Cited by 12Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsEnvironmental and biological studiesComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques

Decomposition of Forest Litter and Feces of Armadillidium vulgare (Isopoda: Oniscidea) Produced from the Same Litter Affected by Temperature and Litter Quality

Open access
Špaldoňová, Alexandra, Frouz, Jan·2019·Forests

Abstract

To explore the question how litter and macrofauna feces respond to temperature and how respiration differs for litter with a different CN ratio, we compared the decomposition rates of leaf litter (Alnus glutinosa, Salix caprea, and Acer campestre) and isopod (Armadillidium vulgare) feces produced from the same litter in response to three constant (8, 16, and 24 °C) and one fluctuating (first week 8 °C, the other week 24 °C) temperatures in a 50 week laboratory experiment and in a field trial. Microbial respiration of litter with lower CN ratio (alder and willow) was significantly higher than respiration of feces, no significant difference was found for maple litter with higher CN ratio. This was supported by field litter bag experiments where alder and willow litter decomposed faster than feces but the opposite was true for maple litter. Litter respiration was significantly affected by temperature but feces respiration was not. Fluctuating temperature caused either lower or equal respiration as compared to mean constant temperature. The content of phenolics was significantly higher in intact litter in comparison with decomposed litter and feces, either fresh or decomposed. The CN ratio decreased as litter turned to feces in maple and alder litter but increased in willow litter. In conclusion, microbial respiration of both litter and feces were substantially affected by litter quality; the litter was more sensitive to temperature than feces.

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 · 10.3390/f10110939

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Authors
Špaldoňová, A., & Frouz, J.
Affiliations
  • Charles University (CZ)
  • Czech Academy of Sciences (CZ)
Corresponding author
Frouz, Jan
Venue
Forests
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-10-23
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
939
ISSN
1999-4907 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2982039551
Cited by
12
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Forests (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Grantová Agentura České Republiky (17-14409S)
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 › Soil Science › Composting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Keywords
forest litter decomposition, Armadillidium vulgare, temperature effects, fluctuating temperature, litter quality, C/N ratio, microbial respiration, phenolic compounds, Alnus glutinosa, Salix caprea, Acer campestre, litterbag experiment, soil macrofauna

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