Evapotranspiration Partitioning Using: A Thesis

Evapotranspiration Partitioning using
Stable Isotope Fractionation
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment
Of
the Requirements For the Degree of
Master of Technology
by
PRAVESH SINGH
16103055
To
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR
January, 2019
i
Dedicated to my Baba
ii
iii
iv
Abstract
A major challenge in ecohydrological studies is evapotranspiration (ET) partitioning,
which limits our understanding of soil-plant-atmospheric continuum. In this study, ET
partitioning was performed for rice and wheat crops in an experimental plot located at IIT
Kanpur using stable isotope fractionation method. The isotope method works because the
isotopic signatures of evaporation (E) and transpiration (T) are known to differ significantly.
First, experimental setups are designed to sample atmospheric water, soil water and
plant water. The setup consisted of an air intake structure for collecting water vapour at multiple
heights using liquid nitrogen (LN2) trap, cryogenic distillation for extracting water from soil
and plant, and a high-speed centrifuge for extracting soil water using Tetrachloroethylene (TCE)
as a displacement liquid. A cold trap using Peltier element was also designed to sample
atmospheric water.
Next, isotopic compositions of ET, E and T were determined using Keeling plot,
Craig- Gordon model and steady-state assumptions, respectively. Sensitivity analysis was
performed to identify variables that significantly affect ET partitioning, and emphasis was laid
to measure those variables accurately. For the rice season, the ET partitioning was performed
only for one day, i.e. 26 October 2017. The results suggested that on that day, the transpiration
fraction in evapotranspiration was 85.6%. For the wheat season, multiple samples during
different stages of crop growth were collected. The results showed that the transpiration fraction
in ET varies between 38% and 96% depending upon the crop growth stage and availability of
water. A comparison of transpiration fraction obtained from the isotope fractionation and
hydrometric methods suggested that the results from the two methods are similar for most of the
days. However, there were differences on some days which were attributed to uncertainties in
the estimation of temperature and relative humidity.
v
Acknowledgement
Foremost, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my thesis supervisor Dr Shivam
Tripathi for his motivation, encouragement, enthusiasm, constant support and exemplary
guidance.His guidance helped me in all the time during my entire journey at IIT Kanpur. It was
a memorable experience to work under his supervision.
I want to thank Dr Rajesh Srivastava, Dr Ashu Jain, Dr Saumyen Guha, Dr Richa Ojha and
other faculty members for their invaluable lectures which helped me to develop skills needed
for this work. I want to thank Hydraulics Lab staff, my batchmates Aditya, Anshul, Ephrem,
Priyanka, Saurabh, Seeta Ram for their support and constructive suggestions.
Last but not the least; I would like to thank my grandfather Shri Jhinku Singh and the rest of my
family for standing with me every time.
Thank you IIT Kanpur…
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. xviii
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Rice and Wheat ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1.1 Rice (Oryza Sativa) ............................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Wheat (Triticum Aestivum) .................................................................................. 2
1.2 Future challenge in crop production ............................................................................. 2
1.3 Need for the ecohydrological approach ........................................................................ 3
1.4 Methods to partition ET ................................................................................................ 4
1.4.1 Stable Isotope Fractionation Method .................................................................... 5
1.5 Motivation and objectives of the thesis ......................................................................... 9
2 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Craig-Gordon (CG) Model .......................................................................................... 13
2.1.1 Kinetic fractionation factor (𝛆𝐤) ......................................................................... 14
2.1.2 Equilibrium fractionation factor (𝛂𝐞𝐪)............................................................... 16
2.2 Keeling Plot................................................................................................................. 17
2.3 Review of Sample Collection Techniques .................................................................. 18
2.3.1 Atmospheric water vapour .................................................................................. 18
2.3.2 Soil Water ........................................................................................................... 20
2.3.3 Plant Water .......................................................................................................... 25
3 STUDY AREA AND MATERIALS .................................................................................. 29
3.1 Study Area................................................................................................................... 29
3.2 Weather Condition ...................................................................................................... 29
3.3 Soil properties ............................................................................................................. 32
3.4 Crop Details ................................................................................................................ 33
3.4.1 Rice ..................................................................................................................... 33
3.4.2 Wheat .................................................................................................................. 35
3.5 Data collection ............................................................................................................ 37
3.5.1 Automatic Weather Station (AWS)..................................................................... 37
3.5.2 Air Intake structure (AIS) ................................................................................... 38
4 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 40
vii
4.1 Atmospheric Water Vapour Sample collection ........................................................... 40
4.1.1 Peltier element trap ............................................................................................. 40
4.1.2 Air Intake Structure (AIS) using LN2 trap .......................................................... 42
4.2 Soil and Plant water .................................................................................................... 44
4.2.1 Cryogenic Vacuum distillation (CVD) apparatus ............................................... 44
4.2.2 Displacement liquid centrifugation ..................................................................... 45
4.3 Sampling Protocol ....................................................................................................... 49
4.4 Analysis of water samples for Isotope analysis .......................................................... 50
4.4.1 Sample loading .................................................................................................... 50
4.4.2 Working Principle of LWIA ............................................................................... 52
4.5 Senstivity analysis ....................................................................................................... 53
4.5.1 Transpiration Factor ............................................................................................ 53
4.5.2 Variation of uncertainty in absolute water content ............................................. 56
4.5.3 Craig Gordon (CG) Model .................................................................................. 58
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 62
5.1 Results for Rice season ............................................................................................... 62
5.2 Results for Wheat Season............................................................................................ 66
5.2.1 Comparison of isotope and hydrometric methods............................................... 91
5.2.2 Background noise in Isotopic Composition of ET .............................................. 92
