CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Litter chemistry of common European tree species drives the feeding preference and consumption rate of soil invertebrates, and shapes the diversity and structure of gut and faecal microbiomes

Open access
Heděnec, Petr, Zheng, Haifeng, Siqueira, David Pessanha, Peng, Yan, Schmidt, Inger Kappel, Frøslev, Tobias Guldberg, Kjøller, Rasmus, Li, Huan, Frouz, Jan, Vesterdal, Lars·2023·Soil Biology and Biochemistry
DOI 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108918
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Terrestrial isopods and millipedes are key drivers of a litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems but the effects of litter chemistry on feeding preference and litter consumption rate as well as on the diversity and composition of gut and faecal microbiome still entails several challenges. We established a mesocosm experiment with terrestrial isopods (Oniscus asellus) and millipedes (Glomeris marginata) fed by leaf litter from six common European tree species (ash, maple, lime, beech, oak and Norway spruce) to reveal the effect of litter chemistry on consumption rate and feeding preference as well as on the compositions of gut and faecal microbiomes. The total percentage of consumed litter showed that O. asellus preferred nutrient-rich and labile-C litter of ash over more recalcitrant litter of oak, beech, and Norway spruce, while G. marginata preferred calcium-rich ash, maple and lime litter over beech and Norway spruce. Consumption of litter by O. asellus and G. marginata increased with concentrations of magnesium, sulphur and potassium but decreased with concentrations of iron, phosphorus, lignin, cellulose and TOC. The millipede G. marginata harboured higher bacterial OTU richness (73.5 ± 12.5) than the isopod O. asellus (49.1 ± 15.9), but fungal OTU richness was similar with 25.8 ± 6.7 in O. asellus and 25.7 ± 2.7 in G. marginata. In total, faeces of both animals hosted higher diversity than gut. In gut and faeces of O. asellus, the fungal OTU richness was highest for individuals fed by litter of Norway spruce, while lowest OTU richness was recorded for individuals fed by litter of more palatable ash. In contrast, the highest diversity of the fungal community in gut and faeces of G. marginata was recorded for individuals fed by palatable lime litter, while the lowest OTUs richness was recorded when millipedes were fed by maple and spruce. The structures of bacterial and fungal communities generally separated between O. asellus and G. marginata. The fungal community structure in gut and faeces differed between animals fed by different foliar litters, while the bacterial community structure mainly differed between gut and faeces regardless of the offered type of litter. The fungal community structure in gut and faeces of O. asellus and G. marginata were shaped by concentrations of magnesium, sulphur, lignin and cellulose. The bacterial communities in gut and faeces of both O. asellus and G. marginata were dominated by copiotrophic bacteria, while fungal communities were dominated by unspecified saprotrophs. Our study suggest that litter quality is a strong driver of feeding preference and consumption rates as well as composition of bacterial and fungal communities in gut and faeces of two species representing the main groups of litter feeding soil fauna in European forests.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108918

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Algora Gallardo, 2021, Litter-inhabiting fungi show high level of specialization towards biopolymers composing plant and fungal biomass, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 57, 77, 10.1007/s00374-020-01507-3 · DOI
  2. Arora, 2022, The functional evolution of termite gut microbiota, Microbiome, 10, 78, 10.1186/s40168-022-01258-3 · DOI
  3. Barbehenn, 2005, Phenolic compounds in red oak and sugar maple leaves have prooxidant activities in the midgut fluids of Malacosoma disstria and Orgyia leucostigma caterpillars, Journal of Chemical Ecology, 31, 969, 10.1007/s10886-005-4242-4 · DOI
  4. Barberán, 2014, Why are some microbes more ubiquitous than others? Predicting the habitat breadth of soil bacteria, Ecology Letters, 17, 794, 10.1111/ele.12282 · DOI
