Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil evaporation is a key process in the water cycle and can be conveniently quantified using δ 2 H and δ 18 O in bulk surface soil water (BW). However, recent research shows that soil water in larger pores evaporates first and differs from water in smaller pores in δ 2 H and δ 18 O , which disqualifies the quantification of evaporation from BW δ 2 H and δ 18 O . We hypothesized that BW had different isotopic compositions from evaporating water (EW). Therefore, our objectives were to test this hypothesis first and then evaluate whether the isotopic difference alters the calculated evaporative water loss. We measured the isotopic composition of soil water during two continuous evaporation periods in a summer maize field. Period I had a duration of 32âd, following a natural precipitation event, and period II lasted 24âd, following an irrigation event with a 2 H -enriched water. BW was obtained by cryogenically extracting water from samples of 0â5âcm soil taken every 3âd; EW was derived from condensation water collected every 2âd on a plastic film placed on the soil surface. The results showed that when event water was heavier than pre-event BW, δ 2 H of BW in period II decreased, with an increase in evaporation time, indicating heavy water evaporation. When event water was lighter than the pre-event BW, δ 2 H and δ 18 O of BW in period I and δ 18 O of BW in period II increased with increasing evaporation time, suggesting light water evaporation. Moreover, relative to BW, EW had significantly smaller δ 2 H and δ 18 O in period I and significantly smaller δ 18 O in period II ( p <0.05 ). These observations suggest that the evaporating water was close to the event water, both of which differed from the bulk soil water. Furthermore, the event water might be in larger pores from which evaporation takes precedence. The soil evaporative water losses derived from EW isotopes were compared with those from BW. With a small isotopic difference between EW and BW, the evaporative water losses in the soil did not differ significantly ( p >0.05 ). Our results have important implications for quantifying evaporation processes using water stable isotopes. Future studies are needed to investigate how soil water isotopes partition differently between pores in soils with different pore size distributions and how this might affect soil evaporation estimation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.152 | 0.130 |
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".