Plant source water apportionment using stable isotopes: A comparison of simple linear, two‐compartment mixing model approaches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plant source water identification using stable isotopes is now a common practice in ecohydrological process investigations. Notwithstanding, little critical evaluation of the approaches for source apportionment have been conducted. Here, we present a critical evaluation of the main methods used for source apportionment between vadose and saturated zone water: simple mass balance and Bayesian mixing models. We leverage new isotope stem water samples from a diverse set of tree species in a strikingly uniform terrain and soil conditions at the Christchurch Botanic Garden, New Zealand. Our results show that using δ 2 H alone in a simple, two‐source mass balance approach leads to erroneous results, particularly an apparent overestimation of groundwater contribution to xylem. Alternatively, using both δ 2 H and δ 18 O in a Bayesian inference framework improves the source water estimates and is more useful than the simple mass balance approach, particularly when soil and groundwater contributions are relatively disproportionate. We suggest that plant source water quantification methods should take into consideration the possible effects of 2 H/ 1 H fractionation. The Bayesian inference approach used here may be less sensitive to 2 H/ 1 H fractionation effects than simple mass balance methods.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it