2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.07.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relationship between home-field advantage of litter decomposition and priming of soil organic matter

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
21
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast to previous research showing a stronger HFA for litter decomposition translates into a stronger HFA for PE (Di Lonardo et al, ), we found a negative relationship between litter HFA and priming HFA (Figure b). As a result, a specialized litter decomposer community driving HFA cannot be assumed to become more effective at decomposing SOM following additions of litter.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In contrast to previous research showing a stronger HFA for litter decomposition translates into a stronger HFA for PE (Di Lonardo et al, ), we found a negative relationship between litter HFA and priming HFA (Figure b). As a result, a specialized litter decomposer community driving HFA cannot be assumed to become more effective at decomposing SOM following additions of litter.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, we determined home‐field advantage (HFA) for litter decomposition and PE by calculating the HFA as the % R increase in litter‐derived CO 2 and primed CO 2 at home compared to away environments for the two litter types, following Austin, Vivanco, González‐Arzac, and Pérez () and Di Lonardo et al ():HFA=Rhome-Raway/Rhome×100…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In August 2015, soil (0–10 cm) was collected from three different ecosystems in the central part of the Netherlands [34], i.e. arable fields, beech forests and natural grasslands developed on abandoned arable fields.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The arable fields were planted with maize ( Zea mays L.), the dominant plant species in the forests was beech ( Fagus syslvatica L.) and the natural grasslands were dominated by grasses such as common bent ( Agrostis capillaris L.), tufted grass ( Holcus lanatus L.) and forbs such as narrow-leave plantain ( Plantago lanceolata L.) [34]. For each ecosystem type, we collected soils from four separate sites that were about 1 km apart, representing four ecosystem replicates [34]. In the laboratory, fresh soil from each plot was sieved (4 mm) and homogenized, removing fine roots and other plant debris.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%