% 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{Kbert:887895,
      author       = {Kübert, Angelika and Paulus, Sinikka and Dahlmann, Adrian
                      and Werner, Christiane and Rothfuss, Youri and Orlowski,
                      Natalie and Dubbert, Maren},
      title        = {{W}ater {S}table {I}sotopes in {E}cohydrological {F}ield
                      {R}esearch: {C}omparison {B}etween {I}n {S}itu and
                      {D}estructive {M}onitoring {M}ethods to {D}etermine {S}oil
                      {W}ater {I}sotopic {S}ignatures},
      journal      = {Frontiers in plant science},
      volume       = {11},
      issn         = {1664-462X},
      address      = {Lausanne},
      publisher    = {Frontiers Media},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2020-04501},
      pages        = {387},
      year         = {2020},
      abstract     = {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‰
                      (δ18O) and 0.4–152.2‰ (δ2H) for soil liquid water. The
                      smallest differences were found under natural abundance
                      conditions of 2H and 18O, 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‰ (δ18O) and +61.9 ±
                      266.3‰ (δ2H). The in situ soil water vapor method showed
                      isotopic signatures of -12.5 ± 9.4‰ (δ18O) and +169.3 ±
                      261.5‰ (δ2H). 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.},
      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},
      pubmed       = {pmid:32346381},
      UT           = {WOS:000530316400001},
      doi          = {10.3389/fpls.2020.00387},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/887895},
}