Interesting idea - decomposition rates are hard to find for many locales,
and it would be great to have a fast way to come up with an estimate.
It does concern me that the authors of that particular paper don't actually
measure mass loss, however - just change in tensile strength. Wouldn't
that limit you to measuring relative differences among sites only?
Another paper ("*An assessment of cellulose filters as a standardized
material for measuring litter breakdown in headwater streams*") does a
stellar job of comparing the decomposition of cellulose strips vs. oak
litter, while sitting in headwaters streams, unfortunately finding a poor
correlation because of differences in fungal and invertebrate activity.
Also because the cellulose strips decomposed so slowly relative to the oak
leaves.
Chris
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:55 PM, David Samuel Johnson
<[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> The authors in this recent paper ran into the same problem and suggest
> using
> artist canvas instead. In this paper they compare it's usefulness for
> decomp
> studies to the Shirley material.
>
> Slocum et al. (2009). "Artist canvas as a new standard for the cotton-strip
> assay". Journal of plant nutrition and soil science (1436-8730), 172
>
> Good luck!
>
> David Samuel Johnson
> The Ecosystems Center
> Marine Biological Laboratory
> Woods Hole, MA 02543
>
--
I read a statement by Jim Bailey not long ago, after he had run his mile in
3:58.6 "I have no sensation of speed when I run," he said, "and I never
know how fast I'm going." Such is the case with most of us in this queer
century of progress. Events carry us rapidly in directions tangential to
our true desires, and we have almost no sensation of being in motion at all
- except at odd moments when we explode an H-bomb or send up a hundred new
planets or discard an old stove for a new one that will burn thorium
instead of spruce.
-E.B. White, from "Coon Tree"
