Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MYCORRHIZAL CONTROLS ON BELOWGROUND LITTER QUALITY

Langley, J. Adam, Hungate, Bruce A.·2003·Ecology

Abstract

Plant productivity and ecosystem productivity are strongly influenced by nutrient availability, which is largely determined by the decomposition rate of plant litter. Belowground litter inputs (dead roots, mycorrhizae, and exudates) are larger than aboveground litterfall in many systems. Chemical quality and diameter primarily control decomposition for coarse roots, but these patterns do not hold for finer classes of roots, which are frequently colonized by mycorrhizae. Though mycorrhizal status is known to drastically alter root chemistry, morphology, life span, and exudation, it has never been explicitly considered as a factor affecting root decomposition. We hypothesize that mycorrhizal status substantially influences fine root decomposition rates. Both ectomycorrhizal (EM) and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi can change root properties but do so in different ways. Dominant tree species of most cold and temperate forests rely heavily on EM associations. EM fungi form massive structures that envelop fine roots. Roots infected by ectomycorrhizae have higher nitrogen concentrations than nonmycorrhizal roots, which would be expected to increase decomposition rates, but much of this nitrogen is bound in recalcitrant forms, such as chitin, so the net effect on decomposition is difficult to predict. AM fungi lack elaborate, macroscopic structures and may not alter root chemistry as profoundly. In addition to mycorrhizal roots, external fungal hyphae can contribute significantly to ecosystem carbon budgets and thereby influence rates of soil carbon turnover. Hyphae have commonly been considered a rapidly decomposing carbon pool, though this has never been demonstrated experimentally. If hyphae are produced at the expense of rapidly decomposing root exudates, then the net effect of hyphal litter production might be to reduce soil microbial activity and overall carbon cycling rates. Based on known differences in morphology and chemistry, EM hyphae may be more recalcitrant than AM hyphae. In summary, we submit that mycorrhizal status could substantially influence fine root decomposition and soil carbon processing rates, potentially explaining some of the variation observed within and among individual plant species and ecosystems.

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 · 10.1890/02-0282

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Langley, J. A., & Hungate, B. A.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-09
Volume
84
Issue
9
Pages
2302-2312
ISSN
0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2097801684
Cited by
272
References
2
FWCI
13.77
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: MYCORRHIZAL CONTROLS ON BELOWGROUND LITTER QUALITY. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/02-0282
The paper
Langley, J. A., & Hungate, B. A. (2003). MYCORRHIZAL CONTROLS ON BELOWGROUND LITTER QUALITY. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0282

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.