<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJE</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Ecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-1985</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/oje.2020.102004</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJE-98381</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Phytoremediation Potential of Indigenous Plants Growing at Nchanga Mine in Chingola, Zambia
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lupupa</surname><given-names>Kachenga</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Harry</surname><given-names>Nixon Chabwela</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kasuka</surname><given-names>Mwauluka</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Biological Sciences, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>17</day><month>02</month><year>2020</year></pub-date><volume>10</volume><issue>02</issue><fpage>45</fpage><lpage>61</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>30,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2019</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>17,</day>	<month>February</month>	<year>2020</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>20,</day>	<month>February</month>	<year>2020</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Mining and smelting processes are among the key sources of soil contamination by heavy metals resulting in dramatic disturbances and loss of biodiversity. Native plants growing naturally in hostile mining environments can be used for management, decontamination and possible rehabilitation of polluted soils. These plants are either excluders or accumulators based on their Bioaccumulation Factors (BAF). This, therefore requires identification of native plants that are able to accumulate heavy metals in their plant tissues at concentrations higher than that in the soil in which they are growing. This study investigated the phytoremediation potential of indigenous plants growing at the tailings dams of Nchanga Mine in Chingola, Zambia. TD4 and a site 50 m away from TD4 were sampled as Sampling Areas One (1) and Two (2), respectively. TD4 was divided into four quadrants and three plots from each quadrant were randomly sampled. Three plots from each of the two quadrants from Sampling Area Two were also sampled. Composite soil samples were collected from the plots and a total of 175 individuals of 16 grass and herbaceous plant species were collected and analysed. Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry was used to determine the concentrations of Copper (Cu) and Zinc (Zn) in the soils and plant specimens. The findings of the study showed that the concentrations of Cu and Zn in the soil ranged from 891.41 mg/kg to 15,617.47 mg/kg and 20.73 mg/kg to 96.85 mg/kg, respectively. 
  <em>Arthraxonquartinianus</em> had the highest concentration of Cu (1016.8 mg/kg) while 
  <em>Cyperusrotundus</em> had the lowest (29.35 mg/kg). 
  <em>Arthraxonquartinianus</em> had the highest concentration of Zn (192.8 mg/kg) and 
  <em>Crinum</em> had the lowest (28.24 mg/kg). BAF values for Cu were less than 1 in all the plants and BAF values for Zn were highest in 
  <em>Arthraxonquartinianus</em> (10.77) with 
  <em>Crinum</em> having the lowest BAF of 0.01. The Bioaccumulation Factors indicated that all the plant species studied are Cu excluders; and with the exception of 
  <em>Crinum</em>, all were Zn accumulators and 
  <em>Arthraxonquartinianus</em>, a hyperaccumulator of Zn.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Accumulators</kwd><kwd> Excluders</kwd><kwd> Indigenous Plants</kwd><kwd> Phytoremediation</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The mining industry is the backbone of Zambia’s economy making up 80% of foreign earnings [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref1">1</xref>]. A large proportion of the world’s minerals come from developing countries such as Brazil, China, including Zambia. However, mining is one of the anthropogenic activities causing some of the most dramatic disturbances on biodiversity, water quality, and land use [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref2">2</xref>]. Increased mining activity increases the amount of degraded land. The degraded land includes bare stripped areas, loose soil piles, waste rock and overburden surfaces and subsided land areas. Surface mining or open pit mining causes up to 11 times more land destruction compared to underground mining; fertile land is transferred into wasteland or bog and local status of water and landscape deteriorates with some ecosystems being entirely destroyed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref4">4</xref>].</p><p>Mining and smelting processes are among the key sources of heavy metal contamination of soil and water [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref5">5</xref>]. Although many metals are essential, all metals are toxic at a high concentration due to the oxidative stress that they cause by formation of free radicals, as well as disrupting the function of pigments and enzymes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref6">6</xref>]. As a result, soil contaminated with heavy metals is rendered unsuitable for plant growth, thereby resulting in the loss of biodiversity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref7">7</xref>].</p><p>In the recent past, there has been increasing concern for the environment and as such, post-mining reclamation of degraded land should be an integral feature of the mining spectrum [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref2">2</xref>]. Reclamation is the process by which highly degraded land is returned to productivity and some measure of biotic function and productivity is restored [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref8">8</xref>]. There are a number of methods that have been used to cope with the soil pollution of degraded lands. Current techniques include excavation, chemical stabilization, soil washing or soil flushing [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref9">9</xref>], but these methods are sophisticated techniques and are suitable for relatively small soil volumes at sites that require immediate action [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref9">9</xref>]. They are costly, time consuming and sometimes environmentally destructive rendering the soil unusable after treatment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref11">11</xref>].</p><p>In recent years, there are cost effective technologies that have been generated by scientists and engineers. These include the use of microorganisms/biomass or live plants to clean up the polluted areas and phytoremediation.</p><p>Phytoremediation is an emerging cost effective technology that has aesthetic advantages and long term applicability [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref13">13</xref>]. Phytoremediation is an integrated multidisciplinary approach and involves the efficient use of plants to eliminate, detoxify or immobilize environmental contaminants that are present in a growth matrix such as soil, water or sediments, through the natural, biological, chemical or physical processes of the plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref12">12</xref>]. The vegetation is capable of improving the nutrient conditions of the soil thereby setting the base for establishment of self-sustaining vegetation cover [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref14">14</xref>].