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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Hydrological processes 2017-02, Vol.31 (4), p.783-799
Hauptverfasser: McCutcheon, Ryan J., McNamara, James P., Kohn, Matthew J., Evans, Samantha L.
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 &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 John Wiley &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; 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