  5. Bengtsson-Palme, 2013, Improved software detection and extraction of ITS1 and ITS2 from ribosomal ITS sequences of fungi and other eukaryotes for analysis of environmental sequencing data, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 914, 10.1111/2041-210X.12073 · DOI
  6. Berg, 2004, Feeding guilds in Collembola based on digestive enzymes, Pedobiologia, 48, 589, 10.1016/j.pedobi.2004.07.006 · DOI
  7. Caporaso, 2011, Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 4516, 10.1073/pnas.1000080107 · DOI
  8. Cepáková, 2015, Changes in chemical composition of litter during decomposition: a review of published 13C NMR spectra, Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 15, 805
  9. Cesarz, 2013, Tree species diversity versus tree species identity: driving forces in structuring forest food webs as indicated by soil nematodes, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 62, 36, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.02.020 · DOI
  10. Chakraborty, 2020, Core mycobiome and their ecological relevance in the gut of five ips bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: scolytinae), Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 10.3389/fmicb.2020.568853 · DOI
  11. Coq, 2022, Faeces traits as unifying predictors of detritivore effects on organic matter turnover, Geoderma, 422, 10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.115940 · DOI
  12. Crowther, 2012, Impacts of grazing soil fauna on decomposer fungi are species-specific and density-dependent, Fungal Ecology, 5, 277, 10.1016/j.funeco.2011.07.006 · DOI
  13. David, 2002, Annual feeding rate of the millipede Glomeris marginata on holm oak (Quercus ilex) leaf litter under Mediterranean conditions, Pedobiologia, 46, 42, 10.1078/0031-4056-00112 · DOI
  14. David, 2010, The ecology of saprophagous macroarthropods (millipedes, woodlice) in the context of global change, Biological Reviews, 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00138.x · DOI
  15. David, 2001, Feeding rates of the woodlouse Armadillidium vulgare on herb litters produced at two levels of atmospheric CO2, Oecologia, 127, 343, 10.1007/s004420000599 · DOI
  16. de Souza, 2016, Unlocking the bacterial and fungal communities assemblages of sugarcane microbiome, Scientific Reports, 6, 10.1038/srep28774 · DOI
  17. Delhoumi, 2020, The gut microbiota structure of the terrestrial isopod Porcellionides pruinosus (Isopoda: Oniscidea), European Zoological Journal, 87, 357, 10.1080/24750263.2020.1781269 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Edgar, 2013, UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads, Nature Methods, 10, 996, 10.1038/nmeth.2604 · DOI
  19. Edgar, 2011, UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection, Bioinformatics, 27, 2194, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Ferreira Quadros, 2014, Litter traits and palatability to detritivores: a case study across bio-geographical boundaries, Nauplius, 22, 103, 10.1590/S0104-64972014000200004 · DOI
  21. Fierer, 2007, Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria, Ecology, 88, 1354, 10.1890/05-1839 · DOI
  22. Frøslev, 2021, The biodiversity effect of reduced tillage on soil microbiota, Ambio, 51
  23. Frouz, 2018, Effects of soil macro- and mesofauna on litter decomposition and soil organic matter stabilization, Geoderma, 332, 161, 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.08.039 · DOI
  24. Frouz, 2003, Changes in amount of bacteria during gut passage of leaf litter and during coprophagy in three species of Bibionidae (Diptera) Larvae, Folia Microbiologica, 48, 535, 10.1007/BF02931337 · DOI
  25. Frouz, 2007, The effect of litter quality and soil faunal composition on organic matter dynamics in post-mining soil: a laboratory study, Applied Soil Ecology, 37, 72, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.04.001 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Gerlach, 2014, Feeding preferences of native terrestrial isopod species (Oniscoidea, Isopoda) for native and introduced leaf litter, Applied Soil Ecology, 83, 95, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.02.006 · DOI
  27. Heděnec, 2013, Grazing preference and utilization of soil fungi by Folsomia candida (Isotomidae: Collembola), European Journal of Soil Biology, 55, 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2012.12.005 · DOI
