The two water worlds hypothesis: ecohydrological separation of water between streams and trees?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work in ecohydrology has shown that in some forested watershed systems, streams and trees appear to return different pools of water to the hydrosphere. Thus far, evidence for this has come exclusively from wet Mediterranean climates. This short opinion article outlines the hypothesis and a research agenda for future work. The most pressing issue is the need to gather more data points whereby dual isotope‐based studies in forested catchments compare samples of plant water and tightly bound soil water as well as mobile waters (soil, groundwater, and streamflow) in the catchment. New work is needed to test the hypothesis across different climates and vegetation regimes, especially places that contrast with the Mediterranean climates and forest types where two water worlds have been found. These include, but are not restricted to humid areas where plant water use and precipitation input are in phase, wetter zones where seasonality of precipitation is low, and drier zones where water stress is higher. Of equal importance to these basic research issues are the practical issues surrounding the sampling methods of plant and soil waters. Studies are needed to compare extraction techniques for low and high mobility soil waters and to understand the effect of sampling protocol on water isotope composition. Once these issues are resolved, high frequency sampling of soil and xylem waters will be especially instructive in development of mechanistic models of ecohydrological interaction—and an explanation for the hypothesis that is still wanting. WIREs Water 2014, 1:323–329. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1027 This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Hydrological Processes
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".