</p><p>Metal tolerant plants are able to grow in contaminated soils as they have evolved mechanisms to minimize the effects of exposure to heavy metals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref15">15</xref>]. Plants that are able to take up heavy metals to a greater concentration than that in the soil in which it is growing are called Hyperaccumulator plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref17">17</xref>]. Hyperaccumulators that grow in polluted areas can accumulate large concentrations of heavy metals in their shoots; consequently, the removal of metals from the soil can be enhanced considerably by the judicious selection of plant species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref18">18</xref>]. Some plants are excluders, meaning, they restrict the transport of heavy metals to the shoot and maintain relatively low concentrations of heavy metals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref15">15</xref>]. Therefore, it is important to search for plants that spontaneously colonize these disturbed sites [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref9">9</xref>]. Research has shown that native plants growing naturally in hostile mining environments are potential phytoremediators and can be used to rehabilitate the disturbed sites [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref19">19</xref>]. Identification of indigenous hyperaccumulator plants is therefore imperative for the successful implementation of phytoremediation for mine reclamation mainly because native plant species require less management and they are acclimatized to the native climatic conditions and seasonal cycle [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref22">22</xref>].</p><p>Most Cu and Zn hyperaccumulator plants that have been identified are specific to Europe, Asia, the USA, and other African Countries like Congo DR and Zimbabwe. However, few species of Zambian native vegetation have been identified, namely, Cheilanthesperlanata, Eragrostisracemosa, Bulbostylispseudoperennis, Aspilia ciliate, Conyzacordat, Persicariapuncataand Persicariacapitata [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref24">24</xref>].</p><p>The general objective of this study was to assess the phytoremediation potential of indigenous plants growing at the Nchanga Mine Tailings in Chingola, Zambia.</p><p>The hypotheses being tested in the study were: that the plants growing at the study site at Nchanga Mine had no potential for phytoremediation of Cu and Zn and that there was no relationship between the concentrations of Cu and Zn in the soil and in the plant species growing at the study site.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Area</title><p>The study was conducted at Nchanga Mine in Chingola. Chingola is a town in the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. It is situated at an elevation of 1340 meters above sea level on the Central African Plateau, 12˚30'S latitude, 27˚50'E Longitude [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref25">25</xref>]. Nchanga Mine which has the largest Open Pit Mine in Africa is operated by Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) Plc. The mine workings lie in an arc which is 11 km long around the west and north of the town (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>), covering nearly 30 km<sup>2</sup> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref26">26</xref>], as such, the extent of the land degradation and soil contamination by heavy metals is of serious concern.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Sampling and Analysis</title><sec id="s2_2_1"><title>2.2.1. Plant and Soil Sampling</title><p>A stratified random sampling approach was used. Two sampling areas were established; one at the Tailings Dam four (TD4) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>) as sampling Area one (01) and the other covering the immediate vicinity of the tailings impoundment which served as the control site. Each sampling area was divided into four quadrats using a compass. In each quadrat, nine (9) 10 m &#215; 10 m plots were established and three were randomly picked and sampled.</p><p>For each plant species present in each plot, at least three individuals were collected. The plant specimens were tagged, put in a polythene bag and placed in a cooler box. The plant specimens were identified using taxonomic keys and unidentified specimens were pressed and identified using voucher specimen in the University of Zambia Herbarium.</p><p>A soil probe was used to collect soil samples at depths of 15 - 20 cm. Three soil samples were collected in each plot at different points. A composite sample from each plot was then obtained by mixing the three samples well. The composite samples were placed in labelled polythene bags and stored in airtight containers.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2_2"><title>2.2.2. Plant Diversity Study</title><p>A line transect was laid in each quadrat, running north to south. A square 1 m &#215; 1 m grid was used to record the plant species present and the number of individuals. The grid was placed along the transect every two meters and the species present in the grid were recorded.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2_3"><title>2.2.3. Quantitative Analysis</title><p>The important quantitative analysis such as density, frequency, and abundance</p><p>of the herbs and grass species were determined according to Curtis and McIntosh [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref27">27</xref>]. The Species richness was calculated using the method “Margalef’s index of richness” D<sub>mg</sub> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref28">28</xref>]. The species diversity was computed using the Shannon-Wiener Index (H’) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref28">28</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s2_2_4"><title>2.2.4. Chemical Analysis of the Soil Samples</title><p>The soil samples were air dried in the laboratory at room temperature by spreading them out on transparent plastic for seven days. The samples were then passed through a 2 mm sieve and ashed in porclain crucibles in a furnace at 450˚C for three hours. Acids used in the extraction of the heavy metals were all Analytical Grade. One gram of each of the soil samples was placed in a 200 mL conical flask, to which 0.2 mL of sulfuric acid. 1 mL Nitric acid and 5 mL of perchloric acid were added too. The mixture was then placed on a hotplate and heated to 180˚C for 15 minutes. The mixture was allowed to cool and then filtered through Whatman No. 42 filter paper into 100 mL volumetric flasks. Distilled water was added to the mark. The filtrate was then transferred to 100 mL plastic bottles.</p><p>The concentrations of the Cu and Zn were determined using an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS), Analyst<sup>TM</sup> 900 (Perkin Elmer Instrument, USA) with an acetylene flame. The concentration of the heavy metals were calculated in mg/kg dry weight.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2_5"><title>2.2.5. Chemical Analysis of the Plant Samples</title><p>Plant samples were dusted with a light brush and then dried at room temperature in the laboratory for one week. They were then placed in an electric steel oven for at least three hours at 110˚C before being ground using a steel grinding mill. 3 g of each of the ground and dried samples were then ashed in a controllable muffle furnace at 450˚C. the resulting ash was dissolved in 20 ml of 1 M analytical grade nitric acid and the solution was evaporated to near dryness. The samples were then filtered through ashless Whatman filter paper into 100 cm<sup>3</sup> volumetric flasks. The residue on the filter paper was washed several times with distilled deionised water. The resulting filtrate was diluted to the mark using distilled deionised water. The concentrations of Cu and Zn were then determined using an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer, as in the soil samples above.