  28. Ihrmark, 2012, New primers to amplify the fungal ITS2 region - evaluation by 454-sequencing of artificial and natural communities, FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 82, 666, 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01437.x · DOI
  29. Joly, 2018, Litter conversion into detritivore faeces reshuffles the quality control over C and N dynamics during decomposition, Functional Ecology, 1
  30. Joly, 2020, Detritivore conversion of litter into faeces accelerates organic matter turnover, Communications Biology, 3, 1, 10.1038/s42003-020-01392-4 · DOI
  31. Jumpponen, 2010, Seasonally dynamic fungal communities in the Quercus macrocarpa phyllosphere differ between urban and nonurban environments, New Phytologist, 186, 496, 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03197.x · DOI
  32. Kadamannaya, 2009, Leaf litter ingestion and assimilation by two endemic pill millipedes (Arthrosphaera), Biology and Fertility of Soils, 45, 761, 10.1007/s00374-009-0391-x · DOI
  33. Kakvan, 2013, Development of new bioformulations using Trichoderma and Talaromyces fungal antagonists for biological control of sugar beet damping-off disease, Crop Protection, 53, 80, 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.06.009 · DOI
  34. Knapp, 2010, Bacterial community composition of the gut microbiota of Cylindroiulus fulviceps (Diplopoda) as revealed by molecular fingerprinting and cloning, Folia, 55, 489
  35. Koivusaari, 2019, Fungi originating from tree leaves contribute to fungal diversity of litter in streams, Frontiers in Microbiology, 10, 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00651 · DOI
  36. Korkama-Rajala, 2008, Decomposition and fungi of needle litter from slow- and fast-growing Norway spruce (Picea abies) clones, Microbial Ecology, 56, 76, 10.1007/s00248-007-9326-y · DOI
  37. Kostanjsek, 2004, Anaerobic bacteria in the gut of terrestrial isopod Crustacean Porcellio scaber, Folia Microbiologica, 49, 179, 10.1007/BF02931397 · DOI
  38. Liu, 2019, Soil microbiome mediated nutrients decline during forest degradation process, Soil Ecology Letters, 1, 59, 10.1007/s42832-019-0009-7 · DOI
  39. Liu, 2020, Decoupled diversity patterns in bacteria and fungi across continental forest ecosystems, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 144, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107763 · DOI
  40. Loginova, 2005, Feeding activity of the land woodlice, Trachelipus rathkei (Oniscoidea), in mountain oak forests of Mordovia, Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 84, 1315
  41. Martínez-Romero, 2021, We and herbivores eat endophytes, Microbial Biotechnology, 10.1111/1751-7915.13688 · DOI
  42. Mrnka, 2020, Interactions of saprotrophic and root symbiotic fungi control the transformation of humic substances and phosphorus in Norway spruce needle litter, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 149, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107919 · DOI
  43. Nicoletti, 2022, Talaromyces–insect relationships, Microorganisms
  44. Nilsson, 2019, The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications, Nucleic Acids Research, 47, D259, 10.1093/nar/gky1022 · DOI
  45. Oksanen, 2012, vol. 263
  46. Ownley, 2010, Endophytic fungal entomopathogens with activity against plant pathogens: ecology and evolution, BioControl, 55, 113, 10.1007/s10526-009-9241-x · DOI
  47. Peng, 2022, vol. 407
  48. Petersen, 1982, Nordic society Oikos A Comparative analysis of soil fauna populations and their role in decomposition processes Author (s): henning petersen and malcolm Luxton source : Oikos, Quantitative Ecology of Microfungi and Animals in Soil a, 39
  49. Põlme, 2020, FungalTraits: a user-friendly traits database of fungi and fungus-like stramenopiles, Fungal Diversity, 105, 1, 10.1007/s13225-020-00466-2 · DOI
  50. Prescott, 2021, Forest Ecology and Management Decomposition and transformations along the continuum from litter to soil organic matter in forest soils, Forest Ecology and Management, 498, 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119522 · DOI
  51. Rief, 2012, Palatability of selected alpine plant litters for the decomposer Lumbricus rubellus (Lumbricidae), PLoS One, 7, 10.1371/journal.pone.0045345 · DOI
