Stable Oxygen Isotope Ratios of Nitrate Produced from Nitrification: <sup>18</sup>O-Labeled Water Incubations of Agricultural and Temperate Forest Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many nitrate (NO(3)(-)) source partitioning studies, the delta(18)O value for NO(3)(-) produced from nitrification is often assumed to reflect the isotopic compositions of environmental water (H(2)O) and molecular oxygen (O(2)) in a 2:1 ratio. Most studies that have measured or observed this microbial endmember have found that the delta(18)O-NO(3)(-) was more positive (up to +15 per thousand higher) than the assumed value. Current understanding of the mechanism(s) responsible for this discrepancy is limited. Incubations of one temperate forest soil (organic) and two agricultural soils (mineral) were conducted with (18)O-labeled H(2)O to apportion the sources of oxygen in NO(3)(-) generated from nitrification. The NO(3)(-) produced in all soils had delta(18)O values that could not be explained by a simple endmember mixing ratio of 2:1. A more comprehensive model describing the formation of microbial NO(3)(-) was developed, which accounts for oxygen exchange between H(2)O and NO(2)(-), and includes terms for kinetic and equilibrium isotope effects. Oxygen isotope exchange (i.e., the fraction of NO(3)(-)-oxygen that originates from the abiotic exchange of H(2)O and NO(2)(-)) varied widely between the temperate forest soil (0.37) and the two agricultural soils (0.52 and 0.88). At present, the microbial endmember for nitrification cannot be successfully predicted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".