Archaeological sites and structures suffer from several factors of deterioration. The present survey focuses on the biodeterioration by plants, which is not less important than the rest of the deterioration factors; moreover, in many cases, it leads to their occurrence. Despite the importance of plants in our lives and their aesthetic appearance around stone monuments, they pose a threat to their survival. Therefore, it is necessary to have such a review to detail this topic and understand its severity by identifying the most common and harmful plant species, the co-factors for their existence, and the mechanism of damage. Physical damage through causing cracks, detachment, and loss of structural integrity and chemical damage from root secretions-biological damage by encouraging microorganisms and insects supported by examples of sites that have been damaged by plants. The results will help to apply appropriate methods of prevention and control by mentioning the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
Biodeterioration is a chemical or physical alteration in archaeological material caused by biological organisms. Biophysical damage is the mechanical degradation of the surface through separation and penetration, causing pressure by growth and increasing porosity. Biochemical damage is the direct action of metabolism. Furthermore, the aerobic organisms produce carbon dioxide respiratory, carbonic acid that decays and dissolves stones and contributes to forming soluble salts [1,2,3]. Notably, the biodeterioration caused by organisms is more dangerous than that by microorganisms such as fungi, bacteria, algae, and lichens .
Analogous biodeterioration by plants is one of the most significant deterioration factors of monuments and structures . Undoubtedly, Egypt is one of the ancient countries, which has a significant cultural heritage that is still so attractive and charming . Plant colonization of stone monuments is a worldwide issue and several archaeological sites in Egypt were damaged by plants such as Behbeit el-Hagar Temple, Keman Fares Temple, and Sarabium site [7,8,9]. In addition, the Kom el Dikka site at Alexandria City, Egypt, is displayed in Fig. 1. Moreover, several sites in Turkey, Spain, Italy, and India suffer from it too [10,11,12,13]. At the Petra site in Jordan, vegetation was observed on the façade of the Corinthian tomb; therefore, these plants must be eliminated to prevent unrecognizably weathered or collapsing in the future . Plants belonging to families Asteraceae, Poaceae, Apiaceae, and Scrophulariaceae were identified from the biodegradation of Kasbahs of the Gharb Region, Mehdia and Kenitra Kasbahs, Morocco, which were fitting into joints or cracks on the stones, by acid chemical action and mechanical action by the growth of roots inside cracks . Plants pose a major danger to stones and structures due to their ability to cause serious types of deterioration [15, 16]. With the presence of plants in many archaeological sites, the resulting damage may not be visible yet but is potential due to root extension under the ground .
The deterioration changes depending on whether it is a climbing plant from soil or sprouted on the structure. In the first case, the damage is caused due to the weight of the aerial part, and in the second, it extends to include the damaging effect of the roots, which may lead to the fall of the plaster if it grows on the stucco wall . Notably, plants that grow without soil in urban structures can adapt to harsh conditions .
Sometimes the roots penetrate to a depth of about 8–10 m and sometimes cover distances of more than 50 m, as in the case of one specific Ficus carica L. (the common fig) . Plants have been classified as one of the weathering types that historical buildings are exposed to, because they develop easily, especially with the availability of appropriate conditions . Furthermore, plants are more urgent to edaphoclimatic conditions, as they act as bioindicators for the microenvironment where they grow [15, 21]. On the whole, the deterioration degree highly relies on growing conditions, which makes it easier to predict potential damage to the site [22, 23].
Therefore, this review aimed to illustrate the plant genera that cause the biodeterioration of archeological stone monuments and their mode of action and furthermore, the possible ways to preserve and prevent the deterioration caused by plants.
2 The harmful colonized species
2.1 Woody species
Plants whether woody species like trees and shrubs or herbaceous species including grasses, wildflowers, and weeds can cause damage to stone blocks and structures. But woody species are more harmful due to their root system that can grow for several meters in width, depth, and length as such it poses a danger by extending in the joints and trapping moisture in these openings, resulting in their enlargement [15, 24,25,26,27,28].
Woody species or higher plants like Olea europaea L., Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle, Asparagus albus L., Ceratonia siliqua L., Rubus ulmifolius Schott, and Ficus carica L. with their large root sizes can cause a chemical and mechanical breakdown of phanerophytes by creating deep fissures that can end in destruction with appreciation to their vigorous roots and their high alimentary needs [17, 29,30,31]. Indeed, they can develop their root system at a far distance from the rooting point . Moreover, woody species can induce noticeable dimensional changes because of the secondary growth in their stems and roots . Ornamental trees disperse their seeds from birds, wind, water, insects, mammals, and even humans as such they are prevalent on monuments, not only that but its danger is represented in its reproduction on the upper parts, which is difficult to control [33, 34].
2.2 Perennial weeds
Perennial weeds such as Erysimum cheiri (L.) Crantz, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers., and Dittrichia viscosa (L.) Greuter is responsible for further damage than annual weeds through their ability to make the structure vulnerable by affecting the stability resulting from their root system and the biomass [25, 35]. Perennial weeds are resistant, adaptable, and can populate with seeds and reproduce vegetatively, which is a unique way to survive, consequently becoming difficult to control [34, 36].
2.3 Climbing plants
Climbing plants have unique adaptations and possess high tensile strength and flexibility, which allows them to use natural and man-made structures for support and growth . Additionally, climbing plants require to attach themselves to external support from nearby trees and shrubs to facilitate their growth as well; they are responsible for the climber diversity . Climbers do not only cover up the whole view, but they stifle the substrate or the structure, and shortly by their increasing weight pull down parts of it, in addition to the stout woody climbers of liana, which can produce roots at every node of their stem and then cling to the walls and the sides of the structure . In a comparatively short time, the plant’s roots, tendrils, suckers, and roots of creepers like ivy can cause significant mechanical and chemical deterioration of stones and structures [40, 41]. Besides, vines can pose severe damage compared to other species because they tend to create damp areas between the leaves and the walls, which can cause moisture build-up and rot as it prevents the sun from drying the wall . Furthermore, the roots enzyme can attack the stability of lime remains only in the sand [15, 24,25,26,27]. In occupied buildings, mature creepers may cut out light, inhibit drying out, and obscure the condition of the walls .
The weathering process by small H + cation produced by the root systems of higher plants and climbing vines like Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia Planch.) and Boston ivy (Parthenocissus tricuspidata Planch.) can easily exchange negatively charged nutrient metal cations with minerals and soils. This exchange is also important in the dissolution of the CO3 anion to carbonate . Climbing plants such as ivy (Hedera helix L.) pose a threat due to their ability to establish easily on walls and form an intensive cap causing Surface loss and fragments lost [22, 33]. Hedera helix L. intrudes into joints and rubble fill, converting originally substantial walls into an unstable mass of loose stones and decomposed mortar .
