An evaluation of the ecohydrological separation hypothesis in a semiarid catchment
The ecohydrological separation hypothesis states that transpiration through plants and drainage to streams and groundwater are sourced from separate soil water pools, which possess distinct isotopic signatures. Evidence for ecohydrological separation has relied on the globally ubiquitous observation...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Hydrological processes 2017-02, Vol.31 (4), p.783-799 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 799 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 783 |
container_title | Hydrological processes |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | McCutcheon, Ryan J. McNamara, James P. Kohn, Matthew J. Evans, Samantha L. |
description | The ecohydrological separation hypothesis states that transpiration through plants and drainage to streams and groundwater are sourced from separate soil water pools, which possess distinct isotopic signatures. Evidence for ecohydrological separation has relied on the globally ubiquitous observation that plant water and draining water are isotopically distinct. We evaluated the ecohydrological separation hypothesis in the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed in the semiarid, snow‐dominated landscape of southwest Idaho, USA. We found that plant water is indeed isotopically distinct from streams and groundwater. However, we were unable to track those waters to subsurface soil waters, nor were we able to relate soil water mobility to isotopic composition. Soil waters of different mobility can be isotopically similar, and isotopic distinction in soil water can occur for reasons not related to mobility. We suggest that isotopic distinction between root‐absorbed and draining waters may not be an appropriate indicator of ecohydrological separation of soil waters, and that hydrologic explanations for such isotopic distinction may not be sufficient. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/hyp.11052 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1884131007</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1872835526</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4922-f99fa374d02e014c2b0f01f1b93af51241e58d7b98de232ef61b3deb6baf3bbf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0cFKxDAQBuAgCq6rB9-g4EUP3Z2kTZscF1FXWFBED55C2iY2S9vUpKv07Y3Wk6B4ymG-mSH_IHSKYYEByLIe-wXGQMkemmHgPMbA6D6aAWM0zoDlh-jI-y0ApMBghh5WXaTeZLOTg7FdZHU01CpSpa3HytnGvphSNpFXvXSTCAtsIN74yHSRDKXWSGeqqJRDWbeqG47RgZaNVyff7xw9XV89Xq7jzd3N7eVqE5cpJyTWnGuZ5GkFRAFOS1KABqxxwROpKSYpVpRVecFZpUhClM5wkVSqyAqpk6LQyRydT3N7Z193yg-iNb5UTSM7ZXdeYMZSnIRU8n_QnLCEUpIFevaDbu3OdeEjAnPIQqQ05X8qllGe5WFkUBeTKp313iktemda6UaBQXyeS4Q0xde5gl1O9t00avwdivXz_dTxAVZxlc0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1865967187</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An evaluation of the ecohydrological separation hypothesis in a semiarid catchment</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>McCutcheon, Ryan J. ; McNamara, James P. ; Kohn, Matthew J. ; Evans, Samantha L.</creator><creatorcontrib>McCutcheon, Ryan J. ; McNamara, James P. ; Kohn, Matthew J. ; Evans, Samantha L.</creatorcontrib><description>The ecohydrological separation hypothesis states that transpiration through plants and drainage to streams and groundwater are sourced from separate soil water pools, which possess distinct isotopic signatures. Evidence for ecohydrological separation has relied on the globally ubiquitous observation that plant water and draining water are isotopically distinct. We evaluated the ecohydrological separation hypothesis in the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed in the semiarid, snow‐dominated landscape of southwest Idaho, USA. We found that plant water is indeed isotopically distinct from streams and groundwater. However, we were unable to track those waters to subsurface soil waters, nor were we able to relate soil water mobility to isotopic composition. Soil waters of different mobility can be isotopically similar, and isotopic distinction in soil water can occur for reasons not related to mobility. We suggest that isotopic distinction between root‐absorbed and draining waters may not be an appropriate indicator of ecohydrological separation of soil waters, and that hydrologic explanations for such isotopic distinction may not be sufficient.