4.7 Article

Borehole Equilibration: Testing a New Method to Monitor the Isotopic Composition of Tree Xylem Water in situ

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00358

关键词

transpiration; continuous sampling; root water uptake; Craig-Gordon model; delta O-18; delta H-2; isotopic labeling; xylem water

资金

  1. Knut and AliceWallenberg Foundation [2015.0047]
  2. French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the Investissements d'Avenir program, LabEx ARBRE [ANR-11LABX-0002-01]
  3. ERA-NET Sumforest project ForRISK through ANR [ANR-16-SUMF-0001-01]
  4. European Union [606803]
  5. Volkswagen Foundation [A122505, 92889]
  6. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-16-SUMF-0001] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forest water use has been difficult to quantify. One promising approach is to measure the isotopic composition of plant water, e.g., the transpired water vapor or xylem water. Because different water sources, e.g., groundwater versus shallow soil water, often show different isotopic signatures, isotopes can be used to investigate the depths from which plants take up their water and how this changes over time. Traditionally such measurements have relied on the extraction of wood samples, which provide limited time resolution at great expense, and risk possible artifacts. Utilizing a borehole drilled through a tree's stem, we propose a new method based on the notion that water vapor in a slow-moving airstream approaches isotopic equilibration with the much greater mass of liquid water in the xylem. We present two empirical data sets showing that the method can work in practice. We then present a theoretical model estimating equilibration times and exploring the limits at which the approach will fail. The method provides a simple, cheap, and accurate means of continuously estimating the isotopic composition of the source water for transpiration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据