Likewise, ivy roots can be very invasive and destructive when allowed to penetrate pre-existing fissures and gaps . Moreover, ivy can interact with brick and mortar causing loss of structural integrity and by extension, intervention by the consolidation process becomes required . Overall, vines should be denied the freedom to climb the walls, which could be achieved by periodic weed trimming maintenance [15, 24,25,26,27,28]. The order of the most harmful plant species is shown in Fig. 2.
3 Co-factors for plant invasion and colonization
In general, plants need Mn, B, Zn, Cu, Mo, Cl, Na, Si, Co, V, and Ni as essential mineral nutrients (in the case of wall vegetation if the nutrient is organic, it could be an impurity from the substrate or formed through humus if it is inorganic so they are often the mineral constituents of the stone), water, adequate temperatures and humidity, light, and oxygen, which are the key factors for plant growth and reproduction whether in the soil or on the monuments [32, 46,47,48].
Soil pH indicates hydrogen ion activity in the soil solution; it plays a significant role in plant health through mineral nutrient supplies in addition to most of the soil processes. The optimal soil pH for plant growth is between 5.5 and 7; on the contrary, most plants cannot grow in acidic soils because of the amount of aluminum and iron, which are toxic to them [49, 50]. Most wall materials are alkaline pH in the range of 7–9, while mortars are highly alkaline such as Portland cement pH between 11 and 12 .
But some other promoting factors (Fig. 3) make the structure of buildings suitable for plant colonization, such as stone facades that suffer from moisture retention and stagnation of rain for prolonged periods as well as the condition of the surface, porosity, and chemical composition [52,53,54].
Moreover, the size of the stone can affect the type of plant colonization as it seems that more xerophilous species grow between smaller blocks, which is likely due to higher moisture in the cracks of the larger blocks , while trees require large surface areas compared to the walls to grow effectively [51, 55]. Another factor is the age of the wall and the presence of lime mortar [11, 51, 56]. The age of a wall that can enhance variegated flora ranges from one hundred to five hundred years, where the age is associated with the dissolution of walls, creating crevices, and sediment accumulation in this context promotes more botanical communities [51, 56, 57].
Commonly, plants prefer growing in porous stones and lime mortar in the case of bricks due to their ability to retain water and are more easily invaded compared to compact materials like granite and other siliceous rocks [25, 28]. However, by extension, when comparing the attack of acid gasses on the surface of dry and wet limestone, it will of course be greater in the presence of a wet limestone surface . As it was underlined, lime mortar represents the weakest resistance area, the easiest to penetrate, and therefore the fastest to deteriorate . Although the walls are covered with plaster, they may play the role of a surface protector in the short term. Plasters retain their physical and mechanical strength, as well as their dissolution, which supports the growth of roots and the reproduction of woody species, resulting in promoting the growth of the most dangerous species of flora .
The climate of the monument area is highly significant for plant growth especially humid and warm conditions that are favorable and exposed to drought factors such as wind and sun [32, 58]. Wall vegetation develops when the conditions for settlement are appropriate such as exposure to weathering long enough and accumulated soil particles [56, 59].
Notably, the degree of deterioration is determined by the plant growth conditions . Damage is not highly dependent on plant size; it was found that in some cases, although there were large plants, little or no damage was observed, while the small stems caused severe damage to the wall, but the larger stems caused more damage than the small stems as observed in the case of the Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle tree .
Cracks and cavities that appeared in stones are favorable habitats for plant establishment or regeneration because of dust and humus accumulating and depositing of seeds by wind and birds [24, 29, 35, 44]. Especially smaller seeds that can easily dispersal .
Based on previous studies, plant colonization is higher on horizontal surfaces like walls and roofs than on vertical surfaces due to providing better growth conditions [11, 23, 25, 51, 61]. The presence of these plants on the horizontal and inclined surfaces reduces the resistance of the stone against external deterioration factors, and thus, conservation management becomes supremely important .
Close distance is not required to cause damage, because even when trees grow four meters from the wall, they can cause deterioration . It was previously concluded that the plant growth was concentrated in abandoned and unused buildings with a lack of restoration and maintenance practices such as cleaning [10, 18, 20, 23, 62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]. Besides, the presence of bryophytes and lichens can support vascular plant colonization . It can even be considered one of the preliminary stages leading to the later invasion .
4 Types of deterioration
All plant parts (Table 1) like roots or climbing and adhering parts of leaves and stems cause chemical, esthetic damage, and structural alterations to stones as well as a hindrance to displaying the site to the public when dense vegetation affects the visibility of the monument like graveyards and archaeological buildings [32, 71, 72], especially in the case of the significant details on the surfaces like colors and decorations .
4.1 Mechanical and physical damage
Vascular plants pose physico-mechanical deterioration of buildings and structures by root growth, causing an overload on the surface and when allowed to continue without checking may result in affecting the contacted section with the growth or in some cases can threaten the stability of the entire structure [19, 23, 32, 61]. In agreement with previous studies, fast-growing tree species can reduce the humidity level in the surrounding clay soil, causing sufficient shrinkage that can damage the nearby building’s foundations and affect the building’s balance [77,78,79,80,81]. Some woody species can damage the underground monuments as happened in the Jewish catacombs of Villa Torlonia in Rome . When the roots die and decay, this becomes a weak point in the wall, which can lead to collapse, creating gaps and cracks inside the material where water can easily penetrate and render the structure vulnerable . Furthermore, when the stone surface is reduced to small fragments, it can be deteriorated by wind, rain, chemical compounds particularly in the case of the outdoor environment, and the detachment of the paint layer that resulted from the fungal growth [4, 84].
When tree roots extend for seeking moisture sources, old lime mortar loosened, and the stone blocks may fall away ultimately. If the tree is not removed, it will become more dangerous because the adventitious roots will eventually attack many weak points in the mortar system and the tree will add a major weight of the weak parts of the wall .
Roots of plant species induce significant loss of materials affecting the long-time stability of the structure, deformation, and new cracks, and more fracturing facilitates the growth of new trees and shrubs. Notably, the resulting mechanical damage may be one or a combination of all of them [13, 17, 35, 67, 85]. Plant roots have adverse effects that lead to physical pressure, which was clear in Saint George Church in Diyarbakır . Root growth and its radial thickness are the main reasons for physical deterioration which increases the pressure on the areas surrounding the building [32, 87]. This pressure can reach more than 15 atm . Roots become stronger in time and by their physical force, they can open cracks and joints, which in turn expand to allow more moisture to enter [11, 44, 58]. Whether plant roots or weeds on the mortar surface can accelerate the mechanical weathering of the stone by widening the fissures and causing soil pressure and stone reaches to 1–1.5 MPa [74, 89, 90]. Hence, tumefaction and the growth of these plant colonies on the substrate (rhizomes and bulbs) can promote physical confinement and mechanical ruptures .
