Open AccessA commentary on ‘Mineral soil carbon fluxes in forests and implications for carbon balance assessments’: a deeper look at the data
Author(s) -
Hoover Coeli M.,
Heath Linda S.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
gcb bioenergy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.378
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1757-1707
pISSN - 1757-1693
DOI - 10.1111/gcbb.12130
Subject(s) - soil carbon , carbon accounting , forestry , carbon fibers , forest management , environmental science , carbon sequestration , agroforestry , forest floor , balance (ability) , natural resource economics , greenhouse gas , ecology , soil science , geography , soil water , economics , psychology , biology , computer science , carbon dioxide , algorithm , neuroscience , composite number
Forestry practitioners contacted us with their concerns about a recent review article by Buchholz T, Friedland AJ, Hornig CE, Keeton WS, Zanchi G, Nunery J (2013) GCB Bioenergy who questioned the way soil carbon is treated in many models and protocols, and indicated that an increasing number of research studies showed meaningful soil organic carbon (SOC) loss as a result of forest management. We revisit the major studies cited in the review and present a more complete look at the results, consistently treat forest floor carbon as a separate pool, discuss differences in interpretation, and suggest opportunities to advance the state of knowledge regarding SOC and forest carbon accounting. Overall, we conclude that the literature continues to support the current default assumption of little or no change in mineral SOC when sound forest management practices are followed.