5.2.3 Average Isotopic Composition of Hydrological Fluxes ...................................... 98
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION REMARKS ............................................................. 101
7 LIMITATION AND FUTURE SCOPE ............................................................................ 104
A) APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 105
A.1 Time of Extraction ......................................................................................................... 105
A.2 Comparison of performance of DFC and CVD.............................................................. 105
A.3 Model for Data Imputation............................................................................................. 106
A.3.1 Model Development ................................................................................................ 106
A.3.2 Testing of models for T and RH.............................................................................. 115
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 136
BIBLIOGRAPHY OR GENERAL REFERENCES ................................................................. 142
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Paddy yield in major Asian countries with their percentage contribution to world's
productivity ................................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 1.2 Wheat yield in major Asian countries with their percentage contribution to world's
productivity ................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.3 Isotopes of hydrogen.................................................................................................... 6
Figure 1.4 For isotopes bond dissociation energies are different for different molecules ............ 8
Figure 1.5 Variation of Rice and Wheat Yield in India ................................................................ 9
Figure 1.6 Future projection of percentage wise contribution of different sectors (Data were
taken from standing sub-committee report of MoWR) ............................................................... 10
Figure 2.1 Craig- Gordon model ................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2.2 Experimental set up to collect atmospheric water vapour using liquid nitrogen cold
trap (Peters and Yakir, 2009) ...................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.3 Experimental set up for azeotropic distillation (Recesz and Woods, 1990) .............. 21
Figure 2.4 Squeezer machine (Banito et al., 2005) ..................................................................... 22
Figure 2.5 Centrifuge tube with inbuilt water collection set up (Reynolds (1984)).................... 23
Figure 2.6 Soil water extraction setup (Dalton, 1989) ................................................................ 26
Figure 2.7 Cryogenic vacuum distillation (West et al., 2006) .................................................... 26
Figure 2.8 Cryogenic vacuum distillation (Orlowski et al., 2013) .............................................. 27
Figure 3.1 Study area .................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3.2 Variation of average monthly temperature at study site ............................................ 30
Figure 3.3 Variation of average monthly relative humidity at study site .................................... 30
Figure 3.4 Variation of average monthly wind speed at study site ............................................. 31
Figure 3.5 Variation of average net solar radiation and pressure at study site ........................... 31
Figure 3.6 Windrose diagram with average wind speed ............................................................. 32
Figure 3.7 Windrose diagram with maximum wind speed ......................................................... 32
Figure 3.8 Average dry density at the study site ......................................................................... 32
ix
Figure 3.9 Soil water retention curve of soil at the study site (Brooks-Corey (BC) Model) ...... 33
Figure 3.10 Particle size distribution curve for the soil at the study site .................................... 33
Figure 3.11 Rice cultivation procedure ....................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.12 Wheat cultivation procedure .................................................................................... 36
Figure 3.13 Variation of plant height and leaf area index of wheat plant ................................... 36
Figure 3.14 Actual figure showing different components of automatic weather station at study
site ............................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.15 Actual figure showing air intake structure at study site ........................................... 39
Figure 4.1 Working principle of Peltier element......................................................................... 40
Figure 4.2 Things needed to design and construct Peltier element based cold trap .................... 41
Figure 4.3 Variation of temperature of cold and hot side of Peltier element cold trap setup when
there was no air circulated........................................................................................................... 42
Figure 4.4 Temperature variation of cold side of Peltier element cold trap with and without air
flow ............................................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 4.5 On field picture of air intake structure ....................................................................... 43
Figure 4.6 Atmospheric water vapour sample collection ............................................................ 44
Figure 4.7 Cryogenic vacuum distillation for soil and plant water extraction ............................ 45
Figure 4.8 Working principle of displacement liquid centrifugation method ............................. 46
Figure 4.9 Soil water extraction using displacement liquid centrifugation using
tetrachloroethylene ...................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 4.10 LGR's Liquid water isotope analyser at our institute ............................................... 50
Figure 4.11 Loading of standard and actual samples of the tray for isotopic analysis................ 51
Figure 4.12 Process of automatic injection of samples in the optical cavity .............................. 52
Figure 4.13 Variation of uncertainty in transpiration fraction with the difference in source
isotopic composition at different values of uncertainty .............................................................. 54
Figure 4.14 Variation of uncertainty in transpiration fraction with transpiration fraction at
different values of uncertainty .................................................................................................... 55
x
Figure 4.15 Variation of uncertainty in transpiration fraction with uncertainty in ET, T and E at
different values of uncertainty .................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4.16 Variation of uncertainty in absolute water vapour concentration with the
temperature at different values of uncertainty............................................................................. 58
Figure 4.17 Variation of uncertainty in absolute water vapours concentration with the
temperature at different values of uncertainty............................................................................. 58
Figure 4.18 Variation of uncertainty in the isotopic composition of evaporation with the change
in temperature at different values of relative humidity ............................................................... 60
Figure 4.19 Variation of uncertainty in the isotopic composition of evaporation with the change
in relative humidity with different values of n ............................................................................ 61
Figure 5.1 AWS data on 26 October, 2017 ................................................................................. 62
Figure 5.2 Wind rose for 26 October, 2017 ................................................................................ 63
Figure 5.3 Isotopic composition of different water sources collected on 26-10-2017 ................ 64
Figure 5.4 Variation in the isotopic composition of rice leaf water during the experiment
duration ....................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 5.5 Keeling Plot for 26 October, 2017 ............................................................................. 65
Figure 5.6 Isotopic composition of different water sources collected during wheat cultivation 66
Figure 5.7 Isotopic composition of different water sources collected during entire study (both