4.2 Chemical damage
The rhizosphere is the size of soil affected by the existence of the growing plants’ roots. The general change can be considered biological, but the physical, chemical, and biological features are affected to different degrees . Root secretions of organic acids react chemically with the substrate resulting in chemical degradation or may cause surface erosion due to the absorption of calcium or other ions present in the substrate in addition to increasing the number of cracks induced by the wedge effect, and eventually will facilitate the deterioration process [32, 61, 92]. Indeed, most of the excretions are carbon and can be categorized into two groups of compounds, low-molecular-weight compounds like organic acids, amino acids, phenolics, sugars, and volatile compounds and high-molecular-weight compounds like proteins and mucilage .
In general, compounds secreted by roots are carbohydrates, enzymes, amino acids, flavonols, lignins, coumarins, aurones, glucosinolates, anthocyanins, indole compounds, sterols, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), allomones, proteins, and organic acids . The organic acids considered producers of the most direct effect on stone weathering involve malic, oxalic, citric, salicylic, aspartic, gallic, and succinic . Carbonic acid is produced through the respiration process . The oxalic acid secreted by plants reacts with the structure and performs a destructive role as it is a vigorous and complex acid which has chelating and acidic properties, more active than other organic acids [4, 86]. Table 2 shows some plants and their destructive compounds on the stone monuments.
The roots cause chemical damage by the acidity of their secretions, whose pH values are between 4 and 6 . The pH of the rhizosphere becomes lower, which promotes weathering through cation capture by the roots. Thus, the areas surrounding root systems participate basically in the total soil weathering when these roots are in the vicinity of the weatherable rock material but not if the roots are growing within the organic layer of the soil . Some creepers (especially in maturity) and trees are undesirable in enhancing the appearance of masonry walls because their root systems feed on the wall core and disrupt stones. The H. helix should not be left on walls, because of its rapid growth and the searching effect of its aerial roots .
One of the previous studies discussed the enhancement of weathering by plants, which rates at least ten times greater than those with only lichens or microorganisms in the studied environments [108, 109]. During the transpiration process of plants, roots can extract water from joints or capillary pores . In addition, the bulk dissolution of plagioclase accounts for most of the weathering observed under higher plants on basalt stones . Further studies prove through the examination of stones in contact with plant roots that some marks are developed, which were produced by the solvent action of root secretions and appeared clearly on limestone and marble [58, 94].
Plant species can alter soil chemistry, structure, stability, and site hydrology [111, 112]. Plant colonies keep the stones in a damp state, which promotes the attack of air pollution gasses and salts on the surfaces . Indeed, plant roots absorb mineral salts from the stone materials supporting their presence .
4.3 Biological damage
Although the influence of plants falls under biological damage, it leads to the encouragement of other biological factors indirectly. As such the roots of plants can increase the biological weathering of the rocks . Weed growth acts as a shelter for harmful insects, rodents, and microorganisms [29, 72]. Root area even after decaying attracts microbial activity and insects like ants, termites, and pests and these insects increase further crack volume leading to disturbance to the substrate . Table 3 shows some weeds as alternate hosts of some pests. By accumulating humus from dead mosses or the prolonged plant presence, they can promote the development of other plant species, which further degrades the stone structures [24, 60, 114]. In addition, the roots can cover huge areas after the first growing season and regrow new species of plants and these roots continue growing over the years; thus, it becomes stronger and more difficult to eliminate [11, 29].
5 Managing the biodiversity and biodeterioration
The vegetation cover—both natural and cultivated—of the archeological site contributes to its characterization and provides points of interest for visitors. Moreover, it enriches the value of the archeological site, and in some cases offers insight into human actions. On the other hand, plants’ presence on the site should not be underestimated as a threat deterioration factor to the stone monuments . Managing the biodiversity of archaeological sites is an ongoing issue, especially when considering preserving historical structures and biodiversity. As a result, there is an urgent need to take measures to preserve cultural landscapes while considering the conservation of biodiversity within archaeological sites . To manage this component, a collaboration between botanists, agronomists, and archaeologists appears to be necessary, but they must provide directions and tools to facilitate work .
6 Methods of control and prevention
As mentioned in previous studies, the management and restoration factors are extremely important to prevent the growth of plants [61, 69]. Control methods aim to eliminate biological growth or may delay neo-colonization and cleaning artifacts, which involves the removal of vegetation as one of the first steps to be taken in restoration measures . Regular maintenance like mechanical cleaning, laser cleaning, and herbicides can conserve the stone surfaces from biological activity .
Vegetation becomes a hazard in the future if proper prevention is not applied to the sites . Plant controlling is costly, complex, and difficult due to its dispersal, vegetation regeneration after mowing, and the ability to grow in high habitats; in addition, consideration must be given to the appropriate conservation of man-made structures, the environment, and the landscape [75, 125]. The methods of control differ depending on the species of plant identified, building structure, state of conservation, and its location [11, 15, 25].
The knowledge of the ecological behavior of wall plants is necessary for better control and management of these species; a case-by-case evaluation is necessary to assess the size and length of the root and then plan the specific intervention [23, 126]. Therefore, the most common plant species at archaeological sites and their reproduction methods are collected in Table 3. Thus, understanding the natural habitat of the wall is important for choosing the best method for controlling colonial species of plants .
The colonization of plants is closely related to the ability of the species to adapt and the efficiency of the method of reproduction. Worth mentioning is that vegetative reproduction allows plants to have an alternative method in case of sexual reproduction failure. Thus, plants capable of vegetative reproduction are the most dangerous of all . Likewise, the most destructive plants are those with vegetative reproduction as rhizomes and stolons induce an increase in colonize species in size and propagate over great areas to the obvious detriment of building structure . The damage caused by this type of vegetation is especially destructive to statues.
By understanding the way plants reproduce and spread, it becomes possible to plan a successful weed management strategy . It is recommended that control techniques be applied to sites and monuments with optimal environmental conditions for the invasive species . Total removal of plants with their roots is the best method of control with long-term advantages . It is preferred to use environmentally friendly methods .
