Cited by 291Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Soil fauna and soil functions: a jigsaw puzzle

Open access
Briones, María Jesús I.·2014·Frontiers in Environmental Science

Abstract

Terrestrial ecologists and soil modelers have traditionally portrayed the inhabitants of soil as a black box labeled as "soil fauna" or "decomposers or detritivores” assuming that they just merely recycle the deposited dead plant material. Soil is one of the most diverse habitats on Earth and contains one of the most diverse assemblages of living organisms; however, the opacity of this world has severely limited our understanding of their functional contributions to soil processes and to ecosystem resilience. Traditional taxonomy, based on morphological and anatomical aspects, is becoming replaced by rapid processing molecular techniques (e.g. with marker gene-based approaches). However, this may be impracticable in many ecological studies and consequently, the majority of the current knowledge, still contributes little to our understanding of their role in ecosystem functioning. Over the years, different workers have produced several ‘functional classifications’ based on the body width, feeding regime, certain behavioral and reproductive aspects and ecological niches of soil organisms. Unfortunately, the information available is severely restricted to ‘major’ groups. A better physiological and metabolic understanding of when and how a complex community of soil organisms access nutrients, alter their environment and in turn, affect soil processes, will allow a more realistic quantitative evaluation of their ecological roles in the biogeochemical cycles. Here, I review the applicability of the available approaches, highlight future research challenges and propose a dynamic conceptual framework that could improve our ability to solve this functional puzzle.

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 · 10.3389/fenvs.2014.00007

Cites

162 of 163 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Abrahamsen, G. (1973). Studies on body-volume, body-surface area, density and live weight on Enchytraeidae (Oligochaeta). Pedobiologia 13, 6-15. www.frontiersin.org April 2014 | Volume 2 | Article 7 | 17
  2. Andersen, A. N. (1990). The use of ant communities to evaluate change in Australian terrestrial ecosystems: a review and a recipe. Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 16, 347-357.
  3. Andersen, A. N. (2000). "A global ecology of rainforest ants: functional groups in relation to environmental stress and disturbance. Chapter 3," in Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity, eds D. Agosti, J. D. Majer, L. Alonso, and R. Schultz (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press), 25-34.
  4. Briones, M. J. I., and Schmidt, O. (2004). "Stable isotope techniques in studies of the ecological diversity and functions of earthworm communities in agricultural soils," in Recent Research Developments in Crop Science, Vol. 1, ed S. G. Pandalai (Trivandrum: Research Signpost).
  5. Brown, W. L. Jr. (2000). "Diversity of Ants. Chapter 5," in Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity, eds D. Agosti, J. D. Majer, L. Alonso, and R. Schultz (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press), 45-79.
  6. Chesson, P., Pacala, S., and Neuhauser, C. (2002). "Environmental niches and ecosystem functioning," in Functional Consequences of Biodiversity: Experimental Progress and Theoretical Extensions, eds A. Kinzig, D. Tilman, and S. Pacala (Priceton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 213-245.
  7. Dawkins, R. (1982). "The genetical evolution of animal artefacts," in The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of a Gene (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 195-208.
  8. Hiltner, L. (1904). Ueber neuere Erfahrungen und Probleme auf dem Gebiete der Bodenbakteriologie und unter besonderer BerUcksichtigung der Grundungung und Brache. Arbeiten der Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft 98, 59-78. www.frontiersin.org April 2014 | Volume 2 | Article 7 | 19
  9. Hooper, D., Hawksworth, D., and Dhillion, S. (1995). "Microbial diversity and ecosystem processes," in Global Biodiversity Assessment, ed United Nations Environment Programme (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 433-443.
  10. Persson, T., Bååth, E., Clarholm, M., Lundkvist, H., Söderström, B. E., and Sohlenius, B. (1980). "Trophic structure, biomass dynamics and carbon metabolism of soil organisms in a Scots pine forest," in Structure and Function of Northern Coniferous Forest: An Ecosystem Study, ed T. Persson (Stockholm: Ecological Bulletins, vol. 32), 419-459.
  11. Richard, B. (2008). Evaluation de la Diversité Specifique des vers de Terre de Haute Normandie par L'utilisation des Codes Barres ADN. Master's thesis, Lyon: Université de Lyon.
  12. Torsvik, V., Goksoyr, J., Daae, F. L., Sorheim, R., Michalsen, J., and Salte, K. (1994). "Use of DNA analysis to determine the diversity of microbial communities," in Beyond the Biomass, eds K. Ritz, J. Dighton, and K. E. Giller (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons), 39-48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Briones, M. J. I.
Venue
Frontiers in Environmental Science
Published
2014-04-22
Volume
2
ISSN
2296-665X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129801879
Cited by
291
References
150
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2
FWCI
13.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Environmental Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
soil fauna, soil organisms, ecosystem functioning, soil biogeochemical cycles, functional classification, detritivores, decomposers, soil processes, ecosystem resilience

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