ArticleMicrobial ecology2017
Leaf Litter Chemistry Drives the Structure and Composition of Soil Testate Amoeba Communities in a Tropical Montane Rainforest of the Ecuadorian Andes.
Article in Microbial ecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Isolation and Genome Analysis of an Amoeba-Associated BacteriumFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Leaf litter identity rather than diversity shapes microbial functions and microarthropod abundance in tropical montane rainforests.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Distribution of Soil Extracellular Enzymatic, Microbial, and Biological Functions in the C and N-Cycle Pathways Along a Forest Altitudinal Gradient.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Micro-decomposer communities and decomposition processes in tropical lowlands as affected by land use and litter type.Oecologia · 2018Article
- How anthropogenic shifts in plant community composition alter soil food webs.F1000Research · 2018Review
- Protist species richness and soil microbiome complexity increase towards climax vegetation in the Brazilian Cerrado.Communications biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the role of leaf litter chemistry and richness in affecting testate amoeba communities of tropical rainforest in the Ecuadorian Andes. Litterbags containing leaf litter from four dominating tree species (Clusia sp., Myrcia pubescens, Graffenrieda emarginata, and Cecropia andina) with richness 1, 2, and 4 species were established and exposed in the field for 12 months at 2000 m a.s.l. Chemical elements and compounds of leaf litter were analyzed before exposure. At the end of exposure, microbial biomass and litter mass loss were measured, and living testate amoeba species number, density, biomass, and community composition were determined. In total, 125 testate amoeba species colonized the litter in litterbags. The results suggest that high litter nitrogen and low lignin concentrations are indicators of high litter quality for testate amoebae density and species richness. Their species number and density significantly declined in the order 1 > 4 > 2 leaf litter species and varied with leaf litter chemistry being at a maximum in high-quality single leaf litter species and low in low-quality leaf litter. Further, the addition of litter of high-quality to low-quality litter increased testate amoebae biomass and density; however, the values did not exceed the ones in single high-quality litter treatments. Moreover, the structure of testate amoeba communities varied with litter chemistry, with Fe, Na, lignin, and litter C-to-N ratio being of major importance, and indicating that litter chemistry reflects habitat quality for testate amoebae. Overall, the data show that leaf litter chemistry overrides leaf litter richness in structuring testate amoeba communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28389728What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.