On the other hand, traditional methods can induce additional deterioration to the monument and the environment . In the case of ivy, it is advised not to remove it because it can lead to the collapse of the structure, and it is preferable to cut the roots and leave them to die on their own . In all cases, burning the vegetation is not an acceptable method particularly in the field of archaeology because it causes severe and irrevocable damage [72, 129]. In many cases, especially when the roots penetrate deeply into the structures of the walls, after the completion of the removal of vegetation, the consolidation must be followed, because some damage may arise after the removal process . Furthermore, from Table 4, it can be said that the plant species that reproduce in more than one way are more dangerous especially if they are woody species, and therefore difficult to deal with.
6.1 Mechanical (manual) methods
Manual methods such as grubbing, weeding, and hand pulling are appropriable ways for herbaceous species but do not guarantee the definitive cessation of the vegetative activity and they can cause damage to the wall structure [24, 59, 125, 132]. For higher plants, the best time for their mowing or defoliation is the germination season when these plants need a lot of energy to send up new leaves and stems . In addition, food reserves in the roots are usually at their lowest before developing full leaves .
The mechanical method is effective when it relies on eradicating plants during the initial stages of growth by cutting them with suitable sharp tools, but it is temporary because there are plants that get stronger and grow again even after cutting, and new suckers can sprout, such as peepal (Ficus religiosa L.) and Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle [17, 58]. This method prevents the presence of unwanted chemical residues, which might affect the surfaces of the building; besides taking time and being a cumbersome process, the method has some risks in the form of deterioration to adjacent surface areas if growths are unwisely pulled .
6.2 Chemical methods
Chemicals are used in the form of liquids, emulsion formulations, and dispersible powders. Biocides can be applied depending on the situation as an aerosol, poultice, by brushing, injection, or immersion .
Using herbicides is harmful to the health and integrity of the restorer and may lead to serious ecological problems in addition to the potential deterioration of long-term; as well, applications for the use of herbicides must meet current requirements and must be specific to the intent of the project [24, 75]. Archaeological stones need more appreciation, especially when using herbicides that can interact with the stones or induce deterioration, and then turn from a method of treatment to a source of damage but neutralization of herbicides can decrease the deterioration degree . Furthermore, examining various physical and chemical changes in masonry proved to be the cumulative application of herbicides that can result in mechanical deterioration as well as staining of stones and mortar .
Notably, some plant species evolved their resistance to herbicides and the reason for this is the excessive reliance on herbicides to control weeds . Relying on herbicides alone for weed management is unsustainable and will fail in the long term even when we use several herbicides with different mechanisms of action; resistant biotypes will be selected by either improving metabolism or stacking multiple resistance traits . Selective herbicides in limited quantities can be suitable to avoid mechanical deterioration of the structure, and while using herbicides, it is necessary to prevent their spread to architectural parts and the environment [125, 126].
Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides at archeological sites [4, 64, 125, 129]. Despite the use of glyphosate, it has been proven that it has disadvantages in some cases such as acidic degradation, the formation of salts, the discoloration of the stone surfaces, and it can expand the materials resulting in widening fissures [129, 137].
Many control methods can be used depending on the type of growth and characteristics, but often a combined program (mechanical and chemical methods) is required to solve the problem and gives the best results [28, 32]. Repeated mowing accompanied by localized herbicide is a good control method .
6.3 Biological methods
Likely, the use of bioherbicides is an effective method to control weeds through fungi, bacteria, and natural material extracts because they are of low cost, permanent, and eco-friendly, but it needs more research and experimentation, especially in archeological sites [134, 138]. Cochliobolus lunatus is a fungal pathogen of plants and can kill barnyard grass seedlings . The fungus Alternaria destruens L. Simmons, strain 059, can eliminate various plant species, crops, and ornamental plants which are commonly in archeological sites . Plants are used as the most promising biocides and a better alternative to chemical biocides, due to their low toxicity and ease of handling [140, 141].
Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle is one of the most dangerous invasive species at archeological sites and can grow rapidly causing great damage thanks to its root system [17, 71, 142]. Surprisingly, A. altissima leaf extract can be used as a bioherbicide to hinder the growth of Medicago sativa L. and prevent it from seed germination and thus transform from a source of damage to a treatment method, and this promising method needs further study and experiment at archaeology sites . There is an urgent need to use natural herbicides because they are safe for the environment and have proven great effectiveness, especially acetic acid, citric acid, clove oil, and corn gluten meal .
Ignoring plant problem, planting trees paying no attention to distances between walls and plants, and neglecting the tree pruning practice lead to interventions that are not only useless and expensive but also dangerous, and it is preferred to repeat mechanical mowing and gardening rather than the frequent use of herbicides [71, 82]. Prevention, caution, and regular monitoring are the most effective methods for dominating plant communities around archeological sites and structures [58, 134]. By prevention, we can avoid both weed propagation and the introduction of new species .
More research and interventions must be available through follow-up to prevent future invasion by plants, considering the development of new management strategies through the integration of multidisciplinary approaches whose goal above all is to restore the monuments themselves . After removing vegetation from the site, it is necessary to start planning for periodic conservation, so the controlling process is not lost in vain . Table 5 shows some practical examples of plant control methods. Table 6 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of methods used for the control and prevention of growing plants in archeological sites.
In addition, it was reported that there is no perfect weed management system that works all the time, and in all situations, diversity is key. This is what we should strive for .
The biodeterioration of stone monuments by plants should not be underestimated. From the aforementioned, it is evident that the plants did not leave any kind of damage without causing it. It is difficult to apply a single control method for all plants because it varies according to the type of soil and environmental conditions in addition to the state of the site and the type of stone, but the best solution is to rectify the plant’s problem and prevent the future threat by following up the preventive maintenance of sites regularly, such as filling cracks and joints with lime mortar and eliminating the plants at the beginning of their growth, as well as preventing the accumulation of dust, organic materials, microorganisms, and humus materials on stone surfaces, and reducing moisture and prolonged stagnation of rainwater. As it is too late, it is better to intervene by mechanical methods and use environmentally friendly methods while avoiding the use of chemical herbicides or applied minimally because of their ability to cause deterioration for stones and their toxicity to humans and the environment. Finally, it is advisable to look for new and promising methods that will reduce the shortcomings of various control methods, eliminate harmful plants with non-toxic methods, be inexpensive, and fast, and preserve stone monuments should have priority.
