The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Litter quality is in the eye of the beholder: initial decomposition rates as a function of inoculum characteristics
Abstract
1 The chemical composition of plant litter is commonly considered to indicate its quality as a resource for decomposer organisms. Litter quality, defined in this way, has been shown to be a major determinant of litter decomposition rates both within and across terrestrial ecosystems. Notably, the structure of the microbial community that is directly responsible for primary decomposition is rarely considered as an empirical predictor of litter decay rates. 2 Microbial communities are generally assumed to perceive litters of the same chemical composition to be of equivalent resource quality but evidence from field studies suggests that these same communities may adapt to the prevalent litter types at a given site. Here, we tested this assumption by assessing how microbial communities sourced from different forest- and herbaceous-dominated ecosystems perceive the quality of novel, foliar litters derived from a tree (Rhododendron maximum) and from a grass (Panicum virgatum) species. Based on chemical composition, we would expect R. maximum litter to be of lower quality than P. virgatum litter. 3 We used an experimental litter–soil system which employs a ‘common garden’ approach and measured rates of CO2 production across 50 days; higher rates of production were assumed to indicate higher quality (i.e. more easily degradable) litter. 4 We found that communities sourced from habitats under differing plant cover perceived litter quality differently. Those communities sourced from herbaceous habitats perceived the grass litter to be of higher quality than the tree litter, whereas communities from forest habitats decomposed both litter types similarly. Within a litter type, differences in both community composition and nutrient availability of the source habitat were related to decomposition rates. 5 Our results suggest that litter quality cannot necessarily be predicted solely from chemical characteristics; instead the perceived quality is dependent on the quality of past resource inputs a community has experienced and the structure of those microbial communities responsible for the initial stages of litter decomposition.
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
Greengenes, a Chimera-Checked 16S rRNA Gene Database and Workbench Compatible with ARB
DeSantis, T. Z., Hugenholtz, P., Larsen, N., Rojas, M., Brodie, E. L., Keller, K., Huber, T., Dalevi, D., Hu, P., & Andersen, G. L. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.03006-05 · Cited by 10,891
UniFrac: a New Phylogenetic Method for Comparing Microbial Communities
Lozupone, C., & Knight, R. (2005) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.71.12.8228-8235.2005 · Cited by 8,227
The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities
Fierer, N., & Jackson, R. B. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507535103 · Cited by 5,711
Self-citationCardinale, B. J., Wright, J. P., Cadotte, M. W., Carroll, I. T., Hector, A., Srivastava, D. S., Loreau, M., & Weis, J. J. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0709069104 · Cited by 1,537
Aber, J. D., Melillo, J. M., & McClaugherty, C. A. (1990) · Canadian Journal of Botany · doi:10.1139/b90-287 · Cited by 529
Cited by
McDaniel, M. D., Tiemann, L. K., & Grandy, A. S. (2014) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/13-0616.1 · Cited by 846
García‐Palacios, P., Maestre, F. T., Kattge, J., & Wall, D. H. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12137 · Cited by 679
Understanding the dominant controls on litter decomposition
Bradford, M. A., Berg, B., Maynard, D. S., Wieder, W. R., & Wood, S. A. (2016) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12507 · Cited by 669
Self-citationPlant secondary metabolites: a key driver of litter decomposition and soil nutrient cycling
Chomel, M., Guittonny‐Larchevêque, M., Fernandez, C., Gallet, C., DesRochers, A., Paré, D., Jackson, B. G., & Baldy, V. (2016) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12644 · Cited by 382
Climate Change, Aboveground-Belowground Interactions, and Species' Range Shifts
Van der Putten, W. H. (2012) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160423 · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- Strickland, M. S., Osburn, E., Lauber, C., Fierer, N., & Bradford, M. A.
- Venue
- Functional Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-05-21
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 627-636
- ISSN
- 0269-8463 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2435
- OpenAlex
- W2146860152
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 13.45
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Litter quality is in the eye of the beholder: initial decomposition rates as a function of inoculum characteristics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01515.x
- The paper
- Strickland, M. S., Osburn, E., Lauber, C., Fierer, N., & Bradford, M. A. (2009). Litter quality is in the eye of the beholder: initial decomposition rates as a function of inoculum characteristics. Functional Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01515.x
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.