The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Interpretation of the charcoal record in forest soils: forest fires and their production and deposition of macroscopic charcoal
Abstract
Traps were used to quantify charcoal production and transport during three experimental forest fires in Boreal Scandinavia. The traps were spatially arranged to collect charcoal particles inside burn areas, and outside burn areas at different distances (0.1–100 m) from the fire edge. The number of inside and outside traps was 280 and 424, respectively. Trap area was 48 cm 2. After the burn, trap content was sorted and sieved in two size-classes of charcoal particles, namely small (0.5–2.0 mm) and large (. 2.0 mm), and number and mass of particles were determined. The production and distribution of charcoal were highly variable at fine spatial scales inside burn areas. On average, inside traps contained 12.1 small and 10.1 large particles, and the average charcoal mass was 0.112 g per trap (corresponding to 235 kg ha-1). The largest size-class made up 94% of the mass. Outside traps contained 0.3 small and 0.1 large particles per trap, and 45% of the outside particles were distributed, 1 m from the fire edge. It is concluded that the occurrence of macroscopic charcoal ($ 0.5 mm) in forest soils provides a solid evidence for local fire influence, and that the presence of large charcoal particles can be used to distinguish between fire-prone and fire-free areas with high spatial precision. Absence of large particles must, however, be more carefully interpreted as 14% of the inside traps lacked macroscopic charcoal. We argue that the charcoal in Boreal forest soils should be less persistent than previously suggested because documented fire-return intervals result in an unrealistic charcoal accumulation presupposing high persistence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Balch, J. K., Artaxo, P., Bond, W. J., Carlson, J. M., Cochrane, M. A., D’Antonio, C. M., DeFries, R. S., Doyle, J. C., Harrison, S. P., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1163886 · Cited by 3,351
Abiotic and microbial oxidation of laboratory-produced black carbon (biochar)
Zimmerman, A. R. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es903140c · Cited by 1,103
Conedera, M., Tinner, W., Neff, C., Meurer, M., Dickens, A. F., & Krebs, P. (2009) · Quaternary Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.11.005 · Cited by 573
Charcoal recognition, taphonomy and uses in palaeoenvironmental analysis
Scott, A. C. (2010) · Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology · doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.12.012 · Cited by 527
Forbes, M. S., Raison, R. J., & Skjemstad, J. O. (2006) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.06.007 · Cited by 511
Metadata
- Authors
- Ohlson, M., & Tryterud, E.
- Venue
- The Holocene
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 519-525
- ISSN
- 0959-6836 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0911
- OpenAlex
- W1972260204
- Cited by
- 392
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interpretation of the charcoal record in forest soils: forest fires and their production and deposition of macroscopic charcoal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1191/095968300667442551
- The paper
- Ohlson, M., & Tryterud, E. (2000). Interpretation of the charcoal record in forest soils: forest fires and their production and deposition of macroscopic charcoal. The Holocene. https://doi.org/10.1191/095968300667442551
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.