Differences between stem and branch xylem water isotope composition in four tropical tree species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stable isotope studies (δ2H and δ18O) of water within plants are providing new information on water sources, competitive interactions and water use patterns under natural conditions. This is based on the assumption that there is no fractionation at the time of water uptake or during its transport within trees. However, previous studies have found fractionation does occur in water taken up through the roots in halophytic and xerophytic plants. It is unclear how widespread such fractionation is in other species. In this study, we tested this fractionation by comparing stem and branch xylem water isotopes over the period of one day (from 8 am to 5 pm) in four wet tropical rainforest tree species (Dendrocnide photinophylla,Aphananthe philippinensis,Daphnandra repandulaandMallotus polyadenos). We found branch water isotope ratios (δ2H and δ18O) were enriched compared with stem xylem water isotopes.D. photinophyllahad a significantly different branch δ18O ratio thanA. philippinensis,D. repandulaandM. polyadenos. In contrast, there were no significant differences in stem xylem δ18O among the four observed tree species. We found clear differences in the stable isotope ratios of δ18O for stem and branch xylem water forD. photinophyllaandD. repandulaof upto −0.85% and 0.50%, respectively. Remarkable δ2H differences were also found between stem and branch xylem water isotope ratios forA. philippinensis,D. repandulaandM. polyadenos, being upto −12.14%, −16.17% and −9.65%, respectively. A dual isotope (δ2H–δ18O) plot showed branch water values were more enriched than stem xylem water values forD. photinophyllaandD. repandula, indicating a clear difference between stem and branch xylem water. This study suggests that δ2H and δ18O fractionation could be a species‐specific phenomenon in tropical trees, which has important implications for plant water source identification and evapotranspiration partitioning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".