Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 987

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Critique of the Analytical Methods Used in Examining Decomposition Data Obtained From Litter Bags

Open access
Wider, R. Kelman, Lang, Gerald E.·1982·Ecology

Abstract

The study of plant litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems commonly employs litter bags to compare the loss of mass among species, among sites, and under various experimental manipulations, or to investigate the process itself. Analysis of the resulting data is quite variable among investigators, and at times inappropriate. Two general analytical approaches to the examination of decomposition data are reviewed. Analysis of variance is useful if the intent is to compare treatment means, but does not directly test hypotheses regarding decomposition rates. If the intent is to determine rate constants, than fitting mathematical models to data is the more appropriate analysis. Single and double exponential models best describe the loss of mass over time with an element of biological realism. See full-text article at JSTOR

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 · 10.2307/1940104

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 987

Metadata

Authors
Wider, R. K., & Lang, G. E.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1982-12
Volume
63
Issue
6
Pages
1636
ISSN
0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079902815
Cited by
987
References
0
FWCI
24.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: A Critique of the Analytical Methods Used in Examining Decomposition Data Obtained From Litter Bags. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1940104
The paper
Wider, R. K., & Lang, G. E. (1982). A Critique of the Analytical Methods Used in Examining Decomposition Data Obtained From Litter Bags. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940104

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.