Cutler N, Viles H (2010) Eukaryotic microorganisms and stone biodeterioration. Geomicrobiol J 27:630–646
Dakal TC, Arora PK (2012) Evaluation of potential of molecular and physical techniques in studying biodeterioration. Rev Environ Sci Bio/Technol 11:71–104
Ferrari C, Santunione G, Libbra A, Muscio A, Sgarbi E, Siligardi C, Barozzi GS (2015) Review on the influence of biological deterioration on the surface properties of building materials: organisms, materials, and methods. Int J Des Nat Ecodynamics 10:21–39
Caneva G, Nugari MP, Salvadori O (1991) Biology in the conservation of works of art. In: International centre for the study of the preservation and the restoration of cultural property. Via di San Michele 13 1-00153, Rome RM, Italy
Zaidi M, Baghdad B, Chakiri S, Taleb A (2016) Characterization of the biodegradation of Kasbahs of the Gharb Region (Mehdia and Kenitra Kasbahs, Morocco). Open J Ecol 6:753–766
Shaw I (2021) Ancient Egypt: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press
Abdelrahim SA (2006) Study the deterioration of granite statues, Keman Fares excavations, Fayoum. Egypt J Eng Sci 34:283–298
Shoeib ASA, Akarish AIM, Mansour MM, Suita H, Tsuchido T (2012) Studies on the monumental stone blocks of Behbeit el-Hagar Temple, Middle Delta. Egypt Semawy Menu 14:23–41
Radi R, Kader A, El-sayed SSM (2017) The agricultural environment’s effect on the deterioration of the archaeological sites applied on Atfiyah’s Sarabium Archaeological Site – Egypt. Int J Archaeol 5:6–13
García-Rowe J, Sáiz-Jiménez C (1991) Lichens and bryophytes as agents of deterioration of building materials in Spanish cathedrals. Int Biodeterior 28:151–163
Mishra GK, Saini DC (2016) Biodeterioration of wall and roof in historic building and monuments in Lucknow city Uttar Pradesh. J New Biol Rep 5:10–18
Ergin Ş, ÇElİK AB, Dal M (2019) Technical characteristics of Kasimiye Madrasa building stones and analysis of stone decay problems. In: Kerpic’19 – Earthen Heritage, New Technology, Management, 7th International Conference, no 117. Köycegiz, Muğla Turkey, 05–07 September, pp 285–294
Izzo F, Furno A, Cilenti F, Germinario C, Gorrasi M, Mercurio M, Langella A, Grifa C (2020) The domus domini imperatoris Apicii built by Frederick II along the Ancient Via Appia (southern Italy): An example of damage diagnosis for a Medieval monument in rural environment. Constr Build Mater 259:119718–119718
Verezen VAM (2017) The Crumbling Wonder: a damage-and risk-assessment of sandstone monuments and natural features in the Petra Archaeological Park (Jordan). Int J Stud Res Archaeol 3:20–34
Almeida MT, Mouga T, Barracosa P (1994) The weathering ability of higher plants. The case of Ailanthus altissima (Miller) Swingle. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 33:333–343
Foxcroft LC, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Genovesi P, MacFadyen S (2017) Plant invasion science in protected areas: progress and priorities. Biol Invasions 19:1353–1378
Trotta G, Savo V, Cicinelli E, Carboni M, Caneva G (2020) Colonization and damages of Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle on archaeological structures: Evidence from the Aurelian Walls in Rome (Italy). Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 153:105054
Mejía E, Tobón JI, Osorio W (2019) Urban structure degradation caused by growth of plants and microbial activity. Mater Constr 69:177–177
Caneva G, Nugari MP, Salvadori O (2008) Plant biology for cultural heritage: biodeterioration and conservation. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA
Hatir ME, Barstuğan M, İnce İ (2020) Deep learning-based weathering type recognition in historical stone monuments. J Cult Herit 45:193–203
Fernandes GW (2016) Ecology and conservation of mountaintop grasslands in Brazil. Springer
Bartoli F, Romiti F, Caneva G (2017) Aggressiveness of Hedera helix L. growing on monuments: evaluation in Roman archaeological sites and guidelines for a general methodological approach. Plant Biosyst-An Int J Dealing Asp Plant Biol 151:866–877
Motti R, Bonanomi G (2018) Vascular plant colonisation of four castles in southern Italy: effects of substrate bioreceptivity, local environment factors and current management. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 133:26–33
Warnock R, Fendrick L, Hightower B, Tatum T (1983) Vegetative threats to historic sites and structures. CRM bulletin 7:11–18
Lisci M, Monte M, Pacini E (2003) Lichens and higher plants on stone: a review. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 51:1–17
Miller TW (2016) Integrated strategies for management of perennial weeds. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 9:148–158
Bersch JD, Verdum G, Lamego Guerra F, Falcão Socoloski R, Giordani C, Zucchetti L, Borges Masuero A (2021) Diagnosis of pathological manifestations and characterization of the mortar coating from the facades of historical buildings in Porto Alegre — Brazil: A Case Study of Château and Observatório Astronômico. Int J Archit Herit 15:1145–1169
Lisci M, Pacini E (1993) Plants growing on the walls of Italian towns 2. Reprod Ecol Giornale Botanico Ital 127:1053–1078
Dabghi A, Magri N, Achoual K, Belahbib N, Benharbit M, Dahmani J (2021) Floristic diversity and its biodeteriogenic effect on the archaeological site of volubilis (Morocco). Plant Cell Biotechnol Mol Biol 22:53–70
Hosseini Z, Caneva G (2021) Evaluating hazard conditions of plant colonization in Pasargadae World Heritage Site (Iran) as a tool of biodeterioration assessment. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 160:105216
Motti R, Bonanomi G, Stinca A (2021) Biodeteriogens at a southern Italian heritage site: analysis and management of vascular flora on the walls of Villa Rufolo. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 162:105252
Mishra AK, Jain KK, Garg KL (1995) Role of higher plants in the deterioration of historic buildings. Sci Total Environ 167:375–392
Celesti-Grapow L, Ricotta C (2021) Plant invasion as an emerging challenge for the conservation of heritage sites: the spread of ornamental trees on ancient monuments in Rome, Italy. Biol Invasions 23:1191–1206
Colquhoun J (2001) Perennial weed biology and management. https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/em8776
Benharbit M, Dahmani J, El Harech M, Cherif S, Dabghi A, Belahbib N, Ziani M (2021) Checklist and role of vegetation in the deterioration of archaeological sites contribution to the knowledge of the plants of chellah (Rabat, Morocco). Plant Cell Biotechnol Mole Biol 22:124–140