rice and wheat season) ................................................................................................................ 67
Figure 5.8 Variation of the average isotopic composition of water vapour during the entire study
with the standard deviation ......................................................................................................... 68
Figure 5.9 Comparison of the isotopic composition of water vapour at the bottommost and the
topmost level at 11 am ................................................................................................................ 69
Figure 5.10 Comparison of the isotopic composition of water vapour at the bottommost and the
topmost at 1 pm ........................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 5.11 Variation of the average isotopic composition of soil water during the entire study
with a standard deviation ............................................................................................................ 71
Figure 5.12 Comparison of the isotopic composition of soil water at 0- 10 cm and 10 - 20 cm 72
xi
Figure 5.13 Comparison of the isotopic composition of plant water and leaf water .................. 73
Figure 5.14 AWS data on 17 February, 2018 ............................................................................. 74
Figure 5.15 Windrose on 17 February ........................................................................................ 75
Figure 5.16 Soil water isotopic composition of Deuterium on 17 February ............................... 75
Figure 5.17 Soil water isotopic composition on 𝑂18 on 17 February ....................................... 75
Figure 5.18 Variation of air temperature with height.................................................................. 76
Figure 5.19 Variation of relative humidity with height .............................................................. 76
Figure 5.20 Variation of the isotopic composition of water vapour with height ........................ 76
Figure 5.22 Keeling plot on 17 February, 2018 ......................................................................... 77
Figure 5.23 Keeling plot based on oxygen 17 February, 2018 between 13:00- 14:00 ............... 78
Figure 5.24 Variation of stem water on 28 February, 2018 ........................................................ 79
Figure 5.25 Keeling plot for 28 February, 2018 for 11:00-12:00 & 13:00- 14:00 ...................... 80
Figure 5.26 Keeling plot for 13 March, 2018 ............................................................................. 81
Figure 5.27 Keeling plot for 13 March, 2018 11:00-12:00 & 13:00- 14:00 ............................... 82
Figure 5.28 Keeling plot for 27 March, 11:00-12:00 & 13:00- 14:00 ........................................ 83
Figure 5.29 Keeling plot for 31 March, 2018 ............................................................................. 84
Figure 5.30 Keeling plot for 31 March, 2018 11:00-12:00 & 13:00- 14:00 ............................... 85
Figure 5.31 Keeling plot for 8 April, 2018 ................................................................................. 85
Figure 5.32 Variation on the isotopic composition of water vapour on 11 April, 2018 ............. 86
Figure 5.33 Keeling plot for 13 April, 2018 ............................................................................... 87
Figure 5.34 Comparison of transpiration factor obtained by the hydrometric method and stable
isotope fractionation method for wheat....................................................................................... 92
Figure 5.35 Experimental plot on May 2, 2018 ( AIS represents air intake structure) ............... 92
Figure 5.36 AWS data on 2 May, 2018 ...................................................................................... 93
Figure 5.37 Windrose on 2 May ................................................................................................. 94
Figure 5.38 Soil moisture, electrical conductivity and temperature variation with depth .......... 95
Figure 5.39 Soil isotopic composition variation with depth (Hydrogen) .................................... 95
xii
Figure 5.40 Soil isotopic composition variation with depth (Oxygen) ....................................... 95
Figure 5.41 Variation of air temperature with height.................................................................. 96
Figure 5.42 Variation of relative humidity with height .............................................................. 96
Figure 5.45 Keeling plot for 2 May, 2018 .................................................................................. 97
Figure 5.46 Keeling plot for 2 May, 2018 .................................................................................. 98
Figure 5.47 Isotopic composition of oxygen isotope different fluxes and samples measured (or
calculated) during the wheat season ............................................................................................ 99
Figure 5.48 Isotopic composition of hydrogen isotope different fluxes and samples measured (or
calculated) during the wheat season .......................................................................................... 100
Figure A.1 Performance of cryogenic vacuum distillation apparatus ....................................... 105
Figure A.2 Comparison of performance of displacement fluid centrifugation and cryogenic
vacuum distillation .................................................................................................................... 106
Figure A.3 Graph showing relationship correlation of T1aws with all the temperature ........... 108
Figure A.4 Scatter plot between T1aws and T1ais.................................................................... 109
Figure A.8 Scatter plot between T1aws, T1ais and SHF .......................................................... 111
Figure A.9 Graph showing relationship correlations of RH1aws with all the RH .................... 113
Figure A.10 Scatter plot between RH1aws and RH1 ................................................................ 114
Figure A.11 Scatter plot between RH1aws and RH2ais ........................................................... 114
Figure A.14 Testing of different models for predicting temperature ........................................ 116
Figure A.15 Testing of different models for predicting relative humidity ................................ 116
Figure A.16 AWS data on 28 February .................................................................................... 117
xiii
Figure A.17 Windrose on 28 February ..................................................................................... 117
Figure A.18 Soil isotopic composition on 28 February ............................................................ 118
Figure A.20 Variation of air temperature with height............................................................... 119
Figure A.21 Variation of air relative humidity with height ...................................................... 119
Figure A.22 Variation of the isotopic composition of water vapour with height ..................... 119
Figure A.24 AWS data on 13 March ........................................................................................ 120
Figure A.25 Windrose on 13 March ......................................................................................... 120
Figure A.26 Soil isotopic composition on 13 March ................................................................ 121
Figure A.28 Variation of air temperature with height ............................................................... 122
xiv
Figure A.48 AWS data on 8 April ............................................................................................ 128
Figure A.49 Windrose on 8 April ............................................................................................. 128
Figure A.50 Soil isotopic composition on 8 April .................................................................... 129
Figure A.51 Soil isotopic composition on 8 April .................................................................... 129
Figure A.56 AWS data on 11 April .......................................................................................... 131
Figure A.57 Windrose on 11 April ........................................................................................... 131
Figure A.58 AWS data on 13 April .......................................................................................... 132
Figure A.59 Windrose on 13 April ........................................................................................... 132
