2013
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.905
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Divergence of feeding channels within the soil food web determined by ecosystem type

Abstract: Understanding trophic linkages within the soil food web (SFW) is hampered by its opacity, diversity, and limited niche adaptation. We need to expand our insight between the feeding guilds of fauna and not just count biodiversity. The soil fauna drive nutrient cycling and play a pivotal, but little understood role within both the carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycles that may be ecosystem dependent. Here, we define the structure of the SFW in two habitats (grassland and woodland) on the same soil type and test the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
43
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
2
43
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We therefore calibrated isotope values for soil arthropods as difference between the aboveground plant and soil arthropod samples (δ plant -δ animal) at a particular site (expressed by the notion 15 N or 13 C). The resulting enrichment values for nitrogen and carbon isotopes suggest that values are comparable to calibration by litter samples (Crotty et al, 2014; Mesostigmata N: +6‰, C: +3‰; Listed are the major taxonomic groups, the trophic levels (D, decomposer; P, predator), the Pearson correlation coefficient between δ 15 N values in animal samples and plant samples (R), the number of sites within each region for which abundances were sufficiently high to analyze ratios of naturally occurring C and N stable isotopes and the mean abundances of each taxonomic group per region (n, individuals m −2 ) ± standard errors of the mean for each region and taxon.…”
Section: Stable Isotope Analysismentioning
confidence: 74%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…We therefore calibrated isotope values for soil arthropods as difference between the aboveground plant and soil arthropod samples (δ plant -δ animal) at a particular site (expressed by the notion 15 N or 13 C). The resulting enrichment values for nitrogen and carbon isotopes suggest that values are comparable to calibration by litter samples (Crotty et al, 2014; Mesostigmata N: +6‰, C: +3‰; Listed are the major taxonomic groups, the trophic levels (D, decomposer; P, predator), the Pearson correlation coefficient between δ 15 N values in animal samples and plant samples (R), the number of sites within each region for which abundances were sufficiently high to analyze ratios of naturally occurring C and N stable isotopes and the mean abundances of each taxonomic group per region (n, individuals m −2 ) ± standard errors of the mean for each region and taxon.…”
Section: Stable Isotope Analysismentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Regional differences in dietary niche size and overlap nevertheless indicate a substantial influence of geographic conditions on food exploitation by most microarthropods (cf. Crotty et al, 2014). Concerning the detritivorous mesofauna, however, a significant regional shift of the basic food source could only be established for the oribatid mite T. trimaculatus (group 3, trophic response only).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This technique has been used to study plant-C utilization by microbial communities in soils by examining 13 C incorporation into microbial phospholipid fatty acids (PLFAs; e.g., Denef et al, 2009;Rubino et al, 2010;Kohl et al, 2015;Soong et al, 2016). Also, natural abundances of 13 C and 15 N have been useful for studying structures of soil faunal communities (e.g., collembolans, earthworms, enchytraeids, arthropods, gastropods, and nematodes; Chahartaghi et al, 2005;Albers et al, 2006;Goncharov et al, 2014;Crotty et al, 2014;Kudrin et al, 2015). Furthermore, C flow though soil faunal trophic groups can be traced and quantified using 13 C in labeling experiments (Albers et al, 2006;Pollierer et al, 2007;Elfstrand et al, 2008;Ostle et al, 2007;D'Annibale et al, 2015;Gilbert et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%