Booth BD, Murphy SD, Swanton CJ (2003) Weed ecology in natural and agricultural systems. CABI Publishing, CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2003, 303 pp. Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:683–684
Burris JN, Lenaghan SC, Stewart CN (2018) Climbing plants: attachment adaptations and bioinspired innovations. Plant Cell Rep 37:565–574
Garbin ML, Carrijo TT, Sansevero JBB, Sánchez-Tapia A, Scarano FR (2012) Subordinate, not dominant, woody species promote the diversity of climbing plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 14:257–265
Fell D (2011) Vertical gardening: grow up, not out, for more vegetables and flowers in much less space, 1st edn. Rodale Books, p 336
Schnabel L (1991) The treatment of biological growths on stone: a conservator’s viewpoint. Int Biodeterior 28:125–131
Thornbush MJ (2013) Chapter 8: the use of climbing plants in heritage bioconservation. In: Veress B, Szigethy J (eds) Horizons in earth science research, vol 10. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., pp 231–249
Gustafsson J-G, Mårtensson A (2005) Potential for extending Scandinavian wine cultivation Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Sect B Soil Plant Sci 55:82–97
Honeyborne DB (1998) Weathering and decay of masonry. Conser Build Decorative Stone 1:153–184
Winkler EM (2013) Stone: properties, durability in man’s environment (Applied mineralogy 4). Springer-Verlag (January 1, 1973), p 230
Viles H (2012) Greening stone conservation: exploring the protective role of plants and microbes. In: the 12th International Congress on the Deterioration and Conservation of Stone. ICOM-CC, New York
Gerendás J, Polacco JC, Freyermuth SK, Sattelmacher B (1999) Significance of nickel for plant growth and metabolism. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 162:241–256
Jones JB Jr (2014) Complete guide for growing plants hydroponically. CRC Press
de Mello PR (2021) Introduction to plant nutrition. In: de Mello PR (ed) Mineral nutrition of tropical plants. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–38
Jahn R, Blume HP, Asio VB, Spaargaren O, Schad P (2006) Guidelines for soil description, 4th edn. FAO - 97, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy
Soti PG, Jayachandran K, Koptur S, Volin JC (2015) Effect of soil pH on growth, nutrient uptake, and mycorrhizal colonization in exotic invasive Lygodium microphyllum. Plant Ecol 216:989–998
Francis RA (2010) Wall ecology: a frontier for urban biodiversity and ecological engineering. Prog Phys Geogr: Earth Environ 35:43–63
Guillitte O (1995) Bioreceptivity: a new concept for building ecology studies. Sci Total Environ 167:215–220
Kumbaric A, Ceschin S, Zuccarello V, Caneva G (2012) Main ecological parameters affecting the colonization of higher plants in the biodeterioration of stone embankments of Lungotevere (Rome). Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 72:31–41
Benharbit M (2017) La pierre, Vade-mecum des facteurs d'altération, 1st édn. Septembre 2017, Maison d’édition : TOPPRESS – Rabat, Dépôt légal: 2017MO3866, p 74
Jim CY, Chen WY (2010) Habitat effect on vegetation ecology and occurrence on urban masonry walls. Urban For Urban Green 9:169–178
Sarfatti G (1971) Segal S Ecological notes on wall vegetation. Scientia, Rivista di Scienza 65:313
Yalcinalp E, Meral A (2017) Wall vegetation characteristics of urban and sub-urban areas. Sustain 9:1691
Yadav OP (2015) Eradication of plants and trees from historic buildings and monuments. Ancient Nepal, pp 28–32. https://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ancientnepal/pdf/ancient_nepal_144_03.pdf
Dahmani J, Benharbit M, Fassar M, Hajila R, Zidane L, Magri N, Belahbib N (2020) Vascular plants census linked to the biodeterioration process of the Portuguese city of Mazagan in El Jadida, Morocco. J King Saud Univ Sci 32:682–689
Dyer T (2017) Biodeterioration of concrete. CRC Press
Korkanç M, Savran A (2015) Impact of the surface roughness of stones used in historical buildings on biodeterioration. Constr Build Mater 80:279–294
Caneva G, Cutini M, Pacini A, Vinci M (2002) Analysis of the Colosseum’s floristic changes during the last four centuries. Plant Biosyst-An Int J Dealing Asp Plant Biol 136:291–311
Caneva G, Pacini A, Grapow LC, Ceschin S (2003) The Colosseum’s use and state of abandonment as analysed through its flora. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 51:211–219
Papafotiou M, Kanellou E, Economou G (2010) Alternative practices for vegetation management in archaeological sites-the case of Eleusis. Acta Horticult 881:879–883
Ghestem M, Sidle RC, Stokes A (2011) The influence of plant root systems on subsurface flow: implications for slope stability. Biosci 61:869–879
Motti R, Stinca A (2011) Analysis of the biodeteriogenic vascular flora at the Royal Palace of Portici in southern Italy. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 65:1256–1265
Korkanc M (2013) Deterioration of different stones used in historical buildings within Nigde province, Cappadocia. Constr Build Mater 48:789–803
Korkanç M (2018) Characterization of building stones from the ancient Tyana aqueducts, Central Anatolia, Turkey: implications on the factors of deterioration processes. Bull Eng Geol Env 77:237–252
Cicinelli E, Benelli F, Bartoli F, Traversetti L, Caneva G (2020) Trends of plant communities growing on the Etruscan tombs (Cerveteri, Italy) related to different management practices. Plant Biosyst-An Int J Dealing Asp Plant Biol 154:158–164
Videla HA, Guiamet PS, de Saravia SG (2000) Biodeterioration of Mayan archaeological sites in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 46:335–341
Pinna D (2017) Coping with biological growth on stone heritage objects: methods, products, applications, and perspectives. CRC Press
Fitzpatrick E (1995) The care and conservation of graveyards. Office of Public Works, Dublin, Ireland, p 23
Pozo-Antonio JS, Sanmartín P, Serrano M, De la Rosa JM, Miller AZ, Sanjurjo-Sánchez J (2020) Impact of wildfire on granite outcrops in archaeological sites surrounded by different types of vegetation. Sci Total Environ 747:141143–141143
Lee CH, Lee MS, Kim YT, Kim J (2006) Deterioration assessment and conservation of a heavily degraded Korean stone Buddha from the ninth century. Stud Conserv 51:305–316
Celesti-Grapow L, Blasi C (2004) The role of alien and native weeds in the deterioration of archaeological remains in Italy1. Weed Technol 18:1508–1513
Overbeke C (2008) Do trees really cause so much damage to property? J Build Apprais 3:247–258
