% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Rothfuss:820750,
      author       = {Rothfuss, Youri and Javaux, Mathieu},
      title        = {{I}sotopic approaches to quantifying root water uptake and
                      redistribution: a review and comparison of methods},
      journal      = {Biogeosciences discussions},
      volume       = {},
      issn         = {1810-6285},
      address      = {Katlenburg-Lindau [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Copernicus},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2016-06017},
      pages        = {},
      year         = {2016},
      abstract     = {Plant root water uptake (RWU) and release (i.e., hydraulic
                      redistribution – HR, and its particular case hydraulic
                      lift – HL) have been documented for the past five decades
                      from water stable isotopic analysis. By comparing the
                      (hydrogen or oxygen) stable isotopic composition of plant
                      xylem water to those of potential contributive water sources
                      (e.g., water from different soil layers, groundwater, water
                      from recent precipitation or from a nearby stream) authors
                      could determine the relative contributions of these water
                      sources to RWU. Other authors have confirmed the existence
                      of HR and HL from the isotopic analysis of the plant xylem
                      water following a labelling pulse. In this paper, the
                      different methods used for locating / quantifying relative
                      contributions of water sources to RWU (i.e., graphical
                      inference, statistical (e.g., Bayesian) multi-source linear
                      mixing models) are reviewed with emphasis on their
                      respective advantages and drawbacks. The graphical and
                      statistical methods are tested against a physically based
                      analytical RWU model during a series of virtual experiments
                      differing in the depth of the groundwater table, the soil
                      surface water status, and the plant transpiration rate
                      value. The benchmarking of these methods illustrates the
                      limitations of the graphical and statistical methods (e.g.,
                      their inability to locate or quantify HR) while it
                      underlines the performance of one Bayesian mixing model, but
                      only when the number of considered water sources in the soil
                      is the highest to closely reflect the vertical distribution
                      of the soil water isotopic composition. The simplest two
                      end-member mixing model is also successfully tested when all
                      possible sources in the soil can be identified to define the
                      two end-members and compute their isotopic compositions.
                      Finally, future challenges in studying RWU with stable
                      isotopic analysis are evocated with focus on new isotopic
                      monitoring methods and sampling strategies, and on the
                      implementation of isotope transport in physically based RWU
                      models.},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {570},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
                      (POF3-255)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      doi          = {10.5194/bg-2016-410},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/820750},
}