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2_6"><title>2.2.6. Analysis of Phytoremediation Potential</title><p>The phytoremediation potential was assessed by calculating the bioaccumulation factor (BAF).</p><p>BAF   shoot = ( c shoot ) / ( c soil )</p><p>where <sub>C</sub>shoot is the metal concentration in the shoots and c soil is the metal concentration in the soil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref29">29</xref>].</p><p>Plants that have a BAF shoot value greater than one are accumulators, whereas, plants that have BAF shoot values less than one are considered excluders [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref29">29</xref>].</p></sec></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussion</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Concentrations of Cu (mg/kg) and Zn (mg/kg) in the Soil</title><p>The study site was characterized by high concentrations of Cu and Zn as was expected, considering the fact that the study site was located in the mine area, and at an old tailings dump to be precise. The Cu and Zn concentrations in the soil ranged from 2342.04 mg/kg to 12,024.49 mg/kg and 24.22 mg/kg to 67.99 mg/kg respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>1</xref>). The quadrats in TD4 had some of the highest values, compared to quadrats in the control site, 50 m away from TD4. The results showed that the soil had very high concentrations of Cu, much higher than the threshold value of 20 mg/kg according to WHO [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref30">30</xref>] and 130 mg/kg, according to ICRCL [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref31">31</xref>]. The concentrations of Zn were higher than the permissible values of 40 mg/kg according to WHO [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref30">30</xref>], but below the threshold value of 300 mg/kg according to ICRCL [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref31">31</xref>].</p><p>Soils from S1 had the highest concentration of Cu (12, 024.49 mg/kg), followed by W1 (5700.45 mg/kg) and N1 (5364.67 mg/kg). With regards to Zn, S1 had the highest concentration (67.99 mg/kg) followed by N1 (34.05 mg/kg) and E1 (32.44 mg/kg). The difference in the concentrations of Cu and Zn in the quadrats in TD4 can be attributed to the direction of flow of the tailings discharged into the tailings dump. The flow is from north to south, with the most tailings settling on the southern part of the tailings dump. The dump is in such a way that it slants to the south. The high concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the tailings dump, 50 m away had Zn and Cu concentrations which were ranging from 2343.04 mg/kg to 4381.25 mg/kg, which however, lower than TD4, are still higher than recommended values. This may be due to waste rock, leachate from mine tailings and deposition of wind-blown particulates from piles [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref32">32</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Concentrations of Cu and Zn in the Plants Growing at TD4</title><p>A total of 175 individuals of 16 plant species were collected and analyzed for heavy metals. According to WHO [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref30">30</xref>], the maximum acceptable values of Cu and Zn in plants is 10 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg, respectively. The Zn content of plants in this study was ranging from 26.47 mg/kg to 174.32 mg/kg, with</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>1</xref></label><caption><title> Mean concentrations of Cu and Zn in the soil cover and Tailings at TD4 and the site 50 m away from TD4</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="2"  >Sampling Area</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Cu mg/kg</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Zn mg/kg</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Median</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Range</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Median</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Range</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >TD4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5364.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >349.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6042.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1042.06 - 6720.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.58 - 37.94</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4943.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >153.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4737.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3857.34 - 6023.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.59 - 36.34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12024.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >455.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12397.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8925.36 - 15,617.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.91 - 96.85</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >W1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5700.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5857.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5196.85 - 6214.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.84 - 33.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Site 50 m away from TD4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2342.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >401.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1813.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >891.41 - 5112.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.73 - 29.99</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >W2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4381.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >350.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3900.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2403.52 - 6251.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.99 - 30.84</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Digitariaeriantha, cornyzacordata and Arthraxonquartinianus having higher values. Plant species with some of the high values of Cu concentration recorded included Arthraxonquartinianus (1016.8 mg/kg), Digitariaeriantha (1282.2 mg/kg) and Vernonia (588 mg/kg) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>2</xref>). Cu content in plants was lowest in Cyperusrotundus (20.99 mg/kg) and Crinum (50.2 mg/kg). The concentration of Zinc in the plants (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>3</xref>) was mostly above the recommended values according to WHO [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref30">30</xref>], but below the threshold value of 300 mg/kg according to ICRCL [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref31">31</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Correlation between Soil Metal Concentration and Plant Metal Concentration</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>4</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>5</xref> show the correlation coefficient between soil Cu and Zn concentration and the concentration of Zn and Cu in the plant species. The correlation between Cu concentration in the soil and Cu concentration in the plant species is 0.376, whereas, the correlation between concentration of Zn in the soil and concentration of Zn in the plant species is 0.359. The correlation coefficient is weak, but positive. This shows that there is a positive relationship between the concentration of Cu and Zn in the soil and Cu and Zn concentrations in the plants.