Randrup TB, McPherson EG, Costello LR (2001) A review of tree root conflicts with sidewalks, curbs, and roads. Urban Ecosyst 5:209–225
Driscoll R (1983) The influence of vegetation on the swelling and shrinking of clay soils in Britain. Geotechnique 33:93–105
Chitte CJ, Sonawane YN (2018) Study on Causes and Prevention of Cracks in Building. Int Res Appl Sci Eng Technol 6:453–461
Kumar R, Kumar AV (1999) Biodeterioration of stone in tropical environments: an overview. Getty Publications Imprint: Getty Conservation Institute, p 85
Pawlik Ł, Phillips JD, Šamonil P (2016) Roots, rock, and regolith: biomechanical and biochemical weathering by trees and its impact on hillslopes—a critical literature review. Earth Sci Rev 159:142–159
Caneva G, Galotta G, Cancellieri L, Savo V (2009) Tree roots and damages in the Jewish catacombs of Villa Torlonia (Roma). J Cult Herit 10:53–62
Caneva G, Ceschin S, De Marco G (2006) Mapping the risk of damage from tree roots for the conservation of archaeological sites: the case of the Domus Aurea, Rome. Conser Manag Archaeol Sites 7:163–170
Arizzi A, Viles H, Cultrone G (2012) Experimental testing of the durability of lime-based mortars used for rendering historic buildings. Constr Build Mater 28:807–818
Germinario C, Gorrasi M, Izzo F, Langella A, Limongiello M, Mercurio M, Musmeci D, Santoriello A, Grifa C (2020) Damage diagnosis of Ponte Rotto, a Roman bridge along the ancient Appia. Int J Conserv Sci 11:277–290
Dal M (2021) The deterioration problems observed in the natural building blocks of Saint George Church in Diyarbakır Province. Online J Art Des 9:254–262
Biddle G (2001) Tree root damage to buildings. In: Expansive Clay Soils and Vegetative Influence on Shallow Foundations. pp. 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1061/40592(270)1
Caneva G, Galotta G (1994) Floristic and structural changes of plant communities of the "Domus Aurea" (Rome) related to a different weed control. In: La conservazione dei monumenti nel bacino del Mediterraneo: atti del 3° simposio internazionale, Venezia, 22-25 giugno 1994, pp 317–322
Tuğrul A, Zarif HÌ (1999) Research on limestone decay in a polluting environment, I˙stanbul-Turkey. Environ Geol 38:149–158
Lee CH, Choi SW, Suh M (2003) Natural deterioration and conservation treatment of the granite standing Buddha of Daejosa Temple, Republic of Korea. Geotech Geol Eng 21:63–77
Pinton R, Varanini Z, Nannipieri P (2016) The rhizosphere: biochemistry and organic substances at the soil-plant interface. CRC Press
Palla F, Barresi G (2017) Biotechnology and conservation of cultural heritage. Springer
Vivanco JM, Baluška F (2012) Secretions and exudates in biological systems, 12. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p 284
Mottershead DN, Viles HA (2004) Experimental studies of rock weathering by plant roots: updating the work of Julius Sachs (1832-1897). In: Mitchell DJ, Searle DE (eds) Stone deterioration in polluted urban environments 2004 Jan 1, Land Reconstruction and Management edn, vol 3, chap 5. Science Publishers Inc, CRC Press, pp 77–88
Rudrappa T, Choi YS, Levia DF, Legates DR, Lee KH, Bais HP (2009) Phragmites australis root secreted phytotoxin undergoes photo-degradation to execute severe phytotoxicity. Plant Signal Behav 4:506–513
Gomaa NH, Hassan MO, Fahmy GM, González L, Hammouda O, Atteya AM (2014) Allelopathic effects of Sonchus oleraceus L. on the germination and seedling growth of crop and weed species. Acta Botanica Brasilica 28:408–416
Heisey RM, Kish Heisey T (2003) Herbicidal effects under field conditions of Ailanthus altissima bark extract, which contains ailanthone. Plant Soil 256:85–99
Kožuharova E, Lebanova H, Getov I, Benbassat N, Kochmarov V (2014) Ailanthus altissima (Mill) Swingle–a terrible invasive pest in Bulgaria or potential useful medicinal plant? Bothalia J 44:213–230
Al-Snafi AE (2018) Pharmacological and therapeutic activities of Hedera helix-A review. Iosr J Pharm 8:41–53
Javed MT, Akram MS, Habib N, Tanwir K, Ali Q, Niazi NK, Gul H, Iqbal N (2018) Deciphering the growth, organic acid exudations, and ionic homeostasis of Amaranthus viridis L. and Portulaca oleracea L. under lead chloride stress. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:2958–2971
Mandrioli P, Sabbioni C, Caneva G (2003) Cultural heritage and aerobiology. Methods and Measurement Techniques for Biodeterioration Monitoring, 1. Springer, Dordrecht, XIV, p 243
Jagtap UB, Bapat VA (2020) Exploring Phytochemicals of Ficus carica L. (Fig). In: Murthy H, Bapat V (eds) Bioactive compounds in underutilized fruits and nuts. Reference Series in Phytochemistry. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30182-8_19
Viles H, Sternberg T, Cathersides A (2011) Is Ivy Good or Bad for Historic Walls? J Archit Conserv 17:25–41
Jayasinghe C, Gotoh N, Aoki T, Wada S (2003) Phenolics composition and antioxidant activity of sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). J Agric Food Chem 51:4442–4449
Chen X, Bai F, Huang J, Lu Y, Wu Y, Yu J, Bai S (2021) The organisms on rock cultural heritages: growth and weathering. Geoheritage 13:56
Caneva G, Altieri A (1988) Biochemical mechanisms of stone weathering induced by plant growth. In: 6th International Congress on deterioration and conservation of stone. Proceedings – VIe Congrès International sur l'altération et la conservation de la pierre. Actes. Torun, 12–14, September, 1988, pp 32–44
Doughty CE, Taylor LL, Girardin CAJ, Malhi Y, Beerling DJ (2014) Montane forest root growth and soil organic layer depth as potential factors stabilizing Cenozoic global change. Geophys Res Lett 41:983–990
Berner RA (1992) Weathering, plants, and the long-term carbon cycle. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 56:3225–3231
Banfield JF, Barker WW, Welch SA, Taunton A (1999) Biological impact on mineral dissolution: application of the lichen model to understanding mineral weathering in the rhizosphere. Proc Natl Acad Sci 96:3404–3411
Ford Cochran M, Berner RA (1996) Promotion of chemical weathering by higher plants: field observations on Hawaiian basalts. Chem Geol 132:71–77
Crow P, Moffat AJ (2005) The management of the archaeological resource in UK wooded landscapes: an environmental perspective. Conserv Manag Archaeol Sites 7:103–116
Gregory PJ (2006) Roots, rhizosphere and soil: the route to a better understanding of soil science? Eur J Soil Sci 57:2–12
Ouacha H, Benmoussa A, Baghdad B, Simao J, Taleb A, Dalimi M (2016) Inventaire de la Flore Peuplant les Monuments Historiques de la Cite Archeologique de Lixus, Maroc. Eur J Sci Res 142:276–289
