RESEARCH ARTICLE Strategies of heavy metal uptake by three Armeria species growing on different geological substrates in Serbia Gordana Tomović 1 & Uroš Buzurović 1 & Sanja Đurović 1 & Dražen Vicić 2 & Nevena Mihailović 2 & Ksenija Jakovljević 1 Received: 26 June 2017 /Accepted: 9 October 2017 /Published online: 18 October 2017 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017 Abstract This study surveyed three species of the genus Armeria Willd. from five ultramafic outcrops, two non- ultramafic (schist) soils, and one tailing heap of an abandoned iron-copper mine from Serbia. Similarities and differences among the three Armeria species growing on different geo- logical substrates in the ability to control uptake and translo- cate nine metals were examined. Chemical characteristics of the soil and plant samples (concentrations of P 2 O 5, K 2 O, Ca, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn, Cu, Cr, Co, Cd, and Pb) are presented. In order to assess accumulative potential of these three Armeria species, biological concentration, accumulation, as well as translocation factors were used. Three investigated Armeria species growing on eight different localities showed large dif- ferences in heavy metal uptake, translocation, and accumula- tion. The differences were present among the plant samples of the same species and even more among three different Armeria species and were primarily the result of the different contents of available heavy metals in the investigated soils. Additionally, differences might be the consequence of diverse responses and possible presence of supplementary resistance mechanisms in the plants from the ultramafic soils. None of the three Armeria species showed shoot hyperaccumulative potential for any of the investigated heavy metals and they could be considered as root accumulators, considering their potential to accumulate medium to large amounts of Zn (BCF up to 134), Cr (BCF up to 148), and Cd (BCF up to 9) in their roots. Keywords Root accumulators . Ultramafic soils . Non-ultramafic soils . Iron-copper mine tailing heap . Serbia Introduction Metalliferous soils represent very harsh environmental filters owing to heavy metal toxicity regularly associated with other edaphic restrictions, including multiple nutrient deficiencies and low water-holding capacity (Brooks 1987; Kazakou et al. 2008). Baker et al. (2010) recognized three types of heavy metal vegetation sites based on syntaxonomy and on their occurrence: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary sites are those inhabited by metallophytes where high heavy metal content is a consequence of natural mineralization or ore outcropping, uninfluenced by human activity. However, al- most all primarily metal-enriched sites in Europe have been altered through mining activities and actually represent sec- ondary sites, i.e., disturbed primary sites, spoil and slag heaps, ore processing, and concentration areas. Tertiary heavy metal sites may be subdivided into sites which are reached by heavy metals through atmospheric deposition from metal smelters or alluvial deposition of metal-enriched substrates by sedimenta- tion in river floodplains and on raised riverbanks (van der Ent 2007; Baker et al. 2010). Metalliferous sites can be classified according to mineral composition of the substrate or to the origin of metal contam- ination (Wójcik et al. 2017). With regard to mineral composi- tion, both naturally and secondarily metal-enriched soils can be recognized as ultramafic (serpentine), calamine, selenifer- ous, or copper/cobalt-containing soils. Ultramafics originate from ferromagnesian-rich mantle rocks and are Fe- and Mg- Responsible editor: Elena Maestri * Gordana Tomović gtomovic@bio.bg.ac.rs 1 Faculty of Biology, Institute of Botany and Botanical Garden, University of Belgrade, Takovska 43, Belgrade 11000, Serbia 2 Institute for the Application of Nuclear Energy—INEP, University of Belgrade, Banatska 31b, Belgrade 11080, Serbia Environ Sci Pollut Res (2018) 25:507–522 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0445-9