Litter quality is in the eye of the beholder: initial decomposition rates as a function of inoculum characteristics

By M. Strickland, Ernest D. Osburn, C. Lauber, Noah Fierer, M. Bradford. 2009

319 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cell Biology, Plant Science, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a549d75ffeef6d63cc0aa2b149ccf5ec1930ace9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cell Biology

In Plant Science

In Soil Science

Citations in the corpus

The effect of resource history on the functioning of soil microbial communities is maintained across time (2011, methodology): “It was sterilized by autoclaving twice in succession at 120◦C for 20 min, and then again 24 h later, before drying to 65◦C (Strickland et al., 2009a, b).”
Plant secondary metabolites: a key driver of litter decomposition and soil nutrient cycling (2016, background): “…it was derived than in a foreign habitat, which has been termed the homefield advantage (HFA) of litter decomposition (Hunt et al. 1988; Gholz et al. 2000; Ayres, Dromph & Bardgett 2006; Vivanco & Austin 2008; Ayres et al. 2009a,b; Strickland et al. 2009; Veen et al. 2014; Chomel et al. 2015).”
Grass invasion of a hardwood forest is associated with declines in belowground carbon pools (2010, background): “On one hand evidence suggests that increased degradability of C inputs, as perceived by the microbial community (Strickland et al., 2009), will have a negligible and in some cases a positive impact on belowground C pools (Dalenberg & Jager, 1981; Wu et al.”
Multiple mechanisms for trait effects on litter decomposition: moving beyond home‐field advantage with a new hypothesis (2012, background): “Across ecosystems, microbial (Niemi et al. 2007) and soil fauna decomposer communities (Bardgett 2002) can differ with regard to their functional capacity, including litter breakdown (Strickland et al. 2009a,b) and more specifically lignin degradation (Baldrian & Šnajdr 2011).”
Leaf dry matter content as a predictor of grassland litter decomposition: a test of the ‘mass ratio hypothesis’ (2011, background): “Though processes such as soil carbon dynamics appear to be controlled by leaf traits, it should not be forgotten that many other factors including climate (Perez-Harguindeguy et al. 2007; Swift et al. 1979;) and the microbial community developed in situ ( Strickland et al. 2009 ) also control litter”
Deciphering the associations between soil microbial diversity and ecosystem multifunctionality driven by long‐term fertilization management (2018, background): “An increase in soil biodiversity resulted in increased resilience of soil multifunctionality to changes in environmental conditions (Hunt & Wall, 2002; Strickland et al., 2009).”
Does agricultural crop diversity enhance soil microbial biomass and organic matter dynamics? A meta-analysis. (2014, background): “…this latter view is correct, residue complexity or biochemistry may regulate SOM dynamics indirectly by influencing the size, structure, and function of soil biological communities (Waldrop et al. 2004, Allison et al. 2009, Strickland et al. 2009, Tiemann and Billings 2011, Wickings et al. 2012).”
A plant economics spectrum of litter decomposability (2012, background): “Besides, as litter decomposability is largely the result of interactions between litter quality and the decomposer community, the relative importance of litter traits might also vary slightly with the perception of quality by distinct decomposer communities (Strickland et al. 2009).”
Soil biota accelerate decomposition in high‐elevation forests by specializing in the breakdown of litter produced by the plant species above them (2009, background): “…that soil biota associated with particular plant species specialize in decomposing litter produced by that plant species (Bocock et al. 1960; Wardle 2002; Ayres et al. 2009a) and our laboratory experiment, and two other recent studies (Strickland et al. 2009a,b), validate this hypothesis.”
Disentangling the mechanisms underlying functional differences among decomposer communities (2014, methodology): “…(i.e. QI) is presumably related to the physical and chemical properties of litters, such as the initial nitrogen content (Aber, Melillo & McClaugherty 1990; Jacob et al. 2010), and also to how the decomposer communities collectively ‘perceive’ these properties (see: Strickland et al. 2009b).”
Microbial enzymatic responses to drought and to nitrogen addition in a southern California grassland (2013, background): “In support of this idea, microbial communities sharing a common history with a litter type or environmental treatment often carry out decomposition more rapidly than microbial communities transplanted into new conditions (Gholz et al., 2000; Strickland et al., 2009).”
Global relationship of wood and leaf litter decomposability: the role of functional traits within and across plant organs (2014, background): “As a consequence, the relative importance of traits may vary with the perception of quality by different decomposers (Strickland et al., 2009).”
Relative importance of soil properties and microbial community for soil functionality: insights from a microbial swap experiment (2016, background): “These results support the most accepted soil ecological theories that suggest that broad functions such as soil respiration, which are a product of widely distributed processes across living micro-organisms, are directly limited by resource availability (Schimel & Gulledge 1998; Schimel, Bennett & F”