Figure A.60 Soil isotopic composition on 13 April .................................................................. 133
Figure A.61 Soil isotopic composition on 13 April .................................................................. 133
Figure A.66 Processed vs true isotopic composition of standard samples for oxygen isotope . 135
Figure A.67 Processed vs true isotopic composition of standard samples for hydrogen isotope
................................................................................................................................................... 135
xv
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Difference between hydrometric and SIF based methods of ET partitioning. .............. 5
Table 1.2 Abundance of different stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen ................................. 6
Table 1.3 Properties of Different Isotopologues of Water ............................................................ 7
Table 1.4 Difference between equilibrium fractionation and kinetic fractionation factor ............ 8
Table 2.1 Comparison of different ET partitioning studies done using stable isotope
fractionation method. .................................................................................................................. 12
Table 2.2 Molecular diffusivity ratio as reported by different studies ........................................ 15
Table 2.3 Comparison of different displacement liquid .............................................................. 24
Table 2.4 Comparisons of different methods of soil water extraction ........................................ 28
Table 3.1 Properties of rice variety used in the study ................................................................. 34
Table 3.2 Properties of wheat variety used in the study.............................................................. 35
Table 3.3 Variation of plant height and leaf area index of wheat plant ...................................... 37
Table 3.4 Different components of automatic weather station and their accuracy ..................... 38
Table 3.5 Different components of air intake structure and their accuracy ................................ 38
Table 4.1 Materials and their specifications used in construction of Peltier element cold trap .. 41
Table 4.2 Property of tetrachloroethylene ................................................................................... 47
Table 4.3 Experimental procedure days and schedules for different activities ........................... 49
Table 4.4 Isotopic composition of standard samples used in LGR's LWIA ............................... 51
Table 5.1 Parameters of the CG model applied to estimate 𝜕𝐸 for 26th October, 2017............ 65
Table 5.2 Transpiration fractions on 26 October ........................................................................ 66
Table 5.3 Parameters of CG model applied to estimate ∂E during wheat season ........................ 88
Table 5.4 Transpiration fraction during wheat season (average) ................................................ 90
Table 5.5 Transpiration fraction during wheat season ................................................................ 90
Table 5.6 Parameters of CG model applied to estimate 𝜕𝐸 for 2 May, 2018 ............................ 97
Table A.1 Correlation of different automatic weather station variables with temperature ....... 107
Table A.2 Different models for predicting T1ais ...................................................................... 108
xvi
Table A.3 Models predicting T2ais, T3ais, and T4ais .............................................................. 109
Table A.4 Correlations of different automatic weather station variables with relative humidity
................................................................................................................................................... 112
Table A.5 Different models for predicting RH1ais ................................................................... 113
Table A.6 Models predicting RH2ais, RH3ais, and RH4ais ..................................................... 114
xvii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIS: Air intake structure
AWS: Automatic Weather Station
BP: Barometric Pressure (mbar)
CG: Craig Gordon
CVD: Cryogenic vacuum distillation
DOY: Day of year
EC: Electrical Conductivity (mS\m)
E: Evaporation (mm\day)
ET: Evapotranspiration (mm\day)
GSR: Global Solar Radiation (watt\m2)
GISP: Greenland Ice Sheet Precipitation
HFE: Hydrofluroether
LN2: Liquid nitrogen
I: Infiltration (mm\day)
In: Interception (mm\day)
IC: Isotopic composition(‰)
LAI: Leaf area index (m2\m2)
LWIA: Liquid water isotope analyser
LGR: Los Gatos research
L: Lysimetric
MSL: Means sea level
ML: Microlysimeter
OA- ICOS: Off-axis integrated cavity output spectroscopy
xviii
Pr: Percolation (mm\day)
PHB: Pioneer hybrid rice
PH: Plant height (cm)
PP: Polypropylene
P: Precipitation (mm)
RCF: Relative centrifugal force (g)
RH: Relative humidity (%)
RPM: Rotation per minute (min-1)
R: Runoff (m3/s)
SIF: Stable isotope fractionation
SLAP: Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation
S: Storage
T: Temperature (°C)
T: Transpiration (mm/day)
TCE: Tetrachloroethylene
VSMOW: Vienna Standard Mean Oceanic Water
WD: Wind Direction (°)
WS: Wind Speed (m/sec)
xix
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rice and Wheat
1.1.1 Rice (Oryza Sativa)
Rice (Oryza Sativa) is one of the oldest crops (8,500-11,500 BC) which are cultivated by
humans, has now become the life and livelihood of more than 50% of the world’s population.
Rice is the third most cultivated crop in the world after maize and wheat.Rice provides 20% of
the world’s dietary energy supply(Sivanagaraju, 2006).Asiaalone produces about 90% of the
world’s rice production. In Asia, India has the largest area under rice (41.66 million ha)
accounting for 29.4 per cent of the global rice area (Sivanagaraju, 2006). FromFigure 1.1, it is
clear that China and India together contribute about 50 percent of the world’s rice production.
An average yield of rice in the world is about 4,328.7 Kg/ Hect. Most of the Asian countries
including India have yield below the world average.
Figure 1.1 Paddy yield in major Asian countries with their percentage contribution to world's productivity
Rice production in Asia and Africa are small-scale (average plot size in these areas are very
less) as compared to Latin American countries which is one of the limiting force for reduced
yield in these areas. In different regions depending on climate, water availability and
1
topography rice cultivation strategiesare different. In areas near to low lying river basins, flat
areas or near deltas flooded condition for rice cultivation is used.
1.1.2 Wheat (Triticum Aestivum)
Wheat (Triticum Aestivum) is also one of the oldest (5,000 BC) cereal crop cultivated by
humans. It is used as food for more than two billion people. Worldwide, wheat provides nearly
55% of the carbohydrates and 20% of the food calories consumed globally (Breiman and Graur,
1995).India is the fourth largest producer of wheat in the world after Russia, the USA and
China, and accounts forroughly 10% of the world’s total production of wheat.FromFigure 1.2, it
is clear that the average yield of wheat in the world is about 3,038.7 Kg/ Hect, and India is
below the world’s average world average. But for wheat,the gap is less as compared to gap in
Rice.
Figure 1.2 Wheat yield in major Asian countries with their percentage contribution to world's productivity
1.2 Future challenge in crop production
The rapid increase in population, climate change and depletion in natural resources will severely
affect the food security of the world population (Yadav et al., 2010). No doubt there is
remarkable growth in food production in the lastthree decades but still, to overcome the above-
mentionedproblems, this increase is not sufficient. Despite impressive growth in food
2
production, the risks were exposed by the food crisis in recent years. In recent times, many
researchers have found that there has been a change in precipitation patterns (intensity has been
increased and heavier episodic rainfall with longer dry periods (Meehl et al, 2007))
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] projected that the atmospheric CO2
concentration might increase up to 730 – 1020 ppm by 2100 and the global average temperature
may rise roughly up to 0.2 C per decade (Meehl et al, 2007). These predicted climatic changes
will have severe impacts on crop yield as these changes affect crop evapotranspiration, crop
growth and development (Lobell et al., 2011; Long et al., 2006; Ray et al., 2015).