Dakal TC, Cameotra SS (2012) Microbially induced deterioration of architectural heritages: routes and mechanisms involved. Environ Sci Eur 24:36
Laizer HC, Chacha MN, Ndakidemi PA (2019) Farmers’ Knowledge, Perceptions and Practices in Managing Weeds and Insect Pests of Common Bean in Northern Tanzania. Sustain 11:4076
Kumar S (2009) Biological control of Parthenium in India: status and prospects. Indian J Weed Sci 41:1–18
Sushilkumar SVM (1996) Development and damage potential of Zygogramma bicolorata, introduced for parthenium control on another weed Xanthium strumarium. J App Zool Res 6:120–121
Vicente JG, Holub EB (2013) Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris (cause of black rot of crucifers) in the genomic era is still a worldwide threat to brassica crops. Mol Plant Pathol 14:2–18
Kumar S, Bhowmick MK, Ray P (2021) Weeds as alternate and alternative hosts of crop pests. Indian J Weed Sci 53:14–29
Oliveira CM, Fontes JRA (2008) Weeds as hosts for new crop pests: the case of Protortonia navesi (Hemiptera: Monophlebidae) on cassava in Brazil. Weed Res 48:197–200
Heneidy SZ, Al-Sodany YM, Bidak LM, Fakhry AM, Hamouda SK, Halmy MWA, Alrumman SA, Al-Bakre DA, Eid EM, Toto SM (2022) Archeological sites and relict landscapes as refuge for biodiversity: case study of Alexandria City. Egypt Sustain 14:2416
Cicinelli E, Salerno G, Caneva G (2018) An assessment methodology to combine the preservation of biodiversity and cultural heritage: the San Vincenzo al Volturno historical site (Molise, Italy). Biodivers Conserv 27:1073–1093
Minissale P, Trigilia A, Brogna F, Sciandrello S (2015) Plants and vegetation in the archaeological park of Neapolis of Syracuse (Sicily, Italy): a management effort and also an opportunity for better enjoyment of the site. Conserv Manag Archaeol Sites 17:340–369
İnce İ, Korkanç M, Hatır ME (2020) Evaluation of weathering effects due to surface and deep moisture in a Roman rock tomb: Lukianos monument Konya (Turkey). Mediter Archaeol Archaeom 20:121–133
Motti R, Bonanomi G, Stinca A (2020) Deteriogenic flora of the Phlegraean Fields Archaeological Park: ecological analysis and management guidelines. Nord J Bot 38:e02627
Papafotiou M, Kanellou E, Economou G (2017) Integrated design and management of vegetation at archaeological sites to protect monuments and enhance the historical landscape. In: 6th International Conference on Landscape and Urban Horticulture 1189. Athens, Greece on 20-25th June 2016, pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1189.1
Ceschin S, Bartoli F, Salerno G, Zuccarello V, Caneva G (2016) Natural habitats of typical plants growing on ruins of Roman archaeological sites (Rome, Italy). Plant Biosyst-An Int J Dealing Asp Plant Biol 150:866–875
Radosevich SR, Holt JS, Ghersa CM (2007) Ecology of weeds and invasive plants: relationship to agriculture and natural resource management. John Wiley & Sons
Dewey CC (1999) An investigation into the effects of an herbicide on historic masonry materials. Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA., https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1465&context=hp_theses, Accession date 23 April 2014
Hosseini Z, Zangari G, Carboni M, Caneva G (2021) Substrate preferences of ruderal plants in colonizing stone monuments of the Pasargadae World Heritage Site. Iran Sustain 13:9381
Dabghi A, Achoual K, Benharbit M, Magri N, Belahbib N, Dahmani J (2020) Contribution to the study of the vascular flora of the archaeological site of Volubilis (Morocco). Plant Archives 2:7519–7527
Tiano P (2002) Biodegradation of cultural heritage: decay mechanisms and control methods. In: Seminar article, the new university of Lisbon. Department of Conservation and Restoration 2002 Apr, pp 7–12. http://www.itam.cas.cz/ARCCHIP/w09/w09_tiano.pdf
van Evert FK, Cockburn M, Beniers JE, Latsch R (2020) Weekly defoliation controls, but does not kill broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius). Weed Res 60:161–170
Mouga T, Almeida MT, Rosa P (1995) Chemical control of wall vegetation-neutralisation of herbicides. Preservation Restauration des Biens Culturels http://hdl.handle.net/10400.8/4079, 293–301
Moss S (2017) Herbicide resistance in weeds. In: Weed research: expanding horizons. Jon Wiley & Sons Ltd., Hoboken, New Jersey, pp 181–214
Shaner DL (2017) Lessons learned from the history of herbicide resistance. Weed Sci 62:427–431
Oshida CM (2011) The effect of herbicide on stone and masonry material. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/oshida_caitlin_m_201112_mhp.pdf
Cai X, Gu M (2016) Bioherbicides in Organic Horticulture. Horticulturae 2:3
Cordeau S, Triolet M, Wayman S, Steinberg C, Guillemin J-P (2016) Bioherbicides: Dead in the water? A review of the existing products for integrated weed management. Crop Prot 87:44–49
Silva M, Pereira A, Teixeira D, Candeias A, Caldeira AT (2016) Combined use of NMR, LC-ESI-MS and antifungal tests for rapid detection of bioactive lipopeptides produced by Bacillus. Adv Microbiol 6:788–796
Kakakhel MA, Wu F, Gu J-D, Feng H, Shah K, Wang W (2019) Controlling biodeterioration of cultural heritage objects with biocides: a review. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 143:104721
Constán-Nava S, Bonet A, Pastor E, Lledó MJ (2010) Long-term control of the invasive tree Ailanthus altissima: insights from Mediterranean protected forests. For Ecol Manage 260:1058–1064
Tsao R, Romanchuk FE, Peterson CJ, Coats JR (2002) Plant growth regulatory effect and insecticidal activity of the extracts of the Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima L.). BMC Ecol 2:1–6
Abouziena HFH, Omar AAM, Sharma SD, Singh M (2009) Efficacy comparison of some new natural-product herbicides for weed control at two growth stages. Weed Technol 23:431–437
Pannacci E, Lattanzi B, Tei F (2017) Non-chemical weed management strategies in minor crops: a review. Crop Prot 96:44–58
This paper was a part of an M.Sc. thesis based upon work supported by the Conservation Department, Faculty of Archaeology, Cairo University. Also, the authors would like to acknowledgment the Forestry and Wood Technology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Alexandria University.
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Elgohary, Y.M., Mansour, M.M.A. & Salem, M.Z.M. Assessment of the potential effects of plants with their secreted biochemicals on the biodeterioration of archaeological stones. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-03300-8
- Plants colonization
- Stone monuments
- Archaeological sites
- Control methods