SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Articles | Volume 11, issue 1
Articles | Volume 11, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-17-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-17-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 11, issue 1
Original research article
 | 
08 Jan 2025
Original research article |  | 08 Jan 2025

Large errors in soil carbon measurements attributed to inconsistent sample processing

Rebecca J. Even, Megan B. Machmuller, Jocelyn M. Lavallee, Tamara J. Zelikova, and M. Francesca Cotrufo

Viewed

Total article views: 3,564 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
2,863 664 37 3,564 86 29 28
  • HTML: 2,863
  • PDF: 664
  • XML: 37
  • Total: 3,564
  • Supplement: 86
  • BibTeX: 29
  • EndNote: 28
Views and downloads (calculated since 24 May 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 24 May 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 3,564 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 3,467 with geography defined and 97 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 17 Apr 2025
Download
Short summary
We conducted a service soil laboratory comparison study and tested the individual effect of common sieving, grinding, drying, and quantification methods on total, inorganic, and organic soil carbon (C) measurements. We found that inter-lab variability is large and each soil processing step impacts C measurement accuracy and/or precision. Standardizing soil processing methods is needed to ensure C measurements are accurate and precise, especially for C credit allocation and model calibration.
Read more
Share