1.3 Need for the ecohydrological approach
One of the major ecohydrological challenges is evapotranspiration partitioning, which limits our
understanding for soil-plant- atmospheric continuum as well as feedback between vegetation
and available water (Newman et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2007).Available water is mostly affected
by the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation and how different components of the
water cycle redistribute this precipitated water (Newman et al., 2006). Differentcomponent of
water cycle includes runoff (R), infiltration (I), evapotranspiration (ET), precipitation (P),
interception (In), storage (S) and percolation (Pr). Depending on location and time,contribution
of these components varies for region to region and time to time. In most of the cases, ET
contributes maximum,and it may reach up to 95 percent in water limited areas (Sutanto et al.,
2014).
Water-limited areas are those areas in which the ratio of annual precipitation and annual
potential evapotranspiration varies from 0.03 to 0.75 (Newman et al., 2006). These areas
include arid, semiarid, and sub-humid regions which account more than 50 percent of world
land area. Due to recent changes in climatewater-limited areas are increasing at avery rapid
rate(Newman et al., 2006). The rapid growth of population has put excessive stress on nature
and natural ecosystems. To meet over going demands, there is a needforproper understanding of
different components of the water cycle.
3
Due to difficulty in measuring canopy evaporation (Interception), evaporation and transpiration
separately, generally these terms are lumped togetherin most of the models. These components
when lumped together may induce errors in simulations as these have different physical
characteristics and timescale. For example, evaporation is the fast process as (it is related to the
surface or shallow subsurface) compared to transpiration (deeper depth of soil).
1.4 Methods to partition ET
Traditionally the number of methods is used to partition evapotranspiration which may be
grouped mainly in two parts.
1) Hydrometric methods: In this method, different components of the water cycle are
measured directly in the field. The criticalcomponents that are typically measured in this
method include – precipitation, irrigation, evaporation, transpiration, interception, soil
moisture and percolation.
2) Stable isotope fractionation (SIF) method: Use of naturally occurring stable isotope of
water has given a new and very powerful tool to hydrologist to understand soil- plant-
atmospheric continuum(Sutanto et al., 2014). In this method, generally H2 O18 and
HDO16 isotopologuesare used as tracers.The difference in mass, bond dissociation energy
and vapour pressure results in the fractionation of isotopologues. When evaporation starts
lighter isotopologues requirea lesser amount of energy due to which residual water contains
a higher fraction of heavier isotopes. During transpiration,no fractionation occurs from
source water to stem water which results in a significant difference in isotopic signatures of
evaporation and transpiration water. This distinct difference in isotopic signature makes
stable isotope fractionation method an interesting method to partition ET (Sutanto et
al.,2014, Zhang et al., 2011).Table 1.1compares the hydrometric methods and SIF method
of ET partitioning.
4
Table 1.1 Difference between hydrometric and SIF based methods of ET partitioning.
Properties Hydrometric methods SIF method
Techniques Direct measurement Measurement using the isotopic signature of
different processes
Scale Point scale Plot-scale
Advantage More reliable Partitioning at watershed level can be done.
Less cost
Relatively easier
Disadvantage Spatial density is limited Accuracy is highly sensitive to specific quantities
by measuring device which may result in higher uncertainty if not
correctly measured.
Some assumptions may be hard to be met.
1.4.1 Stable Isotope Fractionation Method

1.4.1.1 The stable isotope of water
Isotopes are the elements having the same number of the proton but the different number of the
neutron. Isotopes are generally of two types.
a) Stable Isotopes: These are isotopes in which combination of neutron and proton is such
that their nuclei do not undergo any decay e.g. H, D, T, O16 and O18 etc.
b) Radioactive Isotopes:These are isotopes in which combination of neutron and proton is
such that their nuclei are not stable. They continuously emit alpha, beta and gamma rays
to become stable. C14, U238, O19 to O26 etc.
5
Figure 1.3 Isotopes of hydrogen
Hydrogen has 7 (H, D, T, H4, H5, H6 and H7)and oxygen has15 (O12 to O26) possible
isotopes.Out of these isotopes,hydrogen has two stable isotopes (H and D),and oxygen has only
three stables Isotopes (O16, O17 and O18).
Most commonly available isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen are following-
Table 1.2 Abundance of different stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen

Element Isotope Abundance Ratio Nature
Hydrogen D 0.02 Stable

𝑫
𝑯
= 0.0002
H 99.98 Stable
T very less Radioactive
Oxygen 𝑂18 0.2 Stable

𝑶𝟏𝟖
𝑶𝟏𝟔
= 0.002
𝑂16 99.76 Stable
𝑂17 0.04 Stable
Isotopologues are molecules which differ in their isotopic composition. Above isotopes when
combined can make six isotopologues of water as H2 O16,H2 O17, H2 O18, HDO16 , D2 O16and
T2 O16.Table 1.3contains the most commonly available isotopologues of water.
6
Table 1.3 Properties of Different Isotopologues of Water
Properties 𝐇𝟐 𝐎𝟏𝟔 𝐇𝟐 𝐎𝟏𝟖 𝐇𝐃𝐎𝟏𝟔
Natural Abundance 99730 1.999 × 10−3 3.106 × 10−4
Molecular weight (g/mole) 18.011 20.015 19.017
Density (g/cc) (20 °C, 1 atm) 0.99821 1.11064
Max Density at (°C) 3.98 4.3
Triple point (°C) 0.01 0.38 ± 0.05 2.04 ± 0.05
Critical T (°C) 373.946
Critical P (°C) 22.064
Viscosity at 20 °C 1.0016 1.0564 1.1248
(𝐏𝐚. 𝐬 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟑 )
Diffusion coefficient at 25°C 2.30 2.66 2.34
(𝐜𝐦𝟐 /𝐬 × 𝟏𝟎𝟓 )
Measuring absolute ratio requires sophisticated instrumentsthat are very. Therefore,instead of
absolute, relative change in ratio is generally measured. In order to minimise instrumental error
or to avoid inter laboratory variations values are measure with respect to the known reference.