</p><p>This weak positive correlation indicates that the concentration of the heavy metals in the plants is weakly correlated to the concentration of the heavy metals in the soil. It is thus expected that when the concentration of the heavy metals in</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>2</xref></label><caption><title> Mean concentrations of Cu (mg/kg) in the plant species in the sampling sites</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Species</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >N1</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >N2</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >E1</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S1</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >W1</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >W2</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crinum L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anthephora Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >132.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >139.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >360.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Digitariaeriantha Stued.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >135.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >144.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1282.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >578.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >450.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >449</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >118.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >112.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >213.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nephrolepis Schott</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >207.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >221.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >228.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.59</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Senecio L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >204.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >213.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arthraxonquartinianus (A. Rich.) Nash</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >109.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1016.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >454.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amaranthus hybridus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >254.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >360.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >280.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >392.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cyperusrotundus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vernonia Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >167.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >588.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >434.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >184.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cymbopogon densiflorus (Steud.) Stapf</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chondrillajuncea L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >247.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.86</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crassocephalum Moench.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conyzacordata Kuntze</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >192.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kyllinga alba Nees.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>3</xref></label><caption><title> Mean concentration of Zn (mg/kg) in the plant species in the sampling sites</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Species</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >N1</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >N2</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >E1</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S1</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >W1</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >W2</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SE of Mean</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crinum L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anthephora Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Digitariaeriantha Stued.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >174.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >105.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nephrolepis Schott</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.49</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Senecio L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >108.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arthraxonquartinianus (A. Rich.) Nash</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >192.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amaranthus hybridus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cyperusrotundus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vernonia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cymbopogon densiflorus (Steud.) Stapf</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chondrillajuncea L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crassocephalum Moench.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conyzacordata Kuntze</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kyllinga alba Nees.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>4</xref></label><caption><title> Correlation between Cu concentration in the soil and in the plant species</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Soil Cu Concentration</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Concentration of Copper in the plants</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Soil Cu concentration</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.376**</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Concentration of Copper in the plants</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.376**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>5</xref></label><caption><title> Correlation between concentration of Zn in the soil and in the plant species</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Soil Zn concentration</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Concentration of Zinc in the Plants</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Soil Zn concentration</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.359**</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Concentration of Zinc in the Plants</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.359**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).</p><p>the soil is high, the concentration in the plants may be correspondingly high. This was illustrated by the high concentrations recorded in plants that were growing in the study sites having high Cu and Zn concentrations. S1 had the highest Cu and Zn concentrations recorded, 12,024.49 mg/kg and 67.99 mg/kg, respectively. Digitariaeriantha had its highest Cu concentration recorded in S1, 1282.2 mg/kg, compared to values of 578.9 mg/kg in W1, 135.61 mg/kg in N1, 144.94 mg/kg in N2, 91.4 mg/kg in W2 and 64.77 mg/kg in E1. Vernonia and Conyzacordata also had their highest Cu concentrations recorded in S1 (588.46 mg/kg and 192.84 mg/kg, respectively) compared to other quadrants.