Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36253487›Full record

ReviewScientific reports2022

Global distribution of soil fauna functional groups and their estimated litter consumption across biomes.

Petr Heděnec, Juan Jose Jiménez, Jabbar Moradi, Xavier Domene, Davorka Hackenberger, Sebastien Barot, Aline Frossard, Lidia Oktaba, Juliane Filser, Pavel Kindlmann and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Accounting for functionality in the identification of global conservation priorities: promises and pitfalls.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 10 institutions in 8 countries.

Petr HeděnecBiology Centre ACR, Institute of Soil Biology and Biogeochemistry, Na Sádkách 7, Ceske Budejovice, 37005, Czech Republic.
Juan Jose JiménezPyrenean Institute of Ecology, IPE-CSIC, Avda, Ntra, Sra, de la Victoria, 16, Jaca, 22700, Huesca, Spain.
Jabbar MoradiBiology Centre ACR, Institute of Soil Biology and Biogeochemistry, Na Sádkách 7, Ceske Budejovice, 37005, Czech Republic.
Xavier DomeneCREAF- Universitat Autònoma Barcelona, E08193, 08193, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain.
Davorka HackenbergerDepartment of Biology, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Cara Hadrijana 8/A, 31000, Osijek, Croatia.
Sebastien BarotIEES-Paris (CNRS, UPMC, IRD, INRA, UPEC), UPMC 4 place Jussieu, 75252, Paris Cedex 05, France.
Aline FrossardSwiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Lidia OktabaSoil Science Department, Agriculture Institute, Warsaw, University of Life Sciences-SGGW, Nowoursynowska 166, 02-787, Warsaw, Poland.
Juliane FilserDepartment of General and Theoretical Ecology, UFT - Centre for Environmental Research and Sustainable Technology, University of Bremen, FB 02, Leobener Straße 6, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Pavel KindlmannFaculty of Science, Institute for Environmental Studies, Charles University, Benátská 2, Praha, 12800, Czech Republic.
Jan FrouzBiology Centre ACR, Institute of Soil Biology and Biogeochemistry, Na Sádkách 7, Ceske Budejovice, 37005, Czech Republic. frouz@natur.cuni.cz.
Charles University · CZCentre for Research on Ecology and Forestry Applications · ESCzech Academy of Sciences, Biology Centre · CZInstitut de Recherche pour le Développement · FRInstitute of Soil Biology · CZInstituto Pirenaico de Ecología · ESSwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research · CHUniversity of Bremen · DEUniversity of Osijek · HRWarsaw University of Life Sciences · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soil invertebrates (i.e., soil fauna) are important drivers of many key processes in soils including soil aggregate formation, water retention, and soil organic matter transformation. Many soil fauna groups directly or indirectly participate in litter consumption. However, the quantity of litter consumed by major faunal groups across biomes remains unknown. To estimate this quantity, we reviewed > 1000 observations from 70 studies that determined the biomass of soil fauna across various biomes and 200 observations from 44 studies on litter consumption by soil fauna. To compare litter consumption with annual litterfall, we analyzed 692 observations from 24 litterfall studies and 183 observations from 28 litter stock studies. The biomass of faunal groups was highest in temperate grasslands and then decreased in the following order: boreal forest > temperate forest > tropical grassland > tundra > tropical forest > Mediterranean ecosystems > desert and semidesert. Tropical grasslands, desert biomes, and Mediterranean ecosystems were dominated by termites. Temperate grasslands were dominated by omnivores, while temperate forests were dominated by earthworms. On average, estimated litter consumption (relative to total litter input) ranged from a low of 14.9% in deserts to a high of 100.4% in temperate grassland. Litter consumption by soil fauna was greater in grasslands than in forests. This is the first study to estimate the effect of different soil fauna groups on litter consumption and related processes at global scale.

Indexed as

EcosystemSoilBiomassForestsWaterSoilWater

Identifiers

PMID36253487
PMCPMC9576680
OpenAlexW4306403350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.