Thisreference is Vienna Standard Mean Oceanic Water (VSMOW). Therefore isotopic
concentration is expressed as
𝑂 18 𝑂 18
(𝑂16 ) − (𝑂16 )
𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝜕18 𝑂𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 =( 𝑂 18
) × 1000 ‰
( 16 ) Eq. (1.1)
𝑂 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
The value of the isotopic composition is reported in delta (𝜕) of VSMOW.
7
1.4.1.2 Fractionation of water molecule
Changes in the isotopic ratio of heavy to lighter isotopes are known as fractionation (Clark and
Fritz, 1997). Fractionation occurs when changes in phase occurs due to bond breaking,and bond
formation. From the Figure 1.4it is clear that bond dissociation energy of different
isotopologues are different due to which for a particular temperature lighter isotope will
dissociate first leading to a higher concentration in a loosely held phase (water vapour) and
depletion in residual phase (residual water).
Figure 1.4 For isotopes bond dissociation energies are different for different molecules
(Clark and Fritz, 1997)
Two primary types of fractionation considered in our study are compared inTable 1.4.
Table 1.4 Difference between equilibrium fractionation and kinetic fractionation factor
S.N. Equilibrium fractionation Kinetic fractionation
Nature Occurs when chemical equilibrium Unidirectional
Effect of T Highest at low temperature
Governing factor Related to bond stability Related to the speed of
isotope
Example H216O(l) + H218O(g) ↔ H218O(l) + H216O(l) -> H216O(g)faster
H216O(g) H218O(l) -> H218O(g)slower
8
1.5 Motivation and objectives of the thesis
The euphoria generated by the first green revolution in India is very quickly subsiding as
problems like overpopulation,and climate change are becoming more intense with each passing
year. Undoubtedly, green revolution has saved millions of lives by making nation self-sufficient
in wheat and rice crops but due to improper management of irrigation water has also created
significant problems like waterlogging and increases in soil salinity. Before the green revolution
in India riceyield was more as compared to wheat yield, but after 1967 increase in wheat
production has been very rapid.In India,the rise in food productivity is about 500% in the last 40
years has taken in the cost of depletion of 172%, 133% and 74% reduction of groundwater in
Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh respectively (Sivanagaraju (2006), Yadav et al.(2010)).
These problems have threatened the future food security of India as well as the world as India’s
contribution to the world food industry is significant.
Figure 1.5 Variation of Rice and Wheat Yield in India
Figure 1.6shows that the percentage of water used by different sectors in India for the years
2025 and 2025.As anticipated by standing sub-committee report of MoWR that consumption of
water by the energysector will increase rapidly in upcoming years and there will be a reduction
in water consumption by agriculture sector from 85% to 81%. Agriculture sector will continue
to the primary user of water in upcoming years. By mid of this century, India will share more
9
than 17 % of the world’s population and only 4 % of water resources due to which areas under
water stress will increase significantly. To meet upcoming demand, there is a need for some
basic infrastructural changes which includes increasing irrigation efficiency and efficient
farming.
Figure 1.6 Future projection of percentage wise contribution of different sectors (Data were taken from standing sub-
committee report of MoWR)
Irrigation efficiency can be increased in multiple ways that includesaving water loss due to soil
evaporation. Quantification of soil evaporation and useful water for the plant (also known as
transpiration) is difficult as generally these terms are lumped insingle term evapotranspiration.
Globally numbers of studies have been done using multiple methods to partition ET at plot level
to watershed level,but we were unable to find any study from India. Some authors have tried to
partition ET using the hydrometric method,but there was not any study using SIF
method.Therefore our objectives of this thesis work are-
1. To design an experimental set-up for applying stable isotope method for partitioning ET
in a rice-wheat field in the Ganga basin.
2. Partition ET using stable isotope fractionation method and compare the results with the
hydrometric method.
10
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Evapotranspiration is a hydrological term which is made by combining evaporation and
transpiration. Generally, for agriculture, transpiration is a desired component of ET and
evaporationis considered as a loss. To meet future water demand and to overcome increasing
water scarcity, it is necessary to find the individual contributions of T and E in ET.Earliest
partitioning was done by Harrold et al., (1959) who tried to stop evaporation by just covering
the soil. The invention of methods such as micro-lysimeters to measure under-canopy E (Boast
and Robertson, 1982; Walker, 1984), Sap flow measurements based partitioning (Sakuratani,
1981) and the stable water isotope based partitioning method (Wang and Yakir, 2000; Yakir and
Sternberg, 2000; Williams et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2011) are popular and advanced
partitioning approaches.A significant limitation of studies is that point based partitioning was
done. Inthe beginning of 21stcentury, a new approach to partition evapotranspiration was
proposed by Wang and Yakir (2000) that usesthe isotope method to partition evapotranspiration.
They used the Keeling plot to find the isotopic composition of ET and Craig Gordon (1965)
model to find the isotopic composition of E and T. At that time there were two main limitations
of isotope method to partition ET (i) cost of analysis of isotope sample (ii) sample collection
itself was very tedious and challenging. With the development of field-basedinstruments
problems have been addressed to some extent. Some of the studies that have used isotope
method of ET partitioning and their main findings are listed inTable 2.1.
Zhang et al. (2011) performed these experiments in China to partition ET for winter wheat and
to find out the depth which contributesthe maximum to root water uptake. They found that
effective depth of root water uptake was 40 cm even when irrigation was applied to 100 cm
depth. Studies done by Wu et al. (2011) and Wei etal. (2015) found that the ratio of
transpiration and evapotranspiration are 0.78 and 0.8 for rice and maize, respectively. Aouade
etal. (2016) studied winter wheat and found that keeling plot method worked well for oxygen
but not for hydrogen isotopes.
11
Table 2.1 Comparison of different ET partitioning studies done using stable isotope fractionation method.