</p><p>This, however, is not always the case, as in some soils, high Cu levels have been shown to be associated with insoluble copper species which have low bioavailability of copper to plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref33">33</xref>]. In addition, plants differ considerably in their ability to assimilate the heavy metals rendering the relationship between soil metal content and metal content in plants unpredictable [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref34">34</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Types of Plants Growing at the Study Site</title><p>Despite the presence of very toxic concentrations of heavy metals such as Zn and Cu, it is very unlikely to find the tailings dumps or the areas surrounding them devoid of vegetation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref35">35</xref>]. This is because there are plants that are able to tolerate the highly toxic concentrations of heavy metals. Most plants collected were annual or perennial herbs and grasses. Some are endemic to Zambia or sub-Saharan Africa, but they are not exclusively endemic to metalliferous areas. Some of the plant species collected have been noted in other parts of the country which do not have metalliferous soils [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref36">36</xref>]. Since these plants can grow naturally on both metal enriched soils and on no metalliferous soils, they are categorized as pseudometallophytes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref37">37</xref>].</p><p>A total of 16 plant species were studied, of which, 14 were identified to genus level. Five were from the family Asteraceae, four from family Poaceae, two from Cyperaceae, and one each from Amaryllidaceae, Lomariopsidaceae and Amaranthaceae (Appendix 1). In terms of growth habit, nine were herbs, one fern and six grasses.</p><p>Of the quadrats studied, N1 was more diverse (species richness = 35%) followed by W2 and N2 (species richness = 18% in both quadrats), while W1 (species richness = 8%) was the least diverse (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). Species with the highest densities and frequencies were Anthephora and Digitariaeriantha (density = 39.5 and 40, respectively; frequency = 83.33% each) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>6</xref>). These two plant species also had a higher abundance (abundance = 47.4 and 48 respectively) and the least abundant was Crassocephalum (abundance = 4) and Chondrillajuncea (abundance = 3) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>6</xref>).</p><p>Similarity indices showed that N1 and N2 were very similar with respect to species present. S1 and W1 were also quite similar. However, S1 and W2, W1 and W2, were not similar at all. All in all, TD4 and the area 50 m away from it are about 81% similar. The Shannon-Weiner diversity index (H) was found to be</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>6</xref></label><caption><title> <xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>showing the relative frequency, density and abundance for the species studied</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Species</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >No. of Individuals</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Frequency</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Density</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Density</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Abundance</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Relative abundance</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crinum L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anthephora Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >237</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.83</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Digitariaeriantha Stued.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >240</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.03</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.78</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.56</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nephrolepis Schott</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.23</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Senecio L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.67</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arthraxonquartinianus (A. Rich.) Nash</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.23</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amaranthus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.78</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cyperusrotundus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.84</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vernonia Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cymbopogon densiflorus (Steud.) Stapf</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chondrillajuncea L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crassocephalum Moench.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conyzacordata Kuntze</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.39</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kyllinga alba Nees.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.69</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>2.31 for the control site and 1.84 for TD4. This indicated that there was a richer diversity in the control site compared to TD4.</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Correlation between Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index and Soil Metal Concentration</title><p>A negative, but significant correlation was found between the concentration of Cu and Zn in the soil, and the Shannon-Weiner diversity index (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>7 and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>8). This means that an increase in Cu and Zn concentration in the soil would result in a decrease in plant species diversity.</p><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>7</label><caption><title> Correlation between plant species diversity and Cu concentration in the soil</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Plant Species diversity</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Soil_Cu_Concentration</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Plant Species diversity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.716</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.110</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Soil_Cu_Concentration</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.716</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.110</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>8</label><caption><title> Correlation between plant species diversity and Zn concentration in the soil</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Plant Species diversity</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Soil_Zn_concentration</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Plant Species diversity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.648</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.164</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Soil_Zn_concentration</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.648</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.164</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>This highlights the effects of heavy metal pollution in soil on the biodiversity. These findings are corroborated by Vangronsveld et al. (1996) in Chibuike and Obiora [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref38">38</xref>] who reported that the diversity of higher plant species was very low in areas which were polluted with Zn and Cu. Similarly, Bagatto and Shorthouse [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref39">39</xref>] noted that an increase in Cu concentration in the soil resulted in a decrease in floral diversity. As such, heavy metal concentration in the soil can predict the species diversity in polluted areas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref40">40</xref>]. The effect of heavy metal toxicity, however, varies according to the specific metal involved, but overall impact on the species diversity is negative.