1971
DOI: 10.2307/3543862
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Trophic Structure and Feeding Rates of Forest Soil Invertebrate Populations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
1
1

Year Published

1975
1975
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
15
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Consumption by Lumbricidae estimated from laboratory feeding rates, reaches large proportions (Satchell, 1967). In areas without Lumbricidae, consumption by litter-layer saprovores was I % of dry body weight per day, compared with 7% for fungivores (McBrayer & Reichle 1971). Consumption by 'total saprovores' in a pine forest was 4.6 % of body weight daily giving a total annual consumption of only I % of the annual litter fall (Kowal & Crossley, 1971).…”
Section: Consumption Efficiencymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Consumption by Lumbricidae estimated from laboratory feeding rates, reaches large proportions (Satchell, 1967). In areas without Lumbricidae, consumption by litter-layer saprovores was I % of dry body weight per day, compared with 7% for fungivores (McBrayer & Reichle 1971). Consumption by 'total saprovores' in a pine forest was 4.6 % of body weight daily giving a total annual consumption of only I % of the annual litter fall (Kowal & Crossley, 1971).…”
Section: Consumption Efficiencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most estimates are indirect, but radioisotopes allow direct estimation. Coleman & McGinnis (1970) found a very small transfer from labelled fungi to soil mites McBrayer & Reichle (1971), found that consumption by fungivores averaged 7 % of dry body weight day-l at field temperatures and total consumption was 24 mg fungus m-2 day-I. Healey (1967) reported that the fungivorous collembole Onychiurus procampatus consumes II to 17 % of its body weight daily.…”
Section: Consumption Efficiencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…microfauna]) directly mediate decomposition and humification (Prescott 2010) of the litter resource by grazing, spreading propagules, and preying on one other (e.g., Drift and Jansen 1977). These microbial grazers and their predators convert microfloral productivity and waste into invertebrate biomass (McBrayer andReichle 1971, Singh 1977), transferring energy from forest detritus up the food web, simultaneously recharging soil nutrients, including carbon and nitrogen, in addition to releasing CO 2 and CH 4 via decomposition (De Deyn et al 2008). Decomposition rates and soil carbon pools however are influenced in many other ways such as by plant trait composition, soil fertility, and abiotic conditions (Bardgett and Wardle 2010: Fig.…”
Section: Litter Herpetofauna Forests and Carbonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to evaluate differences between control and treatment plots based on both prey type and prey size, we examined invertebrate samples under a dissecting microscope, identifying them to family, and assigning them to three size classes: ,1 mm, between 1 and 2 mm (,2 mm), .2 mm (small, medium, and large, respectively). Invertebrate taxa were also combined into functional groups: decomposers (shredders/grazers), predators, herbivores, and omnivores (ants) (McBrayer and Reichle 1971). Due to low sample sizes, fly and beetle larvae, determined by examining mouth parts to be shredders, were combined into one group (¼larvae).…”
Section: Invertebrate Samplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Order and trophic mode were assigned to each morphospecies using the follow resources: Smith (1928), McBrayer and Reichle (1971), Fauchald (1977), Steneck and Watling (1982), Rushton and Hassall (1983), Jervis and Kidd (1986), Stribling and Seymour (1988), Penry and Jumars (1990), Hunt (1991), Hiol et al (1994), Ruppert and Barnes (1994), Lewis et al (1998), Lee et al (2002) Robinson et al (2011). Samples containing unidentifiable specimens were not used in this analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%