Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 246

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Litter decomposition in a cool temperate deciduous forest

Lousier, J. D., Parkinson, D.·1976·Canadian Journal of Botany

Abstract

Amounts of autumn tree leaf litter fall, understory litter input, tree leaf litter nutrient input, and rates of dry weight loss in decomposing leaf litter were estimated in an aspen woodland (Populus tremuloides Michx. – P. balsamifera L.) site in the Rocky Mountains in southwestern Alberta. Tree leaf litter input amounted to 250 g m−2 and comprised 3.7% of the total organic matter in the ecosystem (1.92 × 10 5 kg ha−1). The ratio of the weight of aspen leaf fall to balsam leaf fall was about 6:1. The tree leaf litter input and the total litter input figures were similar to those for other Northern Hemisphere aspen forests. The understory litter input in the study plots was measured as 99 g m−2. The importance by weight of some of the nutrients returned to the soil via tree leaf litter fall was Ca > N > K > Mg > P > Zn > Fe > Mn > Na > Cu. The total weight of these nutrients returned to the soil was 116 kg ha−1, with N, Ca, and K comprising 89% and Mg and P comprising 9.8% of the total.The dry weight loss of decomposing aspen and balsam leaves was measured at 1-, 5-, 8-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-month intervals by using 3-mm-mesh litter bags, and at 12-, 24-, 36-, 48-, and 60-month intervals by using 10-mm-mesh bags. Litter-bag mesh size was of little consequence to the rate of dry weight loss for the first 12 months, but subsequent dry weight loss was greater in the 3-mm-mesh bags, which maintained higher, more representative, moisture conditions than did the 10-mm-mesh bags. However, tethered leaves lost 1.7 times more weight over the first 12 months of decomposition than did confined litter. The decay rate decline with time and with the depth of the litter bag in the litter layers, with maximum dry weight loss occurring over the period encompassing the fall freeze, winter, and the spring thaw and runoff. Leaf litter placed on north-facing slopes was characterized by significantly slower decay rates than that on south-facing slopes.The dry weight loss for aspen leaf litter was 26.2 ± 2.0% after 12 months. 40.0 ± 1.6% after 30 months, and 58.7% after 60 months (by regression): for balsam litter it was 21.2 ± 1.9% after 12 months, 37.4 ± 1.7% after 30 months, and 47.9% after 60 months (by regression). The highly leachable component of leaf litter was estimated at 23.1% for aspen and 21.4% for balsam. The time required for 99% decomposition was calculated as about 24 years for aspen and about 27 years for balsam, which gives average annual decay rates of 3.2% for aspen and 2.9% for balsam. The decay rate for Populus leaf litter was lower than that for aspen in Alaska and appeared to fit the range for deciduous leaf litter from some forested IBP Tundra Biome sites.

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 · 10.1139/b76-041

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.

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

Cited by

See all 246

Metadata

Authors
Lousier, J. D., & Parkinson, D.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Botany
Published
1976-03-01
Volume
54
Issue
5-6
Pages
419-436
ISSN
0008-4026 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2066825362
Cited by
246
References
0
FWCI
5.44
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 decomposition in a cool temperate deciduous forest. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/b76-041
The paper
Lousier, J. D., & Parkinson, D. (1976). Litter decomposition in a cool temperate deciduous forest. Canadian Journal of Botany. https://doi.org/10.1139/b76-041

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.