The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fungal community on decomposing leaf litter undergoes rapid successional changes
Open accessAbstract
Fungi are considered the primary decomposers of dead plant biomass in terrestrial ecosystems. However, current knowledge regarding the successive changes in fungal communities during litter decomposition is limited. Here we explored the development of the fungal community over 24 months of litter decomposition in a temperate forest with dominant Quercus petraea using 454-pyrosequencing of the fungal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region and cellobiohydrolase I (cbhI) genes, which encode exocellulases, to specifically address cellulose decomposers. To quantify the involvement of phyllosphere fungi in litter decomposition, the fungal communities in live leaves and leaves immediately before abscission were also analysed. The results showed rapid succession of fungi with dramatic changes in the composition of the fungal community. Furthermore, most of the abundant taxa only temporarily dominated in the substrate. Fungal diversity was lowest at leaf senescence, increased until month 4 and did not significantly change during subsequent decomposition. Highly diverse community of phyllosphere fungi inhabits live oak leaves 2 months before abscission, and these phyllosphere taxa comprise a significant share of the fungal community during early decomposition up to the fourth month. Sequences assigned to the Ascomycota showed highest relative abundances in live leaves and during the early stages of decomposition. In contrast, the relative abundance of sequences assigned to the Basidiomycota phylum, particularly basidiomycetous yeasts, increased with time. Although cellulose was available in the litter during all stages of decomposition, the community of cellulolytic fungi changed substantially over time. The results indicate that litter decomposition is a highly complex process mediated by various fungal taxa.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A Phylogenetic Evaluation of Whether Endophytes Become Saprotrophs at Host Senescence
Promputtha, I., Lumyong, S., Dhanasekaran, V., McKenzie, E. H. C., Hyde, K. D., & Jeewon, R. (2007) · Microbial Ecology · doi:10.1007/s00248-006-9117-x · Cited by 412
Cited by
Forest microbiome: diversity, complexity and dynamics
Baldrian, P. (2016) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuw040 · Cited by 710
Self-citationTemporal dynamics of biotic and abiotic drivers of litter decomposition
García‐Palacios, P., Shaw, E. A., Wall, D. H., & Hättenschwiler, S. (2016) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12590 · Cited by 331
Yang, T., Adams, J. M., Shi, Y., He, J., Jing, X., Chen, L., Tedersoo, L., & Chu, H. (2017) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.14606 · Cited by 320
Bringel, F., & Couée, I. (2015) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00486 · Cited by 312
Austin, A. T., Vivanco, L., González‐Arzac, A., & Pérez, L. I. (2014) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.12959 · Cited by 298
Metadata
- Authors
- Voříšková, J., & Baldrian, P.
- Venue
- The ISME Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-10-11
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 477-486
- ISSN
- 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
- 1751-7370
- OpenAlex
- W2053492383
- Cited by
- 812
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fungal community on decomposing leaf litter undergoes rapid successional changes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ismej.2012.116
- The paper
- Voříšková, J., & Baldrian, P. (2013). Fungal community on decomposing leaf litter undergoes rapid successional changes. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2012.116
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.