</p></sec><sec id="s3_6"><title>3.6. Categorization of Plants Based on Their Bioaccumulation Factors</title><p>Nearly all values of Cu and Zn concentrations recorded in the plants were higher than the recommended values. Nonetheless, plants have developed mechanisms that allow them to thrive in toxic environments. And it is these plants that have a high probability of being potential phytoremediators. Excluders only tolerate metals in the substrate by restricting the uptake of metals into the roots [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref15">15</xref>]. Accumulators on the other hand present specialized mechanisms that allow them to accumulate or even hyperaccumulate metals in their shoots [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref12">12</xref>].</p><p>Hyperaccumulation of Zn is exceptionally rare due to the readiness with which it can be precipitated as the insoluble sulfate in the rhizosphere, thus minimizing the probable uptake and transport to the shoots of the plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref36">36</xref>]. In various research conducted so far, 13 taxa have been identified as Zn hyperaccumulators [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref36">36</xref>]. The bioaccumulation factors calculated showed that Crinum (BAF = 0.86) is a Zn excluder, Arthraxonquartinianus (BAF = 10.77) is a Zn hyperaccumulator and the remaining 14 species (BAF ranging from 1.07 - 4.12) are all Zn accumulators (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>9).</p><p>A number of Cu hyperaccumulators have been identified all over the world which include Beciumcentralafricanum, Bulbostyliscupricola, Pimpinella acutidentata, Cheilanthesperlanata, Eragrostisracemosa, Bulbostylispseudoperennis, Aspilia ciliate and Glycine wightiivar. Longicaud, Conyzacordata, Persicariapuncata and Persicariacapitata [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref22">22</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref41">41</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref42">42</xref>]. However, in this study, no Cu hyperaccumulator was identified. All the plant species were found to be Cu excluders (BAF ranging from 0.01 to 0.77) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>1</xref>0).</p><p>It is possible that part of the measured Cu and Zn in the plant samples may have been from external deposition not removed completely during sample washing. Faucon et al. in Ghaderian and Ravandi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref36">36</xref>] highlighted the fact that improperly washed specimen tended to have relatively high concentration values of heavy metals, hence the need to carry out further research on plant species identified tentatively as hyperaccumulators.</p><p>The high number of Zn and Cu excluders found in this study attests to findings of other researchers that the majority of metal tolerant plants colonizing mineral wastes are excluders [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref36">36</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.98381-ref42">42</xref>].</p><table-wrap id="table9" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>9</label><caption><title> Categorization of plant species based on their BAF Cu values</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Species</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >BAF (TD4)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >BAF (Immediate Vicinity)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="16"  >Excluders</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crinum L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anthephora Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Digitariaeriantha Steud.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nephrolepis Schott.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Senecio L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arthraxonquartinianus (A. Rich.) Nash.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amaranthus hybridus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cyperusrotundus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vernonia Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cymbopogon densiflorus (Steud.) Stapf.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chondrillajuncea L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crassocephalum Moench.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conyzacordata Kuntze.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kyllinga alba Nees.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table10" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>1</xref>0</label><caption><title> Categorization of plants based on their BAF Zn values</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Species</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >BAF (TD4)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >BAF (immediate vicinity)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Excluders</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crinum L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="14"  >Accumulators</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anthephora Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.26</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Digitariaeriantha Steud.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.92</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nephrolepis Schott.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.93</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Senecio L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amaranthus hybridus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cyperusrotundus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.31</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vernonia Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cymbopogon densiflorus (Steud.) Stapf.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.66</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chondrillajuncea L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.95</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crassocephalum Moench.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.95</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conyzacordata Kuntze.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kyllinga alba Nees.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hyperaccumulator</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arthraxonquartinianus (A. Rich.) Nash</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.77</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusions</title><p>With respect to Zinc, Crinum was found to be an excluder, Arthraxonquartinianus a hyperaccumulator, while the remaining plant species were accumulators. All the 16 plant species were found to be Cu excluders. The plant species identified in this study, thus, have potential for phytoremediation as excluders, accumulators and hyperaccumulators. They represent potential for remediation of soils heavily polluted by heavy metals.</p><p>Further research needs to be done to identify indigenous plants with potential for phytoremediation of other heavy metals such as Cobalt, Nickel, Lead and Cadmium.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>Special thanks to the Ministry of Higher Education for the financial assistance and Konkola Copper Mines Plc. for the technical support.