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0885-6087</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-1085</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/hyp.11052</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Catchment area ; Chemical composition ; Coastal inlets ; Drainage ; Drying ; Ecohydrology ; Evaluation ; Groundwater ; Hydrology ; Hypotheses ; Isotope composition ; isotope hydrology ; Isotopes ; Landscapes ; Mobility ; Moisture content ; plant water ; Pools ; Rivers ; runoff generation ; Semiarid environments ; Separation ; Signatures ; Snow ; Soil ; Soil water ; Soils ; Streams ; Tracking ; Transpiration ; Water ; Watersheds</subject><ispartof>Hydrological processes, 2017-02, Vol.31 (4), p.783-799</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4922-f99fa374d02e014c2b0f01f1b93af51241e58d7b98de232ef61b3deb6baf3bbf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4922-f99fa374d02e014c2b0f01f1b93af51241e58d7b98de232ef61b3deb6baf3bbf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fhyp.11052$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fhyp.11052$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McCutcheon, Ryan J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McNamara, James P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kohn, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, Samantha L.</creatorcontrib><title>An evaluation of the ecohydrological separation hypothesis in a semiarid catchment</title><title>Hydrological processes</title><description>The ecohydrological separation hypothesis states that transpiration through plants and drainage to streams and groundwater are sourced from separate soil water pools, which possess distinct isotopic signatures. Evidence for ecohydrological separation has relied on the globally ubiquitous observation that plant water and draining water are isotopically distinct. We evaluated the ecohydrological separation hypothesis in the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed in the semiarid, snow‐dominated landscape of southwest Idaho, USA. We found that plant water is indeed isotopically distinct from streams and groundwater. However, we were unable to track those waters to subsurface soil waters, nor were we able to relate soil water mobility to isotopic composition. Soil waters of different mobility can be isotopically similar, and isotopic distinction in soil water can occur for reasons not related to mobility. We suggest that isotopic distinction between root‐absorbed and draining waters may not be an appropriate indicator of ecohydrological separation of soil waters, and that hydrologic explanations for such isotopic distinction may not be sufficient.</description><subject>Catchment area</subject><subject>Chemical composition</subject><subject>Coastal inlets</subject><subject>Drainage</subject><subject>Drying</subject><subject>Ecohydrology</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Groundwater</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Isotope composition</subject><subject>isotope hydrology</subject><subject>Isotopes</subject><subject>Landscapes</subject><subject>Mobility</subject><subject>Moisture content</subject><subject>plant water</subject><subject>Pools</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>runoff generation</subject><subject>Semiarid environments</subject><subject>Separation</subject><subject>Signatures</subject><subject>Snow</subject><subject>Soil</subject><subject>Soil water</subject><subject>Soils</subject><subject>Streams</subject><subject>Tracking</subject><subject>Transpiration</subject><subject>Water</subject><subject>Watersheds</subject><issn>0885-6087</issn><issn>1099-1085</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqN0cFKxDAQBuAgCq6rB9-g4EUP3Z2kTZscF1FXWFBED55C2iY2S9vUpKv07Y3Wk6B4ymG-mSH_IHSKYYEByLIe-wXGQMkemmHgPMbA6D6aAWM0zoDlh-jI-y0ApMBghh5WXaTeZLOTg7FdZHU01CpSpa3HytnGvphSNpFXvXSTCAtsIN74yHSRDKXWSGeqqJRDWbeqG47RgZaNVyff7xw9XV89Xq7jzd3N7eVqE5cpJyTWnGuZ5GkFRAFOS1KABqxxwROpKSYpVpRVecFZpUhClM5wkVSqyAqpk6LQyRydT3N7Z193yg-iNb5UTSM7ZXdeYMZSnIRU8n_QnLCEUpIFevaDbu3OdeEjAnPIQqQ05X8qllGe5WFkUBeTKp313iktemda6UaBQXyeS4Q0xde5gl1O9t00avwdivXz_dTxAVZxlc0</recordid><startdate>20170215</startdate><enddate>20170215</enddate><creator>McCutcheon, Ryan J.</creator><creator>McNamara, James P.</creator><creator>Kohn, Matthew J.</creator><creator>Evans, Samantha L.