Soil moisture effects on the carbon isotope composition of soil respiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The carbon isotopic composition (delta(13)C) of recently assimilated plant carbon is known to depend on water-stress, caused either by low soil moisture or by low atmospheric humidity. Air humidity has also been shown to correlate with the delta(13)C of soil respiration, which suggests indirectly that recently fixed photosynthates comprise a substantial component of substrates consumed by soil respiration. However, there are other reasons why the delta(13)CO(2) of soil efflux may change with moisture conditions, which have not received as much attention. Using a combination of greenhouse experiments and modeling, we examined whether moisture can cause changes in fractionation associated with (1) non-steady-state soil CO(2) transport, and (2) heterotrophic soil-respired delta(13)CO(2). In a first experiment, we examined the effects of soil moisture on total respired delta(13)CO(2) by growing Douglas fir seedlings under high and low soil moisture conditions. The measured delta(13)C of soil respiration was 4.7 per thousand more enriched in the low-moisture treatment; however, subsequent investigation with an isotopologue-based gas diffusion model suggested that this result was probably influenced by gas transport effects. A second experiment examined the heterotrophic component of soil respiration by incubating plant-free soils, and showed no change in microbial-respired delta(13)CO(2) across a large moisture range. Our results do not rule out the potential influence of recent photosynthates on soil-respired delta(13)CO(2), but they indicate that the expected impacts of photosynthetic discrimination may be similar in direction and magnitude to those from gas transport-related fractionation. Gas transport-related fractionation may operate as an alternative or an additional factor to photosynthetic discrimination to explain moisture-related variation in soil-respired delta(13)CO(2).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".