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Kachenga, L., Chabwela, H.N. and Mwauluka, K. (2020) Phytoremediation Potential of Indigenous Plants Growing at Nchanga Mine in Chingola, Zambia. Open Journal of Ecology, 10, 45-61. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2020.102004</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Appendix 1</title><table-wrap id="table11" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>A1</label><caption><title> List of plant species studied</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Plant species</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Family</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Habit</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Life Cycle</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crinum L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amaryllidaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Herb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anthephora Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Grass</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Digitariaeriantha Stued.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Grass</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n.a.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Herb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n.a.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp 27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n.a.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Herb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n.a.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nephrolepis Schott</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lomariopsidaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fern</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Senecio L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Asteraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Herb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arthraxonquartinianus (A. Rich.) Nash</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Grass</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amaranthus hybridus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amaranthaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Herb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annual</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cyperusrotundus L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cyperaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Grass</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vernonia Schreb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Asteraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Herb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cymbopogon densiflorus (Steud.) Stapf</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Grass</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chondrillajuncea L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Asteraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Herb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crassocephalum Moench.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Asteraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Herb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annual</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conyzacordata Kuntze</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Asteraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Herb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kyllinga alba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cyperaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Grass</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perennial</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.98381-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngoma, J. (2011) What Would It Take for Zambia’s Copper Mining Industry to Achieve Its Potential? http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTZAMBIA/Resources/Additional_Jobs_and_Prosperity_Report_Summaries-Copper_Mining.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sheoran, V., Sheoran, A.S. and Poonia, P. (2010) Soil Reclamation of Abandoned Mine Land by Revegetation: A Review. International Journal of Soil, Sediment and Water, 3, Article No. 13.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miao, Z.-W., Bai, Z.-K. and Gao, L. (2000) Ecological Rebuilding and Land Reclamation in Surface Mines in Shanxi Province, China. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 12, 486-497.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kumar, N., Kumar, A. and Singh, M. (2014) Floristic Diversity Assessment in Ecologically Restored Limestone (Building Stone) Mine Near Checha Village, Kata District, Rajasthan. Ecologia, 4, 16-25. https://doi.org/10.3923/ecologia.2014.16.25</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shen, Z.-G., Li, X.-D., Wang, C.-C., Chen, H.-M. and Chua, H. (2002) Lead Phytoextraction from Contaminated Soil with High Biomass Plant Species. Journal of Environmental Quality, 31, 1893-1900. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2002.1893</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Malayeri, B.E., Chehregani, A., Yousefi, N. and Lorestani, B. (2008) Identification of the Hyperaccumulator Plants in Copper and Iron Mine in Iran. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 11, 490-492. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2008.490.492</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ghosh, M. and Singh, S.P. (2005) A Review on Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals and Utilization of by-Products. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 73, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/0301_001018</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">National Resources Conservation Service (2006) Land Reclamation, Currently Mined Land. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1253605.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mehes-Smith, M., Nkongolo, K. and Cholewa, E. (2013) Coping Mechanisms of Plants to Metal Contaminated Soil. https://doi.org/10.5772/55124</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Aboulroos, S.A., Helal, M.I.D. and Kamel, M.M. (2006) Remediation of Pb and Cd Polluted Soils Using in Situ Immobilization and Phytoextraction Techniques. Soil Sediment Contamination, 15, 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15320380500506362</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lorestani, B., Cheraghi, M. and Yousefi, N. (2011) Phytoremediation Potential of Native Plants Growing on a Heavy Metals Contaminated Soil of Copper Mine in Iran. International Scholarly and Scientific Research and Innovation, 5, 1-6.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jadia, C.D. and Fulekar, M.H. (2009) Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals: Recent Techniques. African Journal of Biotechnology, 8, 921-928.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Susarla, S., Medina, V.F. and McCutcheon, S.C. (2002) Phytoremediation: Ze-Wei, M., Zhong-Ke, B. and Lin, G. (2000) Ecological Rebuilding and Land Reclamation in Surface Mines in Shanxi Province, China. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 12, 486-497.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ssenku, J.E., Ntale, M., Backeus, I., Lehtila, K. and Oryem-Origa, H. (2014)  Dynamics of Plant Species during Phytostabilisation of Copper Mine Tailings and Pyrite Soils, Western Uganda. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Ecological Science, 3, Article No. 4. https://doi.org/10.7243/2050-1323-3-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baker, A.J.M. (1981) Accumulators and Excluders-Strategies in the Response of Plants to Heavy Metals. