Cited by 2Crustacean biology and ecologyIsotope Analysis in EcologyMarine Biology and Ecology Research

Coprophagy in detritivores: methodological design for feeding studies in terrestrial isopods (Crustacea, Isopoda, Oniscidea)

Open access
Pezzi, Pedro Henrique, Araujo, Paula Beatriz, Wood, Camila Timm·2019·Nauplius

Abstract

Isopods consume feces in laboratory conditions. We investigated the effects of coprophagy on food consumption and assimilation and on isopod biomass to determine the best methodological design for feeding performance experiments. We used three species of isopods representing different eco-morphological groups and two leaves with different nitrogen content. We tested three treatments: (1) free access to feces; (2) periodic removal of feces and (3) net acting as a barrier to the feces. We did not find significant difference in any isopod or leaf species for consumption rate. Assimilation efficiency did not differ significantly for any isopod or leaf either. Only growth rate was significantly different, but only for the species Atlantoscia floridana (Van Name, 1940) with the leaf Machaerium stipitatum, and it may be due to the short duration of experiments and the isopods’ susceptibility to environmental changes. Thus, we recommend the treatment access to study consumption and growth rates since it does not require any special material or extra time. If the focus is assimilation efficiency, we suggest the treatment removal because it provides more accurate values. Furthermore, more fragile species such as A. floridana require larger sample number and/or longer experiment duration for more reliable data analyses.

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 · 10.1590/2358-2936e2019010

Cites

Statistics

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 25 · Cited by 2

Authors
Pezzi, P. H., Araujo, P. B., & Wood, C. T.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
Venue
Nauplius
Published
2019
Volume
27
ISSN
  • 0104-6497 (ISSN-L)
  • 2358-2936
OpenAlex
W2965723233
Cited by
2
References
25
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nauplius (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lume (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Crustacean biology and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Isotope Analysis in Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine Biology and Ecology Research
Keywords
coprophagy, terrestrial isopods, detritivores, feeding performance, food consumption rate, assimilation efficiency, growth rate, leaf nitrogen content

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