% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Weihermller:844604,
author = {Weihermüller, L. and Neuser, A. and Herbst, M. and
Vereecken, H.},
title = {{P}roblems associated to kinetic fitting of incubation
data},
journal = {Soil biology $\&$ biochemistry},
volume = {120},
issn = {0038-0717},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier Science},
reportid = {FZJ-2018-02008},
pages = {260 - 271},
year = {2018},
abstract = {Incubation is a classical laboratory experiment to gain
information about the carbon turnover from soils under
different treatments (e.g., temperatures, water content,
nutrient supply), amendments (e.g. biochar, straw, compost),
or from different locations (e.g. topsoil vs. subsoil).
Classically, the measured data are represented as cumulated
CO2 flux or as $\%$ total organic carbon (TOC) mineralized
and from those data kinetic parameters are often derived
using models of different complexity. Based on the
conceptual idea that more than one C-pool exists, especially
in soil mixtures, the simple single-pool model is more and
more substituted by double-pool models to describe these
data. Hereby, the model will be iteratively fitted to the
data to obtain the pool sizes and rate constants of the
pools (slow and fast). In the work presented, we show that
the fitting of double-pool models will lead to different
results in the pool sizes and kinetic parameters, depending
on the fitting approach used. Secondly, general problems of
over-fitting and the ill-posed problem are discussed,
whereby it will be shown, that especially the estimation of
the rate constant for the slow pool is highly uncertain.
Based on these general findings and problems in the fitting
procedure, fitting results reported in literature were
analyzed. The meta-analysis indicates that only a small
number of reported fits are apparently not well fitted,
whereas a non-negligible percentage of reported fits were
over-fitted or wrong parameters were reported. Finally, the
paper provides guidelines for kinetic fitting and discusses
possible fitting alternatives.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {570},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000430031900026},
doi = {10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.017},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/844604},
}