Cited by 299Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsForest ecology and managementForest Management and Policy

Effect of tree species on carbon stocks in forest floor and mineral soil and implications for soil carbon inventories

Open access
Schulp, Catharina J.E., Nabuurs, Gert-Jan, Verburg, Peter H., de Waal, Rein W.·2008·Forest Ecology and Management

Abstract

Forest soil organic carbon (SOC) and forest floor carbon (FFC) stocks are highly variable. The sampling effort required to assess SOC and FFC stocks is therefore large, resulting in limited sampling and poor estimates of the size, spatial distribution, and changes in SOC and FFC stocks in many countries. Forest SOC and FFC stocks are influenced by tree species. Therefore, quantification of the effect of tree species on carbon stocks combined with spatial information on tree species distribution could improve insight into the spatial distribution of forest carbon stocks. We present a study on the effect of tree species on FFC and SOC stock for a forest in the Netherlands and evaluate how this information could be used for inventory improvement. We assessed FFC and SOC stocks in stands of beech (Fagus sylvatica), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), oak (Quercus robur) and larch (Larix kaempferi). FFC and SOC stocks differed between a number of species. FFC stocks varied between 11.1MgCha⁻¹ (beech) and 29.6MgCha⁻¹ (larch). SOC stocks varied between 53.3MgCha⁻¹ (beech) and 97.1MgCha⁻¹ (larch). At managed locations, carbon stocks were lower than at unmanaged locations. The Dutch carbon inventory currently overestimates FFC stocks. Differences in carbon stocks between conifer and broadleaf forests were significant enough to consider them relevant for the Dutch system for carbon inventory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.05.007

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schulp, C. J. E., Nabuurs, G.-J., Verburg, P. H., & de Waal, R. W.
Affiliations
Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Schulp, Catharina J.E.
Venue
Forest Ecology and Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
256
Issue
3
Pages
482-490
ISSN
0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012564635
Cited by
299
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 13
FWCI
10.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
tree species effects, forest floor carbon, soil organic carbon, carbon stocks, forest carbon inventory, spatial distribution of carbon, Fagus sylvatica, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Pinus sylvestris, Quercus robur, Larix kaempferi, forest management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review