ArticleOecologia2018
Gut shuttle service: endozoochory of dispersal-limited soil fauna by gastropods.
Article in Oecologia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Towards an integrative understanding of soil biodiversity.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2020Pooled it
- How citizen science helps to expand the distribution and describe predictors related to a native land snail, while also introducing spatial biases.Current zoology · 2025Article
- Morphological and molecular evidence uncovers hidden species diversity in the leatherleaf slug genusZooKeys · 2024Article
- Article
- Taxi drivers: the role of animals in transporting mycorrhizal fungi.Mycorrhiza · 2019Review
- Slow-moving soil organisms on a water highway: aquatic dispersal and survival potential of Oribatida and Collembola in running water.Movement ecology · 2019Article
- Under pressure: force resistance measurements in box mites (Actinotrichida, Oribatida).Frontiers in zoology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous important ecosystem functions and services depend on soil biodiversity. However, little is known about the mechanisms which maintain the vast belowground biodiversity and about the filters shaping soil community composition. Yet, biotic interactions like facilitation and dispersal by animals are assumed to play a crucial role, particularly as most soil animal taxa are strongly limited in their active dispersal abilities. Here, we report on a newfound interaction of potentially high ubiquity and importance in soil communities: the endozoochorous dispersal of soil fauna by gastropods. We focus on the dispersal-limited group of oribatid mites, one of the most diverse and abundant soil animal groups. In a field survey in a German riparian forest, 73% of 40 collected slugs (Arion vulgaris) egested a total of 135 oribatid mites, belonging to 35 species. Notably, 70% of the egested mites were alive and survived the gut passage through slugs. Similar results were found for Roman snails (Helix pomatia), indicating the generality of our findings across different gastropod taxa. Complementary laboratory experiments confirmed our field observations, revealing that oribatid mites are, indeed, ingested and egested alive by slugs, and that they are able to independently escape the faeces and colonise new habitats. Our results strongly indicate that gastropods may help soil organisms to disperse within habitats, to overcome dispersal barriers, and to reach short-lived resource patches. Gastropods might even disperse whole multi-trophic micro-ecosystems, a discovery that could have profound implications for our understanding of dispersal mechanisms and the distribution of soil biodiversity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29350285What 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.