Does Porcellio scaber (Isopoda: Oniscidea) gain from coprophagy?
Abstract
In feeding experiments, leaf litter of different tree species and isopod feces derived from these leaf litter materials were offered to the common woodlouse, Porcellio scaber. Consumption indices were used to elucidate the nutritional significance of coprophagy. Consumption rates of P. scaber clearly differed between feeding assays with alder (Alnus glutinosa) litter and those with isopod feces derived from alder. Differences between feeding assays depended on microbial activity of the food sources when oak (Quercus robur) litter or isopod feces derived from oak were offered. Further, microbiota increased the digestibility of oak material, but did not change digestibility of alder litter and reduced digestibility of feces derived from alder. Thus, the significance of litter- or feces-colonizing microbiota decreased with increasing nutritive value of the leaf litter. Inoculated feces derived from oak provided better growth than any other oak-derived food. In contrast, isopods grew better on alder litter than on alder-derived feces. In sum, we found little evidence to support the notion that P. scaber gains from coprophagy. We reject the hypothesis that coprophagy meets a need for nutrients that, due to digestive incapabilities, cannot be satisfied by feeding on leaf litter alone. The hypothesis that microbial colonizers render feces attractive as a source of microbial enzymes or nutrients is only partly corroborated. P. scaber gains from coprophagy through microbial activity or biomass only if leaf litter quality is low.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bouchon, D., Zimmer, M., & Dittmer, J. (2016) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.01472 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kautz, G., Zimmer, M., & Topp, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Cologne (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Zimmer, Martin
- ORCID
- Zimmer, Martin
- Venue
- Soil Biology and Biochemistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1253-1259
- ISSN
- 0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2026139090
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Soil Biology and Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Crustacean biology and ecology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Isotope Analysis in Ecology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
- Keywords
- Porcellio scaber, woodlouse, coprophagy, leaf litter, microbial activity, digestibility, leaf litter quality, Alnus glutinosa, Quercus robur, nutrient acquisition, feeding behavior
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