Research Crop Site Method Major Finding
group
Wang and Wheat Israel SIF Combined concentration and

Yakir, (2000) isotopic gradient analysis
Zhang et al., Wheat China SIF Root water uptake occurs mainly
(2011) ML between 0 - 40 cm depth. Depth of
water supplied is 100 cm
Maximum evaporative losses
reachesup-to 30 %
Wu et al. Maize China EC
(2013) SIF 𝐹𝑇 = 0.71𝐿𝐴𝐼 0.14 , 𝑅 2 = 0.87
L 𝑇
= 0.78
𝐸𝑇
They showed that CG method and
chamber based methods are robust.
Wei et al Rice Tsukuba(Japan) SIF 𝐹𝑇 = 0.67𝐿𝐴𝐼 0.25 𝑅2 = 0.80

(2015) with Uncertainty of FT estimation was
flooded 𝑇
14.6 ±10, 𝐸𝑇
= 0.80
irrigation
Bhone Rain S. Korea PM 56 Rain fed rice had higher agronomic
Nay-Htoon fed& SIF and ecosystem water use efficiency
(2016) flooded Transpiration fraction was found
rice 0.65 and 0.4 for rain fed and flooded
Aouade et Winter Morocco EC after and before irrigation
al.(2016) wheat SIF respectively using SIF
ML E = 1.76 and 1.34 mm/day & T =
3.85 and 5.45 mm/day in 2011-12
& 2012-13 respectively
Keeling plot method worked well
for D but not for 𝑂18
(SIF- Stable isotope fractionation, ML- Microlysimeter, L- Lysimeter, EC- Eddy covariance, PM- Penman-Monteith)
12
2.1 Craig-Gordon (CG) Model
CG model is based on Langmuir linear resistance model for evaporation. Assumptions involved
in the CG model are-
1. At Interface of liquid and water relative humidity is equal to 1.
2. There is no divergence or convergence of air in the vertical air column.
3. Fractionation does not occur during turbulent transport.
Figure 2.1 Craig- Gordon model
According to the CG model isotopic composition of soil evaporation is given by

1
δ s (α ) − hδ v − εeq − (1 − h)εk
eq
δE =
(1 − h) + 10−3 (1 − h)εk Eq. (2.1)
where δ E = Isotopic composition of soil evaporation
δ s = Isotopic composition of soil water at water evaporation front
13
δ v = Isotopic composition of near groundwater vapour
h = Relative humidity of air normalised by saturation vapour pressure at the soil surface
2.1.1 Kinetic fractionation factor (𝛆𝐤 )
Kinetic fractionation factor is given by
𝐷 𝑛
(1 − ℎ)θ (( ) − 1)
𝐷𝑖
𝜌𝑚
θ = 𝜌𝑚 +𝜌𝑇
can be assumed to be 1 for a small water body whose evaporation flux does not
perturb the ambient moisture significantly and 𝜌𝑚 &𝜌𝑇 are molecular and turbulent resistances
n = 0.5 for highly turbulent condition, n = 2/3 for a laminar flow, n = 1 for static condition
(only diffusion)
𝐷𝑖
= Ratio of molecular diffusion coefficients of heavier to lighter isotopologues
𝐷
𝐷𝑖 𝑚 𝑚𝑖 +𝑚𝑔
𝐷
= (
𝑚𝑖 𝑚+ 𝑚𝑔
) where 𝑚 &𝑚𝑖 are molecular masses of heavier to lighter isotopologues and 𝑚𝑔
is molecular mass of gas in which water diffuses.
𝐷 𝐷 16 𝐷𝐻 𝑂18
Craig et al. (1965) calculated 𝐷𝑖to be 𝐷𝐻𝐷𝑂 = 0.983 and𝐷2
= 0.969 using kinetic theory of
𝐻2 𝑂16 𝐻2 𝑂16
𝐷𝑖
gases. VonEhhalt and Knott (1965) using experiments found 𝐷
to be 0.985± 0.003 and 0.971 ±
0.001 for hydrogen and oxygen isotopologues. Merlivat (1977) showed by performing different
types of experiments (controlled laminar flow experiment and transporting vapours of water
𝐷𝐻𝐷𝑂16
through diffusion tube) that coefficients of diffusion of the isotopic molecules in the air =
𝐷𝐻 𝑂16
2
𝐷𝐻 𝑂18
2
0.9755 ± 0.0009 and 𝐷 = 0.9723±0.0007.Cappa et al. (2003) did diffusion-controlled
𝐻2 𝑂16
fractionation during evaporation under non equilibrium conditions. They did their experiments
considering the surface cooling of liquid as a crucial factor while considering the fractionation.
14
𝐷𝐻 𝑂18 𝐷𝐻𝐷𝑂16
2
They reported values of isotopic molecular diffusivity ratios are, = 0.9691 and =
𝐷𝐻 𝑂16 𝐷𝐻 𝑂16
2 2
𝐷𝑖
0.9839.Table 2.2summarises the values of reported in different literatures. In this study we
𝐷
have used values reported by Cappa et al. (2003).
Mathieu and Baric (1996), Soderberg et al. (2012)in the new formulation that requires relatively
less observation,modified exponent(n)for condition having negligibleturbulence
𝐷 𝑛′
εk = Kinetic fractionation factor = ((𝐷 ) − 1)
𝑖
1 𝜃 − 𝜃𝑟𝑒𝑠
𝑛′ = 1 − ( )
2 𝜃𝑠𝑎𝑡 − 𝜃𝑟𝑒𝑠
Table 2.2 Molecular diffusivity ratio as reported by different studies

Literature 𝑫𝑯𝑫𝑶𝟏𝟔 𝑫𝑯𝟐𝑶𝟏𝟖 Method of finding
𝑫𝑯𝟐𝑶𝟏𝟔 𝑫𝑯𝟐𝑶𝟏𝟔
Craig et al. (1965) 0.983 0.969 Kinetic theory of gases
(theoretical)
Ehhalt and Knott 0.985± 0.003 0.971 ± 0.001 Experimental
(1965)
Merlivat (1977) 0.9755 ± 0.0009 0.9723±0.0007 Controlled laminar flow
experiments
Cappa et al. 0.9839 0.9691 Diffusion-controlled
(2003) fractionation during
evaporation under non
equilibrium conditions
experiments
αeq = Equilibrium fractionation factor = F (T)
1
εeq= (1 − α ) × 100
eq
15
2.1.2 Equilibrium fractionation factor (𝛂𝐞𝐪 )
Majoube (1971) did a number of extensive experiments for low temperatures (0°C –100°C).The
αeq derived from those experiments is given by
𝐷 103 106
103 lnαeq ( ) = 52.612 − 76.248 ( ) + 24.844 ( 2 ) Eq. (2.2)
𝐻 𝑇 𝑇
3
𝑂18 103 106
10 lnαeq ( 16 ) = −2.0667 − 0.4156 ( ) + 1.137 ( 2 ) Eq. (2.3)
𝑂 𝑇 𝑇
Horita and Wesolowski (1995) did experiments for 0°C -340°C and reported following Eq.
