% 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{Quade:861653,
author = {Quade, Maria and Klosterhalfen, Anne and Graf, Alexander
and Brüggemann, Nicolas and Hermes, Normen and Vereecken,
Harry and Rothfuss, Youri},
title = {{I}n-situ monitoring of soil water isotopic composition for
partitioning of evapotranspiration during one growing season
of sugar beet ({B}eta vulgaris)},
journal = {Agricultural and forest meteorology},
volume = {266-267},
issn = {0168-1923},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {FZJ-2019-02097},
pages = {53 - 64},
year = {2019},
abstract = {Field-based quantitative observations of hydrological
feedbacks of terrestrial vegetation to the atmosphere are
crucial for improving land-surface model parametrizations.
This is especially true in the specific context of
partitioning of evapotranspiration (ET) into soil
evaporation (E) and plant transpiration (T): land surface
models are able to compute E and T separately while observed
transpiration fractions (T/ET) are still sparse.In this
study, we present the application of an on-line
non-destructive method based on gas-permeable tubing for the
in-situ collection of soil water vapor. This allowed for
monitoring of the hydrogen and oxygen isotopic compositions
(δ2H and δ18O) of soil water during a field campaign where
ET of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) was partitioned. T/ET
estimates obtained with the non-destructive method were
compared with the commonly used destructive sampling of soil
and subsequent cryogenic extraction of soil water under
vacuum. Finally, isotope-based T/ET estimates were compared
to those obtained from a combination of micro-lysimeter and
eddy covariance (EC) measurements. Significant discrepancies
between the values of isotopic composition of evaporation
derived destructively and non-destructively from those of
soil water using a well-known transfer resistance model led
in turn to significant differences in T/ET. This is in line
with recent findings on the systematic offsets of soil water
isotopic composition values in relation to the water
sampling and extraction measurement techniques and calls for
further investigation of these isotopic offsets for accurate
separation of E from T in the field. These discrepancies
were, however, smaller than those observed between δ2H- or
δ18O-based T/ET estimates, and more than three times
smaller than those between isotope-based and lysimeter-based
estimates.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255) / IDAS-GHG - Instrumental and Data-driven
Approaches to Source-Partitioning of Greenhouse Gas Fluxes:
Comparison, Combination, Advancement (BMBF-01LN1313A)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255 / G:(DE-Juel1)BMBF-01LN1313A},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000458468200006},
doi = {10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.12.002},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/861653},
}