Do <sup>2</sup>H and <sup>18</sup>O in leaf water reflect environmental drivers differently?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We compiled hydrogen and oxygen stable isotope compositions (δ 2 H and δ 18 O) of leaf water from multiple biomes to examine variations with environmental drivers. Leaf water δ 2 H was more closely correlated with δ 2 H of xylem water or atmospheric vapour, whereas leaf water δ 18 O was more closely correlated with air relative humidity. This resulted from the larger proportional range for δ 2 H of meteoric waters relative to the extent of leaf water evaporative enrichment compared with δ 18 O. We next expressed leaf water as isotopic enrichment above xylem water (Δ 2 H and Δ 18 O) to remove the impact of xylem water isotopic variation. For Δ 2 H, leaf water still correlated with atmospheric vapour, whereas Δ 18 O showed no such correlation. This was explained by covariance between air relative humidity and the Δ 18 O of atmospheric vapour. This is consistent with a previously observed diurnal correlation between air relative humidity and the deuterium excess of atmospheric vapour across a range of ecosystems. We conclude that 2 H and 18 O in leaf water do indeed reflect the balance of environmental drivers differently; our results have implications for understanding isotopic effects associated with water cycling in terrestrial ecosystems and for inferring environmental change from isotopic biomarkers that act as proxies for leaf water.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.015 | 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 teacher head, 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".