A THEORETICAL MODEL OF LITTER DECAY AND MICROBIAL INTERACTION

By D. Moorhead, R. Sinsabaugh. 2006

843 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Plant Science, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eab01637a8c9e4a411f150412185fe4e85bc7adc

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Plant Science

In Soil Science

Citations in the corpus

Evolutionary-Economic Principles as Regulators of Soil Enzyme Production and Ecosystem Function (2010, background): “However, the main goal of this model as well as some more recent models (Schimel and Weintraub 2003; Moorhead and Sinsabaugh 2006) was to predict decomposition rates rather than to examine enzyme production as a foraging strategy.”
Ecoenzymatic Stoichiometry and Ecological Theory (2012, background): “Modeling studies suggest that production of extracellular enzymes has first priority on cell metabolism above the level of maintenance respiration (Schimel & Weintraub 2003, Moorhead & Sinsabaugh 2006, Moorhead et al. 2012, Wang et al. 2012a).”
Testing the functional significance of microbial community composition. (2009, background): “1) is consistent with a recently proposed mathematical model (Moorhead and Sinsabaugh 2006) that incorporates three guilds of microbial decomposers.”
Chronic nitrogen additions fundamentally restructure the soil fungal community in a temperate forest (2016, background): “The genera that increased in abundance in our study have differing capacities for decomposition of soil organic matter (Table 1), and shifts in their abundance may represent shifts in dominant fungal species among different groups of decomposers (Moorhead and Sinsabaugh, 2006).”
Microbial nitrogen limitation increases decomposition. (2007, background): “…effects that are driven by the relative availability of N and labile C. Increasing litter substrate N or increasing the external N supply could decrease the availability of labile C to those microbes responsible for decomposing recalcitrant C (Fontaine and Barot 2005, Moorhead and Sinsabaugh 2006).”
Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry of microbial nutrient acquisition in tropical soils (2013, background): “production (e.g. Schimel and Weintraub 2003; Moorhead and Sinsabaugh 2006; Manzoni and Porporato 2007).”
Linking bacterial and eukaryotic microbiota to litter chemistry: Combining next generation sequencing with 13C CPMAS NMR spectroscopy (2019, background): “In general, it is generally established that microbial decomposition changes litter chemistry and that such chemical shifts further drive microbial turnover, and hence successional trajectories (Hättenschwiler et al., 2005; Moorhead and Sinsabaugh, 2006; Chapman et al., 2013).”
Soil physics meets soil biology: Towards better mechanistic prediction of greenhouse gas emissions from soil (2012, background): “, growth rate and efficiency, humification ratios and their relationship with N availability (Blagodatsky and Richter, 1998; Rockhold et al., 2004; Moorhead and Sinsabaugh, 2006; Eliasson and Agren, 2011) need to be coupled with well-developed soil transport models.”
Microbial control over carbon cycling in soil (2012, background): “The products of exoenzyme breakdown become available to other organisms including other microbes, so called “cheaters” (Allison, 2005) or “opportunists” (Moorhead and Sinsabaugh, 2006), and to plant roots (Schimel and Bennett, 2004).”