Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 156 of the 156 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of methodology used to measure leaf litter decomposition in lotic environments: Time to turn over an old leaf?

Boulton, AJ, Boon, PI·1991·Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
DOI 10.1071/mf9910001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite the recognition of the relationship between microbial conditioning and invertebrate feeding, there has been little communication between microbial ecologists and zoologists studying the processing of leaf litter in streams. An appraisal of suitable methods is timely, to encourage workers to critically examine their experimental approach: it is often forgotten that results are determined largely by the methods used. We review some recent studies, emphasizing the application of microbiological and biochemical methods, and discuss some important decisions that must be made in experimental design and implementation. It is recommended that newly fallen, naturally abscissed leaves, bound in leaf packs and tethered to natural substrata, be used in studies attempting to simulate natural leaf decomposition. Drying and leaching leaves under extreme conditions should be avoided. Mass loss should not simply be equated with decomposition; instead, losses of the main types of chemical constituents of plant litter should be quantified. If the aim is to study decomposition rather than merely leaf breakdown, the metabolism of dissolved matter and fine particulate material lost from the decaying leaf must be addressed as well. Appropriate techniques should be used to study microbial assemblages: lipid biomarkers or nucleic-acid methods for assemblage composition, microscopy or biochemical analysis for microbial biomass, [3H]-thymidine or [3H]-leucine methods to determine growth rates. Exponential decay curves and processing coefficients should be used cautiously, especially if sample sizes are small and equal throughout the study.

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 · 10.1071/mf9910001

Cites

156 of 156 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

Cited by

See all 374

Metadata

Authors
Boulton, A., & Boon, P.
Venue
Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
Publisher
CSIRO Publishing
Published
1991-02-01
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
1-43
ISSN
0067-1940 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1071/mf9910001
OpenAlex
W1984957788
Cited by
374
References
156
FWCI
13.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.