Plant diversity is a critical aspect of ecosystem health and stability [1]. However, industrial activities, especially hazardous chemicals such as pesticides, may introduce pollutants to soil, air, and water, causing detrimental effects to the local flora [2, 3]. Sandila, UP, an industrial hub is an important case study exploring the intersection of industrialization and biodiversity conservation. Sandila is a town and Nagar Palika in Hardoi district in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India. The position of Sandila on the topographic sheet lies at 27°4′48″N latitude and 80°31′12″E longitude (Fig. 1).

The discharge of chemical waste, air pollution, and soil contamination can negatively affect the surrounding vegetation. Industrial pollutants can alter soil composition, making it less fertile and less conducive for plant growth [4, 5]. Additionally, water bodies near industrial zones are frequently contaminated with pesticide residues, affecting aquatic plants and riparian vegetation [6]. These factors contribute to the decline of native plant species, favouring only pollutant-resistant flora and leading to a loss of biodiversity [7]. The bioaccumulation of toxic substances in plant tissues can also disrupt the food chain, affecting herbivores and ecosystem stability [8, 9]. This paper examines the floral diversity surrounding the pesticide industry and assesses the ecological implications of industrial pollution.

Materials and methods

An extensive survey of India Pesticides Limited, Sandila, has been done thrice a year i.e. winter, spring, and monsoon (2023-24) to assess the indigenous flora. All the collected specimens were processed and identified using standard herbarium procedures [10] and literature about species [11]. The name of the collected plant species has been listed, as per ICN (2018), and classified as Bentham & Hooker’s system. Threat categories for each species have been decided according to current categories as per IUCN guidelines for global and regional levels [12].

Results and discussion

A total of 110 native plant species were collected from the vicinity of the pesticide industry during the survey (Table 1). A total of 49 families of angiosperm(s) are present at the site, with Asteraceae being the most structurally diverse plant family (16), followed by Poaceae (8), Solanacaeae (6), Acanthaceae (6), Fabaceae (5), Amaranthaceae (4), Polygonaceae (4), Rubiaceae (3), Convulaceae (3) and Apocynaceae (3) as shown in Fig. 3. Among angiosperms, some plant species i.e., Pithecellobium dulce, Phyllanthus tenellus, Parthenium hysterophora, Coccinia cordifolia, Cannabis sativa, Nicotiana plumbaginifolia, Eichhornia crassipes, and Acyranthus aspera were found luxuriantly growing in the area (Fig. 2). As per statistical analysis, 75% of species belong to dicot, 25 % of species belong to monocot. Also, data on the IUCN status at the global level is represented as 57% Not Evaluated, 40% Least Concern, 1% Data Deficient, and 1% Endangered.

Vegetation Habit Types Observed in the Vicinity of Industrial Areas

The plant communities in the vicinity of the pesticide industry consist of species showing versatile habits being adapted to diverse ecological habitats, including disturbed and polluted ones [13]. Herbs are the overwhelmingly dominant life form represented, with species such as Phyllanthus tenellus, Acalypha indica, and Cynodon dactylon frequently becoming ground cover and demonstrating tolerance of nutrient-poor and/or chemically stressed soils (Fig. 4). Aquatic and semi-aquatic herbs like Eichhornia crassipes, Lemna sp., Typha latifolia, and Potamogeton nodosus grow into and around these aquatic reservoirs, and the drainage points towards the phytoremediation of pesticide-loaded effluents. Climbers such as Cuscuta reflex and Ipomoea quamoclit grow along fences, while shrubs like Withania somnifera and Barleria prionitis are components of the secondary vegetation layer. Except for a few trees such as Azadirachta indica and Tectona grandis providing structure refuge and signal at least partial recovery/stability at lower polluted sites. Grasses and sedges including Ischaemum rugosum, Saccharum munja, as well as Cyperus rotundus present indicated their colonizing potential and resistance against soil compaction or seepage of chemicals. This combination of vegetation points to tolerance and a gradient of secession adapted to the industrial site and the pollution level.

Acknowledgment

The author expresses humble acknowledgment to the HoD, Department of Botany, University of Lucknow, for permission to use the Botany Department’s library facility and to the General Manager of India Pesticides Limited, Sandila, Uttar Pradesh, for allowing the field survey.

Author contributions

Prof. Alka Kumari supervised and provided conceptual advice as well as all required suggestions during the preparation of the manuscript. Atul Kumar Anand carried out the field survey, identification of collected specimens, threat status analysis, and manuscript writing. The other two authors, Shubham Kumar and Vineet Kumar Singh, were also involved in the field survey, identification work, and data compilation.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

No ethical statement is reported.

References

1. Cappelli, S. L., Domeignoz-Horta, L. A., Loaiza, V., and Laine, A. L. (2022). Plant biodiversity promotes sustainable agriculture directly and via belowground effects. Trends in Plant Science, 27(7), 674-687.
2. Kolawole, A. S., and Iyiola, A. O. (2023). Environmental pollution: threats, impact on biodiversity, and protection strategies. In Sustainable utilization and conservation of Africa’s biological resources and environment (pp. 377-409). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
3. Dehkordi, M. M., Nodeh, Z. P., Dehkordi, K. S., Khorjestan, R. R., and Ghaffarzadeh, M. (2024). Soil, air, and water pollution from mining and industrial activities: Sources of pollution, environmental impacts, and prevention and control methods. Results in Engineering, 102729.
4. Ghazaryan, K., Agrawal, S., Margaryan, G., Harutyunyan, A., Rajput, P., Movsesyan, H., and Singh, A. (2024). Soil pollution: an agricultural and environmental problem with nanotechnological remediation opportunities and challenges. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 1-33.
5. Weldeslassie, T., Naz, H., Singh, B., and Oves, M. (2018). Chemical contaminants for soil, air and aquatic ecosystem. Modern age environmental problems and their remediation, 1-22.
6. Agrawal, A., Pandey, R. S., and Sharma, B. (2010). Water pollution with special reference to pesticide contamination in India. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 2(5), 432-448.
7. Kumari, R., Deepali, B., and Bhatnagar, S. (2021). Biodiversity loss: threats and conservation strategies. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research, 68(1), 242-254.
8. Sharma, A., Kapoor, D., Wang, J., Shahzad, B., Kumar, V., Bali, A. S., … and Yan, D. (2020). Chromium bioaccumulation and its impacts on plants: an overview. Plants, 9(1), 100.
9. Roy, T. (2024). Aquatic ecosystem toxicity and food chain. In Toxicity of aquatic system and remediation (pp. 25-36). CRC Press.
10. Jain, S. K., and Rao, R. R. (1977). A handbook of field and herbarium methods.
11. Duthie, J. F. (1903). Flora of the upper Gangetic plain, and of the adjacent Siwalik and sub-Himalayan tracts (Vol. 1). Superintendent of Government Printing.
12. IUCN. (2012). Guidelines for application of IUCN red list criteria at regional and national levels: version 4.0.
13.  Zhang, A., Zhang, Y., Potapov, A. M., Bhusal, D. R., Qiang, W., Wang, M., and Pang, X. (2023). Changes in diversity and functional groups of soil mite communities are associated with properties of food resources along a subalpine secondary succession. Geoderma, 432, 116395.