Status: I Absorption and Incorporation of Phosphate by Excised Roots’, New Phytol. 68, 13–20.Google Scholar
  21. Otte, M.L.: 1991, Heavy Metals and Arsenic in Vegetation of Salt Marshes and Floodplains, Ph.D. Thesis. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. Otte, M.L., Bestebroer, S.J., Van der Linden, J.M., Rozema, J., and Broekman, R.A.: 1991, ‘A Survey of Zinc, Copper and Cadmium Concentrations in Salt Marsh Plants Along the Dutch Coast’, Environ. Pollut. 72, 175–189.Google Scholar
  23. Otte, M.L., Haarsma, M.S., Broekman, R.A., and Rozema, J.: 1993, ‘Relation Between Heavy Metal Concentrations in Salt Marsh Plants and Soil’, Environ. Pollut. 82, in press.Google Scholar
  24. Otte, M.L., Rozema, J., Koster, L., Haarsma, M.S., and Broekman, R.A.: 1989, ‘Iron Plaque on Roots of Aster tripolium L.: Interaction with Zinc Uptake’, New Phytol. 111, 309–317.Google Scholar
  25. Otte, M.L., Rozema, J., Beek, M.A., Kater, B.J., and Broekman, R.A.: 1990, ‘Uptake of Arsenic by Estuarine Plants and Interactions with Phosphate, in the Field (Rhine estuary) and under Outdoor Experimental Conditions’, Sci. Total Environ. 97/98, 879–854.Google Scholar
  26. Pigott, C.D.: 1971, ‘Analysis of the Response of U. dioica to Phosphate’, New Phytol. 70, 953–966.Google Scholar
  27. Pigott, C.D. and Taylor, K.: 1964, ‘The Distribution of Some Woodland Herbs in Relation to the Supply of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Soil’, J. Ecol. 52 (Suppl.), 175–185.Google Scholar
  28. Popova, I.A., Maslova, T.G., Popova, O.F., Miroslavor, E.A., and Tsarkova, V.A.: 1982, ‘Some Properties of the Photosynthetic Apparatus in the Great Nettle (Urtica dioica) Growing under Various Light-Conditions’, Fiziologiya Rastenii (Moscow) 29, 1102–1108.Google Scholar
  29. Reif, A., Teckelman, M., and Schulze, E.-D.: 1985, ‘Die Standortamplitude der Großen Brennessel (Urtica dioica) — eine Auswertung vegetationskundlicher Aufnahmen auf der Grundlage der Ellenbergschen Zeigerwerte’, Flora 176, 365–382.Google Scholar
  30. Rosnitschek-Schimmel, I.: 1982, ‘Effect of Ammonium and Nitrate Supply on Dry Matter Production and Nitrogen Distribution in Urtica dioica’, Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 108, 329–341.Google Scholar
  31. Rosnitschek-Schimmel, I.: 1985, ‘Seasonal Dynamics of Nitrogenous Compounds in a Nitrophilic Weed. I. Changes in Inorganic and Organic Nitrogen Fractions of the Different Plant Parts of Urtica dioica’, Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 108, 329–341.Google Scholar
  32. Salomons, W. and Förstner, U.: 1984, Metals in the Hydrocycle, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  33. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J.: 1981, Biometry, 2nd edition, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Fransisco.Google Scholar
  34. Stephanson, R.C. and Collis-George, N.: 1974, ‘The Importance of Environmental Factors in Soil Fertility Assessment II. Nutrient Concentration and Uptake’, Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25, 309–316.Google Scholar
  35. Swift, M.J., Heal, O.W., and Anderson, J.M.: 1979, Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems, Studies in Ecology, Vol. 5, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, London, Edinbugh, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  36. Tessier, A., Campbell, P.G.C., and Bisson, M.: 1979, ‘Sequential Extraction Procedure of the Speciation of Particulate Trace Metals’, Anal. Chem. 51, 844–851.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. L. Otte
    • 1
  • A. H. B. M. Wijte
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology & EcotoxicologyVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations