Cited by 529Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsEnvironmental and biological studiesForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies

Predicting long-term patterns of mass loss, nitrogen dynamics, and soil organic matter formation from initial fine litter chemistry in temperate forest ecosystems

Aber, John D., Melillo, Jerry M., McClaugherty, Charles A.·1990·Canadian Journal of Botany

Abstract

Long-term decomposition data are presented for several types of foliar and fine root litter in different stands in Wisconsin and Massachusetts, U.S.A. Changes in mass remaining as well as nitrogen and carbon fraction (extractives, cellulose, lignin) concentration are reported. Three models were developed for describing change in mass remaining with time: a litter-specific exponential decay function (statistical fit of data for each litter type), a generalized exponential decay function (k predicted from initial litter chemistry), and a carbon fraction model that calculates the weight loss of each carbon fraction individually as a function of current carbon chemistry regardless of litter type. The exponential decay function fits all litter data well for the portion of decomposition described here, but would not be appropriate for modeling longer term decomposition. Both the generalized and carbon fraction models predicted weight loss accurately. All litter types had similar carbon fraction chemistries at the end of the first phase of decomposition described here and also exhibited a narrow range of changes in nitrogen concentration per unit weight loss. It is concluded that the length of time required to convert litter into soil organic matter and the chemistry of the material produced by this process can be predicted from initial litter chemistry and (or) relatively short-term litter decay data. Key words: immobilization, mineralization, humus, lignin, cellulose, extractives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/b90-287

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aber, J. D., Melillo, J. M., & McClaugherty, C. A.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Botany
Published
1990-10-01
Volume
68
Issue
10
Pages
2201-2208
ISSN
0008-4026 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2039074462
Cited by
529
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 15
FWCI
11.37
Type
journal article
Language
fr
Open access
closed
Locations
Canadian Journal of Botany (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and biological studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Keywords
litter decomposition, fine root litter, leaf litter, nitrogen dynamics, soil organic matter formation, nitrogen immobilization, nitrogen mineralization, lignin, cellulose, extractives, exponential decay model, temperate forests, humification

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