loading page

On the urgent need for standardization in isotope-based ecohydrological investigations
  • +4
  • Cody Millar,
  • Kim Janzen,
  • Magali Nehemy,
  • Geoff Koehler,
  • P. Herve-Fernandez,
  • Hongxiu Wang,
  • Jeff McDonnell
Cody Millar
University of Saskatchewan Global Institute for Water Security

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Kim Janzen
University of Saskatchewan Global Institute for Water Security
Author Profile
Magali Nehemy
University of Saskatchewan Global Institute for Water Security
Author Profile
Geoff Koehler
National Hydrology Research Centre
Author Profile
P. Herve-Fernandez
University of Saskatchewan Global Institute for Water Security
Author Profile
Hongxiu Wang
University of Saskatchewan Global Institute for Water Security
Author Profile
Jeff McDonnell
University of Saskatchewan Global Institute for Water Security
Author Profile

Abstract

Ecohydrological investigations commonly use the stable isotopes of water (hydrogen and oxygen) as a conservative ecosystem tracer. This approach requires accessing and analyzing water constrained within plant and soil matrices. Generally, there are six steps that researchers must pass through to retrieve hydrogen and oxygen isotope values from these plant and soil matrices: (i) sampling, (ii) sample storage and transport, (iii) extraction, (iv) pre-analysis processing, (v) isotopic analysis, and (vi) post-processing and correction. At each of these steps cumulative errors can be introduced which sum to non-trivial magnitudes. These errors can impact subsequent interpretations about water cycling through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. But these steps in the research ‘process chain’ are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to uncertainly in published findings. At each of these discreet steps, there are multiple possible options to select from resulting in, as we will show, tens of thousands of possible combinations used by researchers to go from plant and soil samples to isotopic data. In a newly emerging science, so many options can create interpretive confusion and major issues with data comparability. This points to the need for the development of shared standardized approaches. Here we critically examine the state of the process chain, reflecting on the issues associated with each step, and end with suggestions to move our community towards standardization. We hope that critically assessing this common approach will help us see the current problem in its entirety and facilitate community action toward agreed upon standardized approaches.
10 May 2022Submitted to Hydrological Processes
23 May 2022Submission Checks Completed
23 May 2022Assigned to Editor
23 May 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
02 Jul 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
04 Jul 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
07 Aug 20221st Revision Received
07 Aug 2022Assigned to Editor
07 Aug 2022Submission Checks Completed
07 Aug 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
07 Aug 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
08 Aug 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
30 Aug 20222nd Revision Received
30 Aug 2022Submission Checks Completed
30 Aug 2022Assigned to Editor
30 Aug 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
30 Aug 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
31 Aug 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
04 Sep 20223rd Revision Received
04 Sep 2022Assigned to Editor
04 Sep 2022Submission Checks Completed
04 Sep 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
04 Sep 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
06 Sep 2022Editorial Decision: Accept
Oct 2022Published in Hydrological Processes volume 36 issue 10. 10.1002/hyp.14698