Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

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

Strickland, Michael S., Osburn, Ernest, Lauber, Christian, Fierer, Noah, Bradford, Mark A.·2009·Functional Ecology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01515.x

Cites

5 of 5 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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 336

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.