1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0022-1694(99)00120-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of the stable-isotopic composition of soil water collected from suction lysimeters, wick samplers, and cores in a sandy unsaturated zone

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
86
0
2

Year Published

2002
2002
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(92 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
4
86
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…One should note that the VSPs at the margins yielded pore-water samples mainly following intense rain events, which led to deep rainwater infiltration and increased the water content of the clay sediment (> 0.35 m 3 m −3 ) (Baram et al, 2012a). This relationship between the ability to sample pore water from the relatively dry clay sediments and the deep infiltration of rainwater, along with the observation made by Landon et al (1999) on the higher proportion of more mobile water (15-95 %) in suction lysimeter samples compared with samples from sediment cores (5-80 %) at the same depth, can explain the consistently lighter composition of the "mobile" pore-water samples compared to the clay matrix water samples. These differences, along with the depleted δ 18 O values observed in sediment of the vadose zone (5.5 and 7.2 m under the background plot and 5-6 m under the pond margins, Fig.…”
Section: Vadose Zone Under the Waste Pond Areamentioning
confidence: 57%
“…One should note that the VSPs at the margins yielded pore-water samples mainly following intense rain events, which led to deep rainwater infiltration and increased the water content of the clay sediment (> 0.35 m 3 m −3 ) (Baram et al, 2012a). This relationship between the ability to sample pore water from the relatively dry clay sediments and the deep infiltration of rainwater, along with the observation made by Landon et al (1999) on the higher proportion of more mobile water (15-95 %) in suction lysimeter samples compared with samples from sediment cores (5-80 %) at the same depth, can explain the consistently lighter composition of the "mobile" pore-water samples compared to the clay matrix water samples. These differences, along with the depleted δ 18 O values observed in sediment of the vadose zone (5.5 and 7.2 m under the background plot and 5-6 m under the pond margins, Fig.…”
Section: Vadose Zone Under the Waste Pond Areamentioning
confidence: 57%
“…The wick samplers were constructed of fiberglass attached to a glass plate, based on the design of Brown et al (1986). Results from previous field tests indicated that water collected from the wick samplers had larger concentrations and was more representative of mobile soil water that recharged ground water during or soon after a recharge event than soil water from the suction lysimeters (Landon et al, 1999). Soil moisture was measured at each site with two sets of time-domain reflectometry (TDR) probes installed at depths of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 m (Fig.…”
Section: Methods Of Investigationmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Note in this context that the relevant rates of liquid-vapor isotopic exchange may depend upon, for example, properties of the geologic material (Hsieh et al, 1998b;Wassenaar et al, 2008), physicochemical states (Ingraham and Criss, 1998), and saturation controlled liquid surface area to volume ratio (Ingraham and Criss, 1993;Costanza-Robinson and Brusseau, 2002), with implications for the actual resolvability of dynamic liquid pore water signatures. In addition and similar to previous sampling approaches (e.g., Landon et al, 1999;FigueroaJohnson et al, 2007;Wassenaar et al, 2008), the process information may be blurred by unconsidered alteration of liquid soil water isotopic composition itself (e.g., due to interactions with inorganic or organic soil constituents) or unclear contribution of water stored in different compartments of the pore space (e.g., Brooks et al, 2010).…”
Section: Assumptions and Potential Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Conventionally, measurement of water stable isotopic composition was relatively labor-, time-, and cost-intensive and constrained to laboratory-bound analysis of previously collected and processed discrete samples based on gas source isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) (Horita and Kendall, 2004). Pore water samples were most commonly obtained through destructive collection of geologic material and subsequent extraction using various methods (e.g., Buttle and Sami, 1990;Ingraham and Shadel, 1992;Walker et al, 1994;West et al, 2006) or, less frequently, using suction or gravity lysimeters (e.g., Stewart and McDonnell, 1991;Wels et al, 1991;Landon et al, 1999;Figueroa-Johnson et al, 2007). Each method is, however, associated with considerable uncertainty and unclear implications for the representativeness of obtained pore water isotopic signatures.…”
Section: T H M Volkmann and M Weiler: Pore Water Stable Isotopes mentioning
confidence: 99%