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170215</creationdate><title>An evaluation of the ecohydrological separation hypothesis in a semiarid catchment</title><author>McCutcheon, Ryan J. ; McNamara, James P. ; Kohn, Matthew J. ; Evans, Samantha L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4922-f99fa374d02e014c2b0f01f1b93af51241e58d7b98de232ef61b3deb6baf3bbf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Catchment area</topic><topic>Chemical composition</topic><topic>Coastal inlets</topic><topic>Drainage</topic><topic>Drying</topic><topic>Ecohydrology</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Groundwater</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Isotope composition</topic><topic>isotope hydrology</topic><topic>Isotopes</topic><topic>Landscapes</topic><topic>Mobility</topic><topic>Moisture content</topic><topic>plant water</topic><topic>Pools</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>runoff generation</topic><topic>Semiarid environments</topic><topic>Separation</topic><topic>Signatures</topic><topic>Snow</topic><topic>Soil</topic><topic>Soil water</topic><topic>Soils</topic><topic>Streams</topic><topic>Tracking</topic><topic>Transpiration</topic><topic>Water</topic><topic>Watersheds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McCutcheon, Ryan J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McNamara, James P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kohn, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, Samantha L.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Hydrological processes</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McCutcheon, Ryan J.</au><au>McNamara, James P.</au><au>Kohn, Matthew J.</au><au>Evans, Samantha L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An evaluation of the ecohydrological separation hypothesis in a semiarid catchment</atitle><jtitle>Hydrological processes</jtitle><date>2017-02-15</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>783</spage><epage>799</epage><pages>783-799</pages><issn>0885-6087</issn><eissn>1099-1085</eissn><abstract>The ecohydrological separation hypothesis states that transpiration through plants and drainage to streams and groundwater are sourced from separate soil water pools, which possess distinct isotopic signatures. Evidence for ecohydrological separation has relied on the globally ubiquitous observation that plant water and draining water are isotopically distinct. We evaluated the ecohydrological separation hypothesis in the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed in the semiarid, snow‐dominated landscape of southwest Idaho, USA. We found that plant water is indeed isotopically distinct from streams and groundwater. However, we were unable to track those waters to subsurface soil waters, nor were we able to relate soil water mobility to isotopic composition. Soil waters of different mobility can be isotopically similar, and isotopic distinction in soil water can occur for reasons not related to mobility. We suggest that isotopic distinction between root‐absorbed and draining waters may not be an appropriate indicator of ecohydrological separation of soil waters, and that hydrologic explanations for such isotopic distinction may not be sufficient.</abstract><cop>Chichester</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/hyp.11052</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0885-6087 |
ispartof | Hydrological processes, 2017-02, Vol.31 (4), p.783-799 |
issn | 0885-6087 1099-1085 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1884131007 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Catchment area Chemical composition Coastal inlets Drainage Drying Ecohydrology Evaluation Groundwater Hydrology Hypotheses Isotope composition isotope hydrology Isotopes Landscapes Mobility Moisture content plant water Pools Rivers runoff generation Semiarid environments Separation Signatures Snow Soil Soil water Soils Streams Tracking Transpiration Water Watersheds |
title | An evaluation of the ecohydrological separation hypothesis in a semiarid catchment |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T09%3A20%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20evaluation%20of%20the%20ecohydrological%20separation%20hypothesis%20in%20a%20semiarid%20catchment&rft.jtitle=Hydrological%20processes&rft.au=McCutcheon,%20Ryan%20J.&rft.date=2017-02-15&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=783&rft.epage=799&rft.pages=783-799&rft.issn=0885-6087&rft.eissn=1099-1085&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/hyp.11052&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1872835526%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1865967187&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |