the Science of the

Tbtai l%wirmment
The Science

of the Total

Environment

167 (1995)

215-220

Bioreceptivity: a new concept for building ecology studies

0. Guillitte
Unik

dEnseignement

et de Recherche

de Bioiogie Vigt!tale, Facultk des Sciences Agronomiques,

B-5030 Gemblowr,
Belgium

Passage des Dipo&s

2,

Abstract
A definition of the concept of bioreceptivity as the ability of a material to be colonised by living organisms is given.
Related terms, such as primary, secondary, tertiary, intrinsic, extrinsic and semi-extrinsic bioreceptivity, and
bioreceptivity index are also explained. The usefulness, possible uses and methodological issues arising from this
concept are discussed.
Keywords:

Bioreceptivity; Building ecology studies;Building material colonization

ceived differently according to the type of construction, the location and the person studying
them. On the contrary, some authors consider the
colour changes to be aesthetically pleasing [l],
credit them with a protective role against man- or
weather-induced aggression [2-41 and suggest that
they have a cleansing effect which benefits the
environment [5].
Therefore, if one wishes to study the colonisation of materials without being biased by its effects on the materials, one should not limit oneself to those characteristics affected by the
colonisation but should include those that allow
colonisation to take place. The precise role of the
building material characteristics in the colonisation process is not fully understood, with the
exception of acidity, whose influence on the taxonomic content of colonising organisms is well
known. In a previous work [5] on the kinetics of

1. Introduction

Many building materials are prone to colonisation by living organisms. This colonisation causes
changes in colour and in the chemical or physical
properties of the materials. Since the late-60s,
these changes have been grouped under the terms
biodegradation
or biodeterioration.
The latter
seems to be used mainly in connection with material degradation; it is missing in many specialised
dictionaries in favour of the word biodegradation which applies more widely to the biological
degradation of substances or well-defined chemical compounds. These terms tend to give colonisation negative and sometimes entirely subjective connotations. Indeed, the invasion of materials by living organisms does not necessarily
lead to physical and chemical degradation but
simply to reversible colour changes that are per0048-9697/95/$09.50
SSDI
0048-9697(95)

0 1995 Elsevier
04582-8

Science

BV. All rights

reserved.

216

0. Guillitte /Science of the Total Environment 167 (1995) 215-220

the colonisation of composite building materials

by plants, we have studied these characteristics
but have not been able to identify them all precisely. Thus, we have grouped them all under the
term bioreceptivity
as a means of elucidating
the impact of colonisation on the material without having to resort to a full analytical approach.
2. Basic definitions

and variants

In the medical field, the term susceptibility

is
used to describe the vulnerability of an organism
to diseases, especially infectious diseases. The
term is also used in veterinary medicine. Toma et
al. [6] define susceptibility as the aptitude of an
organism to harbour a pathogen, to allow its
development or multiplication,
without necessarily suffering.
By extension, we would define the term bioreceptivity2 as the aptitude of a material (or any
other inanimate object) to be colonised by one or
several groups of living organisms without necessarily undergoing any biodeterioration.
The word
colonise is important since it indicates that conditions for harbouring, development and multiplication have to be met and excludes the ability of
a material to receive living organisms in a transient and fortuitous manner. It implies that there
is an ecological relationship between the material
and the colonising organisms. Thus, for example,
a joint of mortar is not bioreceptive to ants circulating on it, even if it is their favourite trail on the
masonry. On the other hand, it can be highly
bioreceptive to others insects, such as the ichneumons, if they are able to lay their eggs into it.
Seeds that are deposited on a material without

In French: r6ceptivit6; in German: Empfanghchkeit.

*Our choice of the word bioreceptivity as an alternative to
susceptibility is justified by an attempt to use a word that
translates in the same way into different languages after
adding the pretix bio. Furthermore, the word receptivity is
used in English to describe the ability of a flower stigma to be
fertihsed by pollen grains through the pollen tube. There is a
clear similarity with our concept. Therefore, we suggest using
the word bioreceptivite in French, Biorezeptivitlt
in German, bioreceptiviteit in Dutch, bioreceptividad in Spanish,
bioreceptividade in Portuguese and biorecettivith in Italian.

being able to germinate and develop cannot be

related to the bioreceptivity of the material. However, if they are able to grow into plantlets and
survive for some time, one could probably say
that this material is bioreceptive to higher plants.
Therefore, bioreceptivity can also be defined as
the totality of material properties that contribute
to the establishment, anchorage and development
of fauna and/or flora. In stony materials, for
instance, it relates mainly to properties of the
area exposed to climatic elements, such as roughness, porosity, moisture and the chemical composition of the surface layer. The capillary porosity
is a property of the core of the material that can
also affect colonisation.
When a material has not yet been exposed to
colonisation, the bioreceptivity will be expressed
only during the appearance of the first colonising
organisms. As long as the properties of the material remain very similar or identical to those of its
initial state, we propose using the term primary
bioreceptivity to indicate the initial potential of
colonisation. Characteristics of these properties
can evolve over time under the action of colonising organisms or other factors causing change,
and result in a new type of bioreceptivity, which
we call secondary bioreceptivity
(Fig. 1). For
practical purposes, secondary bioreceptivity is often more important than primary bioreceptivity.
Any human activity affecting the material - consolidation, coating with a biocide or surface
polishing - also modifies the initial or secondary
characteristics of the properties of the material,
inducing
tertiary bioreceptivity.
In principle,
efficient treatments should make this tertiary
bioreceptivity
less important than primary and
secondary bioreceptivity.
Particles or substances that are not part of the
material, such as soil, dust or organic particles,
can deposit and accumulate on the material.
These exogenous deposits modify the initial conditions of bioreceptivity. If they are substantial,
they can result in a type of colonisation which no
longer relates directly to the properties of the
material, i.e. those properties that allowed deposits to accumulate (Fig. 2). We suggest using
the word extrinsic bioreceptivity to describe such

0. Guillitte /Science of the Total Environment 167 (1995) 215-220

217

Fig. 1. Primary, secondary and tertiary bioreceptivity in a stony material. White arrows, black arrows and discontinuous lines
represent the colonisation, physico-chemical deterioration and biodeterioration mechanisms, respectively.

a situation. Some elements of the colonising vegetation can, in turn, be colonised by epiphytes or
parasitised by other organisms. Thus, the vegetation can also be responsible for some extrinsic
bioreceptivity.
In other cases, colonisation depends directly and simultaneously on the properties of the material and on the deposits of exogenous substances (Fig. 3). We suggest using the
word semi-extrinsic bioreceptivity to refer to this
phenomenon. Finally, when colonisation depends
mainly on the properties of the material, irrespective of exogenous contributions,
one could use
the phrase intrinsic bioreceptivity.
In fact, the

three types of bioreceptivity and their intermediate stages can occur on the same material.
3. Usefulness of the concept
The first advantage of the bioreceptivity concept is that it completes the accessibility concept
developed by Heimans [7] to explain the colonisation process of materials involving other environmental factors. Accessibility can be defined as the
characteristics of the environment that determine
the abundance of diaspore sources, proximity and
transport
capabilities
(anemochoria,
myrmo-

218

0. Guillitte /Science of the Total Environment 167 (1995) 215-220

Fig. 2. Extrinsic bioreceptivity in a stony material (in the case

of primary bioreceptivity). The white arrow represents the
colonisation mechanism.

choria, avichoria, etc.), including the exposure of

the material
to these sources and vectors.
Whereas this concept relates to the colonisation
potential of the environment, the bioreceptivity
concept expresses the colonisation potential as
defined by the characteristics of the material. It is
the combination of these potentials and particular environmental conditions, such as water, temperature and light, that allows colonisation to
occur. Colonisation cannot occur in the absence
of one group of factors. Therefore, bioreceptivity
is the missing link that was required in the adop-

Fig. 3. Semi-extrinsic bioreceptivity in a stony material (in the

case of secondary bioreceptivity). White and black arrows
represent the colonisation and physico-chemical deterioration,
respectively.

tion of an integrated approach to the colonisation

of materials. The bioreceptivity of a material will
be best expressed under maximum accessibility
and environmental conditions that are optimal for
the development of organisms.

0. Guillitte /Science of the Total Environment 167 (1995) 215-220

Based on this principle, one could consider the

possibility of assessing the bioreceptivity of a material to an organism by artificially inoculating the
material with the diaspores of the organism and
placing them under optimal environmental conditions (e.g. a growth chamber). A specific bioreceptivity index could thus be determined and included in a bioreceptivity scale similar to biotic
indices. These indices would be complementary,
as biotic indices determined on similar substrates
allow a quality assessment of environmental conditions. In this instance, the absence of colonising
cryptogams on the material would reflect a high
level of air pollution, whereas the same absence
in an experiment like that mentioned above would
mean that the material is not bioreceptive to
these cryptogams. A practical application of the
bioreceptivity index would be to provide weighted
biotic indices whenever they are determined from
different materials. For example, Seaward [8] has
shown that asbestos-cement slates are more likely
to be colonised by Lecanora muralis, a lichen,
than natural slates or tiles, particularly in polluted areas. Therefore, in spite of its ubiquity, this
lichen cannot be used as a pollution bioindicator,
unless the same roofing materials are found in
the areas under study. However, this exercise
could be carried out - if the bioreceptivity could
be determined accurately for each material - by
dividing the measurement data (number of occurrences, average size of the thallus, etc.) by the
bioreceptivity index.
The bioreceptivity
index of a material would
also provide users with information on the colonisation risk and help them choose an alternative
material or another use for the same material,
depending on whether or not colonisation is desirable. It could also give information
on the
effectiveness of various types of treatments of the
materials. Similarly, the influence of individual
properties or their synergetic effect on the colonisation process could be assessed by measuring
bioreceptivity after a gradual change has occurred
in some of those properties.
Finally, the various types of bioreceptivity defined above could be used to establish the sequence of events that lead to a potential or
observed colonisation. It also forces the observer
to conduct an analytical study of the pheno-