  52. Sluiter, 2010, Compositional analysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks. 1. Review and description of methods, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58, 9043, 10.1021/jf1008023 · DOI
  53. Sohlenius, 1999, Effects of climate change on soil factors and metazoan microfauna (nematodes, tardigrades and rotifers) in a Swedish tundra soil - a soil transplantation experiment, Applied Soil Ecology, 12, 113, 10.1016/S0929-1393(98)00168-1 · DOI
  54. Steinwandter, 2020, The buffet is open: alpine soil macro-decomposers feed on a wide range of litter types in a microcosm cafeteria experiment, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 144, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107786 · DOI
  55. Šustr, 2020, Enzymatic activities in the digestive tract of spirostreptid and spirobolid millipedes (Diplopoda: spirostreptida and Spirobolida), Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 241, 10.1016/j.cbpb.2019.110388 · DOI
  56. Tajovsky, 1992, Feeding biology of the millipede Glomeris hexasticha, Ber. Nat.-Med. Verein Innsbruck, 10, 305
  57. Tedersoo, 2014, Global diversity and geography of soil fungi, Science, 346, 1078+, 10.1126/science.1256688 · DOI
  58. Thomas, 2011, Environmental and gut Bacteroidetes: the food connection, Frontiers in Microbiology, 2, 10.3389/fmicb.2011.00093 · DOI
  59. Trivedi, 2020, Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health, Nature Reviews Microbiology, 10.1038/s41579-020-0412-1 · DOI
  60. Vašutová, 2019, Taxi drivers: the role of animals in transporting mycorrhizal fungi, Mycorrhiza, 10.1007/s00572-019-00906-1 · DOI
  61. Větrovský, 2018, Seed 2: a user-friendly platform for amplicon high-throughput sequencing data analyses, Bioinformatics, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty071 · DOI
  62. Větrovský, 2020, Termites host specific fungal communities that differ from those in their ambient environments, Fungal Ecology, 48, 10.1016/j.funeco.2020.100991 · DOI
  63. Wardle, 2004, Ecological Linkages between Aboveground and belowground biota, Science, 304, 1629, 10.1126/science.1094875 · DOI
  64. Xiong, 2018, Soil protist communities form a dynamic hub in the soil microbiome, The ISME Journal, 12, 634, 10.1038/ismej.2017.171 · DOI
  65. Yilmaz, 2014, The SILVA and “all-species Living Tree Project (LTP)” taxonomic frameworks, Nucleic Acids Research, 42, 643, 10.1093/nar/gkt1209 · DOI
  66. Zhang, 2021, Gammaproteobacteria, a core taxon in the guts of soil fauna, are potential responders to environmental concentrations of soil pollutants, Microbiome, 9, 10.1186/s40168-021-01150-6 · DOI
  67. Zheng, 2022, Mite gut microbiome and resistome exhibited species-specific and dose-dependent effect in response to oxytetracycline exposure, Science of the Total Environment, 807, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150802 · DOI
  68. Zheng, 2022, Effects of common European tree species on soil microbial resource limitation, microbial communities and soil carbon, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 172, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108754 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Heděnec, P., Zheng, H., Siqueira, D. P., Peng, Y., Schmidt, I. K., Frøslev, T. G., Kjøller, R., Li, H., Frouz, J., & Vesterdal, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Fujian Normal University (CN)
  • Lanzhou University (CN)
  • Charles University (CZ)
ORCID
Venue
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-02
Volume
177
Pages
108918
ISSN
0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108918
OpenAlex
W4312203604
Cited by
29
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Soil Biology and Biochemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (88881)
  • China Scholarship Council (201806910047, 747824-AFOREST-H2020-MSCA-IF-2016/H2020-MSCA-IF-2016, 201606910045)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (MSCA-IF-2016, H2020-MSCA, H2020-MSCA-IF-2016)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
leaf litter chemistry, litter decomposition, terrestrial isopods, Oniscus asellus, millipedes, Glomeris marginata, feeding preference, gut microbiota, fecal microbiota, fungal communities, bacterial communities, tree species, ash, Norway spruce, beech, oak, maple, lime, calcium, lignin, cellulose, soil invertebrates

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