A simple greenhouse experiment to explore the effect of cryogenic water extraction for tracing plant source water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stable isotopes of water (2H and 18O) are useful tracers for determining root water uptake depths. In such studies, plant and soil water are extracted most commonly by cryogenic vacuum distillation. However, recent studies have suggested that cryogenic extraction conditions (extraction time, temperature, and vacuum) and soil physicochemical properties affect the isotopic composition of extracted soil water. Here, we perform a simple greenhouse trial with 2 plant species (Taraxacum officinale and Pelargonium spp.) in 2 soil types (clayey loam and sand) to test our ability to match plant water to its putative soil water source(s) by using different extraction conditions (30–240 min, 80–200 °C, 0.1 Pa). We irrigated plants with water of known isotopic composition, sampled root crowns and soils at 2 depths, and varied the cryogenic water extraction conditions. Our isotope results from the sandy soils were unaffected by cryogenic extraction conditions. In contrast, extraction parameters affected the isotope composition of waters recovered from clayey soil. This influenced the estimates of plant water sourcing, where δ2H and δ18O returned different results from each other. With higher extraction temperatures and longer extraction times, we gradually extracted more enriched soil water, which reflected the source water of both plant species. Our results imply that longer extraction times and temperatures for clayey soils are needed to reduce fractionation effects during the extraction procedure. Future studies should explore how these effects apply to natural clay‐rich soils as well as plant tissue isotope composition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".