219

menon, thereby fostering a better understanding

of the factors involved in the colonisation process
and ways to prevent or enhance it. Among other
things, the distinction between primary and secondary bioreceptivity allows one the possibility to
assess the impact of biodeterioration.
4. Methodological
concept

problems arising from the

The bioreceptivity of a given material can be

expressed only by subjecting it to various groups
of organisms under environmental conditions that
are optimal and specific for each group. The first
problem that needs to be overcome lies in the
lack of information on these conditions. The second issue is how to get a material to be colonised
faster by colonising organisms such as lichens.
Finally, because many types of colonisation are
part of a synecological mechanism, colonisation
by a single type of organism can become either
impossible or completely atypical. In this case, it
is difficult to assess the respective contribution of
intrinsic and extrinsic bioreceptivity.
These problems in growing the colonising organisms are compounded by the selection of
parameters for measuring bioreceptivity or bioreceptivity indices (number of occurrences, biomass,
colonised area, appearance and growth rate of
colonising organisms, fertility, etc.). A practical
approach of these difficulties was illustrated by
the author [9]. At the current stage of concept
definition, it is interesting to note that the bioreceptivity of materials can be determined from a
set of relatively cosmopolitan species belonging to
the following major biological groups: autotrophic
bacteria, heterotrophic
bacteria,
microfungi,
macromycetes,
cyanobacteria,
green algae,
chrysophytes, endolithic lichens, epilithic lichens,
bryophytes, ferns and flowering plants.
5. Conclusion
Although the concept of bioreceptivity is attractive, it requires additional
methodological
studies before it can be used outside the area of
building materials. Multidisciplinary
teams consisting of biologists and building material specialists have to be set up to conduct integrated stud-

0. Guillitte /Science of the Total Environment 167 (1995) 215-220

220

ies under experimental

conditions that are as
standard as possible to remove any subjectivity
attached to the concept. Specialised laboratories
will then be able to design bioreceptivity
tests
similar to those used to determine the susceptibility to frost, and the hardness and the mechanical
strength of materials. These tests will provide an
additional tool for the selection of materials by all
users, including architects and those involved in
restoring buildings.
Acknowledgement

This paper was initiated with the financial support of the European Commission under the research entitled Interactive
physical weathering
and bioreceptivity
studies on building stones,
monitored
by computerized
X-ray tomography
(CT) as a potential non-destructive research tool.
References
[l]

P. Gibson,
Ministry of
UK, 1981,6
[2] J. Granier,

Lichen on Farm Roof, Leaflet 753, ADAS,

Agriculture and Fisheries, Bury-St-Edmunds,
pp.
Les Cglises rupestres de Cappadoce: Pa-

thologie de la Pierre sur site particulier, in RossiManaresi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on The Conservation of Stone, Centro per la
conservazione della sculture all aperto, Bologna, 1976,
pp. 45-53.
[31 R. Lallemant and S. Deruelle, Presence de lichens sur les
monuments en Pierre: nuisance ou protection? in
Proceedings of the International Symposium Alteration
et protection des monuments en Pierre, UNESCORILEM, Paris, 1978, vol. II, 4.6, pp. l-6.
[41 P.L. Nimis, D. Pinna and 0. Salvadori, Licheni e conservazione dei monumenti, CLUEB, Bologna, 1992, 164 pp.
151 0. Guillitte, Kinetics of Plant Colonization of Composite
Building Materials. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture,
Gembloux, 1993, 249 pp.
161 B. Toma, J.J. B&et, B. Dufour, M. Eloit, F. Moutou and
M. Sanao, Glossaire depidbmiologie
animale, Point
Wterinaire, Maisons-Alfort, 1991, p. 239.
171 J. Heimans, Laccessibilite, terme nouveau en phytogeographie. Vegetatio, 5-6 (19541 142-146.
@I M.R.D. Seaward, Performance of Lecanora muralis in an
urban environment, in D.H. Brown, D.L. Hawksworth
and R.H. Bailey (Eds.), Lichenology: Progress and Problems, Systematics Association, Academic Press, London,
Special Volume 8, 1976, pp. 323-257.
[91 0. Guillitte and R. Dreesen, Laboratory exposure chamber and petrographical analysis as bioreceptivity assessment tools of building materials. Sci. Total Environ., this
issue.