The two water worlds hypothesis: Addressing multiple working hypotheses and proposing a way forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent studies using water isotopes have shown that trees and streams appear to return distinct water pools to the hydrosphere. Cryogenically extracted plant and soil water isotopic signatures diverge from the meteoric water lines, suggesting that plants would preferentially use bound soil water, while mobile soil water that infiltrates the soil recharges groundwater and feeds streamflow all plots on meteoric water lines. These findings have been described under the “two water worlds” (TWW) hypothesis. In spite of growing evidence for the TWW hypothesis, several questions remain unsolved within the scope of this framework. Here, we address the TWW as a null hypothesis and further assess the following: (a) the theoretical biophysical feasibility for two distinct water pools to exist, (b) plant and soil processes that could explain the different isotopic composition between the two water pools, and (c) methodological issues that could explain the divergent isotopic signatures. Moreover, we propose a way forward under the framework of the TWW hypothesis, proposing alternative perspectives and explanations, experiments to further test them, and methodological advances that could help illuminate this quest. We further highlight the need to improve our sampling resolution of plants and soils across time and space. We ultimately propose a set of key priorities for future research to improve our understanding of the ecohydrological processes controlling water flows through the soil–plant‐atmosphere continuum.
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 | 0.042 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".