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 3, 643-654.https://doi.org/10.1080/01904168109362867</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baker, A.J.M. and Brooks, R.R. (1989) Terrestrial Higher Plants Which Hyperaccumulate Metallic Elements: A Review of Their Distribution, Ecology and Phytochemistry. Biorecovery, 1, 81-126.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mcgath, S.P. and Zhao, F.J. (2003) Phytoextraction of Metals and Metalloids from Contaminated Soils. Current Opinions in Biotechnology, 14, 277-282.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-1669(03)00060-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nazir, A., Malik, R.N., Ajaib, M., Khan, N. and Siddiqui, M.F. (2011) Hyperaccumulators of Heavy Metals of Industrial Areas of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Pakistani Journal of Botany, 43, 1925-1933.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sharma, P. and Pandey, S. (2014) Status of Phytoremediation in World Scenario. International Journal of Environmental Bioremediation and Biodegradation, 2, 178-191.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mwegoha, W.J.S. (2008) The Use of Phytoremediation Technology for Abatement of Soil and Groundwater Pollution in Tanzania: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 10, 140-156.http://www.jsd-africa.com/Jsda/V10N1_Spring2008/PDF/UseofPhytoremediation.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lorestani, B., Cheraghi, M. and Yousefi, N. (2011) Accumulation of Pb, Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn in Plants and Choice of Hyperaccumulator Plant in the Industrial Town of Vian, Iran. Archives of Biological Science, Belgrade, 63, 739-745.https://doi.org/10.2298/ABS1103739L</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sarma, H. (2011) Metal Hyperaccumulation in Plants: A Review Focusing on Phytoremediation Technology. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4, 118-138. https://doi.org/10.3923/jest.2011.118.138</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Leteinturier, B., Baker, A.J.M., Bock, L., Matera, J., Malaisse, F. and Malaise, F. (2001) Copper and Vegetation at the Kansanshi Hill (Zambia) Copper Mine. Belgian Journal of Botany, 134, 41-50.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Van der Ent, A., Erskine, P., Mulligan, D., Vinya, R., Maseka, K.K. and Siame, J. (2015) The Potential of Zambian Copper-Cobalt Hyperaccumulator Plants for Phytoremediation of Polluted (Mining/Smelter) Soils. International Mining for Development Centre Action Research Report.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Central Statistics Office (2011) 2010 Census of Population of Housing: Preliminary Population Figures. Zambia, Lusaka, 7-8.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Konkola Copper Mines (2014) TD2 New Slag Dump Project: Environmental and Social Impact Statement. URS Scott Wilson, Kitwe.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Curtis, J.T. and McIntosh, R.P. (1950) The Interrelations of Certain Analytic and Synthetic Phytosociological Characters. Ecology, 31, 434-455.https://doi.org/10.2307/1931497</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Magurran, A.E. (1988) Ecological Diversity and Its Measurements. Chapman and Hall, London, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7358-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Usman, A.R.A., Lee, S.S., Awad, M.Y., Lim, K.J., Yang, J.E. and Ok, Y.S. (2012) Soil Pollution Assessment and Identification of Hyperaccumulating Plants in Chromate Copper Arsenate (CCA) Contaminated Sites, Korea. Chemosphere, 87, 872-878.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.01.028</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ruqia, N., Muslin, K., Muhammad, M., Hameed, U.R., Naveed, U.R., Surrya, S., Nosheen, A., Muhammad, S., Mohib, U., Muhammad, R. and Zeenat, S. (2015) Accumulation of Heavy Metals (Ni, Cd, Cu, Cr, Pb, Zn, Fe) in the Soil, Water and Plants, and Analysis of Physico-Chemical Parameters of Soil and Water Collected from Tanda Dam Kohat. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, 7, 89-97.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land (ICRCL) (1987) Guidance on Assessment and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land. 2nd Edition, ICRCL Central Directorate on Environmental Protection, Department of the Environment Circular 59/83, London.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rodricks, J.A. (1992) Calculated Risks: The Toxicity and Human Health  Risks of Chemicals in Our Environment. Cambridge University Press, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Badilla-Ohlbaum, R., Ginocchi, R., Rodriquez, P.H., Cespedes, A., Gonzales, S., Allen, H.E. and Laqos, G.E. (2001) Relationship between Soil Copper Content and Copper Content of Selected Crop Plants in Central Chile. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 20, 2749-2757. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620201214</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Robert, D.D. (1979) Uptake of Copper, Nickel, and Zinc by Crops Growing in Contaminated Soils. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 30, 937-947.https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740301002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Aggangan, N.S., Pampolina, N.M., Cadiz, N.M. and Raymundo, A.K. (2015) Assessment of Plant Diversity and Associated Mycorrhizal Fungi in the Mined-out Sites of Atlas Mines in Toledo City, Cebu for Bioremediation. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 18, 71-86.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Phiri, P.S.M. (2005) A Checklist of Zambian Vascular Plants. Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report No. 32. SABONET, Pretoria.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ghaderian, M.S. and Ravandi, G.A.A. (2012) Accumulation of Copper and Other Heavy Metals by Plants Growing on Sarcheshmeh Copper Mining Area, Iran. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 123, 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.06.022</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chibuike, G.U. and Obiora, S.C. (2014) Heavy Metal Polluted Soils: Effect on Plants and Bioremediation Methods. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/752708</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bagatto, G. and Shorthouse, J.D. (1999) Biotic and Abiotic Characteristics of Ecosystems on Metalliferous Mine Tailings Near Sudbury, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany, 77, 410-425. https://doi.org/10.1139/b98-233</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koptsik, S., Koptsik, G., Livantsova, S., Eruslankina, I., Zhmelkova, T. and Vologdina, Z. (2003) Heavy Metals in Soils Near the Nickel Smelter: Chemistry, Spatial Variation and Impacts on Plant Diversity. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 5, 441-450. https://doi.org/10.1039/b210397b</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Malaisse, F., Brooks, R.R. and Baker, A.J.M. (1994) Diversity of Vegetation Communities in Relation to Soil Heavy Metal Content at the Shinkolobwe Copper/Cobalt/Uranium Mineralization, Upper Shaba, Zaire. Belgian Journal of Botany, 127, 3-16.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.98381-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Malaisse, F., Baker, A.J.M. and Ruelle, S. (1999) Diversity of Plant Communities and Leaf Heavy Metal Content at Luiswishi Copper/Cobalt Mineralization, Upper Katanga, Democratic Republic of Congo. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment, 3, 104-114.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>