English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Ecohydrological isotope based field research is often constrained by a lack of temporally explicit soil water data, usually related to the choice of destructive sampling in the field and subsequent analysis in the laboratory. New techniques based on gas permeable membranes allow to sample soil water vapor  in situ  and infer soil liquid water isotopic signatures. Here, a membrane-based  in situ  soil water vapor sampling method was tested at a grassland site in Freiburg, Germany. It was further compared with two commonly used destructive sampling approaches for determination of soil liquid water isotopic signatures: cryogenic vacuum extraction and centrifugation. All methods were tested under semi-controlled field conditions, conducting an experiment with dry-wet cycling and two isotopically different labeling irrigation waters. We found mean absolute differences between cryogenic vacuum extraction and  in situ  vapor measurements of 0.3–14.2‰ (δ 18 O) and 0.4–152.2‰ (δ 2 H) for soil liquid water. The smallest differences were found under natural abundance conditions of  2 H and  18 O, the strongest differences were observed after irrigation with labeled waters. Labeling strongly increased the isotopic variation in soil water: Mean soil water isotopic signatures derived by cryogenic vacuum extraction were -11.6 ± 10.9‰ (δ 18 O) and +61.9 ± 266.3‰ (δ 2 H). The  in situ  soil water vapor method showed isotopic signatures of -12.5 ± 9.4‰ (δ 18 O) and +169.3 ± 261.5‰ (δ 2 H). Centrifugation was unsuccessful for soil samples due to low water recovery rates. It is therefore not recommended. Our study highlights that the  in situ  soil water vapor method captures the temporal dynamics in the isotopic signature of soil water well while the destructive approach also includes the natural lateral isotopic heterogeneity. The different advantages and limitations of the three methods regarding setup, handling and costs are discussed. The choice of method should not only consider prevailing environmental conditions but the experimental design and goal. We see a very promising tool in the  in situ  soil water vapor method, capturing both temporal developments and spatial variability of soil water processes.

frontiers in plant science

Water Stable Isotopes in Ecohydrological Field Research: Comparison Between In Situ and Destructive Monitoring Methods to Determine Soil Water Isotopic Signatures