SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Articles | Volume 3, issue 1
Articles | Volume 3, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-3-61-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-3-61-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Articles | Volume 3, issue 1
Short communication
 | 
13 Mar 2017
Short communication |  | 13 Mar 2017

Soil organic carbon stocks are systematically overestimated by misuse of the parameters bulk density and rock fragment content

Christopher Poeplau, Cora Vos, and Axel Don

Viewed

Total article views: 11,628 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
6,375 4,786 467 11,628 925 278 363
  • HTML: 6,375
  • PDF: 4,786
  • XML: 467
  • Total: 11,628
  • Supplement: 925
  • BibTeX: 278
  • EndNote: 363
Views and downloads (calculated since 22 Dec 2016)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 22 Dec 2016)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 11,628 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 10,840 with geography defined and 788 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 03 Dec 2025
Download
Short summary
This paper shows that three out of four frequently used methods to calculate soil organic carbon stocks lead to systematic overestimation of those stocks. Stones, which can be assumed to be free of carbon, have to be corrected for in both bulk density and layer thickness. We used data of the German Agricultural Soil Inventory to illustrate the potential bias and suggest a unified and unbiased calculation method for stocks of soil organic carbon, which is the largest terrestrial carbon pool.
Read more
Share