Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 295

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Long‐term patterns of mass loss during the decomposition of leaf and fine root litter: an intersite comparison

Open access
HARMON, MARK E., SILVER, WHENDEE L., FASTH, BECKY, CHEN, HUA, BURKE, INGRID C., PARTON, WILLIAM J., HART, STEPHEN C., CURRIE, WILLIAM S., LIDET·2009·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Decomposition is a critical process in global carbon cycling. During decomposition, leaf and fine root litter may undergo a later, relatively slow phase; past long‐term experiments indicate this phase occurs, but whether it is a general phenomenon has not been examined. Data from Long‐term Intersite Decomposition Experiment Team, representing 27 sites and nine litter types (for a total of 234 cases) was used to test the frequency of this later, slow phase of decomposition. Litter mass remaining after up to 10 years of decomposition was fit to models that included (dual exponential and asymptotic) or excluded (single exponential) a slow phase. The resultant regression equations were evaluated for goodness of fit as well as biological realism. Regression analysis indicated that while the dual exponential and asymptotic models statistically and biologically fit more of the litter type–site combinations than the single exponential model, the latter was biologically reasonable for 27–65% of the cases depending on the test used. This implies that a slow phase is common, but not universal. Moreover, estimates of the decomposition rate of the slowly decomposing component averaged 0.139–0.221 year−1(depending on method), higher than generally observed for mineral soil organic matter, but one‐third of the faster phase of litter decomposition. Thus, this material may be slower than the earlier phases of litter decomposition, but not as slow as mineral soil organic matter. Comparison of the long‐term integrated decomposition rate (which included all phases of decomposition) to that for the first year of decomposition indicated the former was on average 75% that of the latter, consistent with the presence of a slow phase of decomposition. These results indicate that the global store of litter estimated using short‐term decomposition rates would be underestimated by at least one‐third.

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.1365-2486.2008.01837.x

Cites

56 of 56 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 56 references

Cited by

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
HARMON, M. E., SILVER, W. L., FASTH, B., CHEN, H., BURKE, I. C., PARTON, W. J., HART, S. C., CURRIE, W. S., & LIDET
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04-07
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
1320-1338
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2083412390
Cited by
295
References
56
FWCI
13.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Long‐term patterns of mass loss during the decomposition of leaf and fine root litter: an intersite comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01837.x
The paper
HARMON, M. E., SILVER, W. L., FASTH, B., CHEN, H., BURKE, I. C., PARTON, W. J., HART, S. C., CURRIE, W. S., & LIDET. (2009). Long‐term patterns of mass loss during the decomposition of leaf and fine root litter: an intersite comparison. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01837.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.