Insights into plant water uptake from xylem‐water isotope measurements in two tropical catchments with contrasting moisture conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Water transpired by trees has long been assumed to be sourced from the same subsurface water stocks that contribute to groundwater recharge and streamflow. However, recent investigations using dual water stable isotopes have shown an apparent ecohydrological separation between tree‐transpired water and stream water. Here we present evidence for such ecohydrological separation in two tropical environments in Puerto Rico where precipitation seasonality is relatively low and where precipitation is positively correlated with primary productivity. We determined the stable isotope signature of xylem water of 30 mahogany (Swietenia spp.) trees sampled during two periods with contrasting moisture status. Our results suggest that the separation between transpiration water and groundwater recharge/streamflow water might be related less to the temporal phasing of hydrologic inputs and primary productivity, and more to the fundamental processes that drive evaporative isotopic enrichment of residual soil water within the soil matrix. The lack of an evaporative signature of both groundwater and streams in the study area suggests that these water balance components have a water source that is transported quickly to deeper subsurface storage compared to waters that trees use. A Bayesian mixing model used to partition source water proportions of xylem water showed that groundwater contribution was greater for valley‐bottom, riparian trees than for ridge‐top trees. Groundwater contribution was also greater at the xeric site than at the mesic–hydric site. These model results (1) underline the utility of a simple linear mixing model, implemented in a Bayesian inference framework, in quantifying source water contributions at sites with contrasting physiographic characteristics, and (2) highlight the informed judgement that should be made in interpreting mixing model results, of import particularly in surveying groundwater use patterns by vegetation from regional to global scales. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.000 | 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".