It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Soil invertebrates contribute to multiple ecosystem services, including pest control, nutrient cycling, and soil structural regulation, yet trophic interactions that determine their diversity and activity in soils remain critically understudied. Here, we systematically review literature (1966–2020) on feeding habits of soil arthropods and macrofauna and summarize empirically studied predator–prey linkages across ecosystem types, geographies and taxa. Out of 522 unique predators and 372 prey organisms (constituting 1947 predator–prey linkages), the vast majority (> 75%) are only covered in a single study. We report a mean of just 3.0 ± 4.7 documented linkages per organism, with pronounced taxonomic biases. In general, model organisms and crop pests (generally Insecta) are well-studied, while important soil-dwelling predators, fungivores and detritivores (e.g., Collembola, Chilopoda and Malacostraca) remain largely ignored. We argue that broader food-web based research approaches, considering multiple linkages per organism and targeting neglected taxa, are needed to inform science-driven management of soil communities and associated ecosystem services.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 China Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Institute of Plant Protection, Beijing, China (GRID:grid.464356.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 0499 5543); Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China (GRID:grid.256111.0) (ISNI:0000 0004 1760 2876); University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia (GRID:grid.1003.2) (ISNI:0000 0000 9320 7537); Chrysalis Consulting, Hanoi, Vietnam (GRID:grid.1003.2)
2 Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Center for Agricultural Research and Ecological Studies, Hanoi, Vietnam (GRID:grid.444964.f) (ISNI:0000 0000 9825 317X)
3 Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Fort Collins, USA (GRID:grid.47894.36) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8083)