Cited by 45Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsEnvironmental and biological studiesMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions

Decomposition of willow-leaf litter in a short-rotation forest in relation to fungal colonization and palatability for earthworms

Šlapokas, T., Granhall, U.·1991·Biology and Fertility of Soils

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00337374

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Earthworms enhance the incorporation of residues into the soil and accelerate their decay.

    “Earthworms clearly enhance the incorporation of residues into the soil and accelerate their decay [110, 111].”
  • Within the short-rotation coppice data, there is more quantitative evidence from poplar than for willow.

    “Within the SRC data, there is more quantitative evidence from poplar [60, 72, 78, 79, 99, 109] than for willow [58, 111, 131].”
  • A small number of studies using isotopes, model systems and field sampling allow scaling of mean residence times to in situ rates.

    “However, a small number of studies using isotopes [109], model systems [110, 111] and field sampling [32, 81, 82] allow their scaling to in situ rates.”
  • Leaf material accessible to earthworms almost completely disappeared from large mesh litter bags within 1 year (95%; MRT about 1 year), while material accessible only to fungal decomposition lost between 40 and 80% (MRT 2.5 to 1.25 years).

    “Leaf material accessible to earthworms almost completely disappeared from the large mesh litter bags within 1 year (95 %; MRT ∼1 year), whilst material accessible only to fungal decomposition only lost between 40 and 80 % (MRT 2.5 to 1.25 years).”
  • In situ decay rates of leaves were much higher when using large instead of small mesh litter bags.

    “In situ decay rates of leaves were much higher when using large instead of small mesh litter bags [111].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Šlapokas, T., & Granhall, U.
Affiliations
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Venue
Biology and Fertility of Soils
Published
1991-02
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
241-248
ISSN
  • 0178-2762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0789
OpenAlex
W1974947461
Cited by
45
References
17
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biology and Fertility of Soils (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and biological studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Keywords
Salix daphnoides, Salix viminalis, Salix fragilis, litter decomposition, earthworms, fungal colonization, microbial decomposition, tannins, astringency, Fungi Imperfecti, litterbag experiment, short rotation forestry, soil macrofauna

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review