2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2021.103383
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Leaf litter morphological traits, invertebrate body mass and phylogenetic affiliation explain the feeding and feces properties of saprophagous macroarthropods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These include higher nitrogen or phosphorus contents, lower contents of recalcitrant compounds such as lignin and secondary metabolites, higher contents of dissolved organic C and nitrogen, and higher surface area and water-holding capacity. Such features have often been reported for feces of millipedes [73][74][75][76][77][78][79] , woodlice 6,80,81 , snails 6,80 , and partly, mites 82 . In contrast, some studies on woodlice and fly larvae reported feces properties rather unfavorable for microbial proliferation, such as higher contents of lignin or lower contents of nitrogen as compared to non-ingested litter 81,[83][84][85][86][87][88] .…”
Section: Feces/castsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…These include higher nitrogen or phosphorus contents, lower contents of recalcitrant compounds such as lignin and secondary metabolites, higher contents of dissolved organic C and nitrogen, and higher surface area and water-holding capacity. Such features have often been reported for feces of millipedes [73][74][75][76][77][78][79] , woodlice 6,80,81 , snails 6,80 , and partly, mites 82 . In contrast, some studies on woodlice and fly larvae reported feces properties rather unfavorable for microbial proliferation, such as higher contents of lignin or lower contents of nitrogen as compared to non-ingested litter 81,[83][84][85][86][87][88] .…”
Section: Feces/castsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…However, macrodetritivore communities contain diverse groups of organisms (Potapov et al., 2022) that differ greatly across vegetation and land use types (Barros et al., 2002; Lavelle et al., 2022) and that respond very differently to the same climatic and anthropogenic stressors (Potapov et al., 2021). Individual laboratory studies using small numbers of isopod and millipede species have found no significant relationships (Catalán et al., 2008; Ganault et al., 2022), positive relationships (David et al., 2001; Mondet et al., 2023) and U‐shaped relationships (Abelho & Molles, 2009) between litter quality and macrodetritivore consumption rates. These varied responses reveal a gap in our knowledge of how the consumption, assimilation and growth rate responses of individual macrodetritivore groups (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But even at the local scale of a few meters, variable abiotic conditions, including microclimate and soil physico-chemical properties, along with stochastic processes, can lead to pronounced differences in soil communities (Ramirez et al 2014;O'Brien et al2016;Zinger et al 2019). The structure of the vegetation within an habitat or its taxonomy or functional composition can also affect the abundance and diversity of different soil taxa or trophic groups (Noguerales et al 2021;Calderón-Sanou et al 2022;Ganault et al 2022). Effectively disentangling the effects of spatial, environmental and biotic processes necessitates a sampling design that encompasses multiple spatial scales, ranging from the heterogeneity between habitats to small-scale soil variations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%