Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • CiteScore value: 7.57 CiteScore 7.57
  • SNIP value: 2.708 SNIP 2.708
  • SJR value: 2.150 SJR 2.150
  • IPP value: 7.02 IPP 7.02
  • Scimago H index value: 17 Scimago H index 17
SOIL, 4, 169-171, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-4-169-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Original research article
07 Jun 2018
Comment on "Soil organic stocks are systematically overestimated by misuse of the parameters bulk density and rock fragment content" by Poeplau et al. (2017)
Eleanor Ursula Hobley1, Brian Murphy2, and Aaron Simmons3 1Soil Science, Technical University of Munich, Weihenstephan, Germany
2NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Swan Hill, Australia
3NSW Dept. Primary Industries, Orange, Australia

Citation: Hobley, E. U., Murphy, B., and Simmons, A.: Comment on "Soil organic stocks are systematically overestimated by misuse of the parameters bulk density and rock fragment content" by Poeplau et al. (2017), SOIL, 4, 169-171, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-4-169-2018, 2018.
Publications Copernicus
Short summary
This research evaluates equations to calculate soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks. Although various equations exist for SOC stock calculations, we recommend using the simplest equation with THE lowest associated errors. Adjusting SOC stock calculations for rock content is essential. Using the mass proportion of rocks to do so minimizes error.
This research evaluates equations to calculate soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks. Although...
Share