Cited by 46Crustacean biology and ecologyIsotope Analysis in EcologySoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics

Does Porcellio scaber (Isopoda: Oniscidea) gain from coprophagy?

Kautz, Guido, Zimmer, Martin, Topp, Werner·2002·Soil Biology and Biochemistry

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0038-0717(02)00065-2

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.

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.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kautz, G., Zimmer, M., & Topp, W.
Affiliations
University of Cologne (DE)
Corresponding author
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