Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Degradative Ability, Enzymatic Activity, and Palatability of Aquatic Hyphomycetes Grown on Leaf Litter

Open access
Suberkropp, Keller, Arsuffi, Thomas L., Anderson, John P.·1983·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Stream fungi have the capacity to degrade leaf litter and, through their activities, to transform it into a more palatable food source for invertebrate detritivores. The objectives of the present study were to characterize various aspects of fungal modification of the leaf substrate and to examine the effects these changes have on leaf palatability to detritivores. Fungal species were grown on aspen leaves for two incubation times. Leaves were analyzed to determine the weight loss, the degree of softening of the leaf matrix, and the concentrations of ATP and nitrogen associated with leaves. The activities of a protease and 10 polysaccharide-degrading enzymes produced by each fungus were also determined. Most fungi caused similar changes in physicochemical characteristics of the leaves. All fungi exhibited the capability to depolymerize pectin, xylan, and cellulose. Differences among fungi were found in their capabilities to produce protease and certain glycosidases. Leaf palatability was assessed by offering leaves of all treatments to larvae of two caddisfly shredders ( Trichoptera ). Feeding preferences exhibited by the shredders were similar and indicated that they perceived distinct differences among fungi. Two fungal species were highly consumed, some moderately and others only slightly. No relationships were found between any of the fungal characteristics measured and detritivore feeding preferences. Apparently, interspecific differences among fungi other than parameters associated with biomass or degradation of structural polysaccharides influence fungal palatability to caddisfly detritivores.

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 · 10.1128/aem.46.1.237-244.1983

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Suberkropp, K., Arsuffi, T. L., & Anderson, J. P.
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
1983-07
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
237-244
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W1595515891
Cited by
177
References
1
FWCI
5.68
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: Comparison of Degradative Ability, Enzymatic Activity, and Palatability of Aquatic Hyphomycetes Grown on Leaf Litter. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.46.1.237-244.1983
The paper
Suberkropp, K., Arsuffi, T. L., & Anderson, J. P. (1983). Comparison of Degradative Ability, Enzymatic Activity, and Palatability of Aquatic Hyphomycetes Grown on Leaf Litter. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.46.1.237-244.1983

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.