𝐷 𝑂 18
(2.4)&Eq. (2.5) for and , respectively.
𝐻 𝑂 16
3
𝐷 𝑇 𝑇 2
10 lnαeq ( ) = −161.04 + 794.84 ( 3 ) − 1620.1 ( 6 )
𝐻 10 10
Eq. (2.4)
𝑇3 109
+ 1158.8 ( 9 ) + 2.9992 ( 3 )
10 𝑇
𝑂18 103 106

103 lnαeq ( ) = −7.685 + 6.7123 ( ) − 1.6664 ( )
𝑂16 𝑇 𝑇2
109 Eq. (2.5)

+0.35041 ( 3 )
𝑇
16
2.2 Keeling Plot
Keeling plots are plots on which x-axis contains inverse of absolute water concentration and y-
axis contains the isotopic composition of water vapour. The intercept of best fitted line
represents isotopic composition of ET. This was first used by Keeling during 1958 to find and
interpret fluctuations in 𝜕13 C values of ambient CO2 and to identify the contributing sources
(Pataki et al. 2001).
Assumptions involved Keeling plots are
1) The Keeling plot approach is based on mass conservation considerations during the
exchange of gases (Kohler et al. 2006).
2) The concentration of flux in canopy reflects the background atmospheric concentration
and the concentration of other gases added by the ecosystem.
The concentration of evapotranspiration can be represented as
𝐶𝐸𝑇 = 𝐶𝑎 + 𝐶𝑣 Eq. (2.6)
where,𝐶𝑎 and𝐶𝑣 are the concentrations of ambient air and water vapour in air, respectively.
𝜕𝐸𝑇 𝐶𝐸𝑇 = 𝜕𝐴 𝐶𝐴 + 𝜕𝑣 𝐶𝑣 Eq. (2.7)
where 𝜕𝐸𝑇 , 𝜕𝑎 and 𝜕𝑣 are isotopic composition of ET, ambient air and water vapour,
respectively.
Using aboveEq. (2.6)&Eq. (2.7) we can get
𝐶𝐴 (𝜕𝐴 − 𝜕𝑣 )
𝜕𝐸𝑇 = + 𝜕𝑣 Eq. (2.8)
𝐶𝑣
Eq. (2.8)can be arranged as
1
𝜕𝑣 = 𝜕𝐸𝑇 + (𝐶𝐴 (𝜕𝑣 − 𝜕𝐴 )) Eq. (2.9)
𝐶𝑣
17
By comparing Eq. (2.9)with standard form of equation of line (y = c + mx) we can get y = 𝜕𝑣 ,
1
intercept on y-axis = 𝜕𝐸𝑇 and m = (𝐶𝐴 (𝜕𝑣 − 𝜕𝐴 )) and x = 𝐶
𝑣
2.3 Review of Sample Collection Techniques
To use stable isotope fractionation method for evapotranspiration partition the most crucial part
is sample collection. Basically three types of samples are required.
1. Atmospheric water vapour at multiple heights
2. Soil water at different depths
3. Plant water
2.3.1 Atmospheric water vapour
Most commonly used method for water vapour collection is by using cryogenic traps which
uses air condensing mechanism to collect atmospheric water vapour. These vapour traps
generally use either Liquid Nitrogen (LN2),or dry ice (Helliker et al. (2002), Peters and Yakir,
2009) since both the liquids are at extremely low temperature. The temperature of LN2 and dry
ice are -191°C and -80 °C. Helliker et al. (2002) developed a rapid and precise method for
sampling and finding the isotopic composition of water vapour in the atmosphere. They used
dry air ethanol slush as coolant liquid for their setup. They concluded that their method of
sampling water vapour reduces the sampling period drastically. Peters and Yakir (2009 have
developed a rapid, reliable and portable system for water vapour collection using dry ice as
coolant liquid. They showed the ability of their system to have similar isotopic composition
when used with conventional traps. The flow rate used in their study was 450ml/min to ensure
that sufficient time is given to condense all vapour present in the air.
18
Figure 2.2 Experimental set up to collect atmospheric water vapour using liquid nitrogen cold trap (Peters and Yakir,
2009)
19
2.3.2 Soil Water
For extracting soil water, we first need to understand how water is stored in soil and its types.
Numbers of methods have been developed for extracting soil water butthe selection of a suitable
method is very important as not all methods are suitable for all application.
There are two types of methods to extract soil water for isotopic analysis
1. Field-based method
1.1 Soil suction lysimeter
2. Laboratory-based methods
2.1 Azeotropic distillation
2.2 Squeezing
2.3 Drainage centrifuge and centrifuge with displacement liquid
2.4 Cryogenic distillation
2.3.2.1 Soil suction lysimeter
Soil suction lysimeters are used for in-situ soil water extraction. It contains one pours ceramic
cup through which soil water enters in it. This method works only if capillary pressure inside
the cup is higher than the soil, therefore, extraction volume reduces drastically if capillary
pressure is below -70 kPa (Bonito et al., 2008)
2.3.2.2 Azeotropic Distillation
Azeotropes are the mixtures which havea boiling point different from these constituents.
Toluene and water form an azeotropic mixture which has a boiling point of 84.1°C which is
significantly different from the boiling point of water (100°C) and toluene (110°C) (Recesz and
Woods, 1990). At room temperature, toluene floats on water which is easily separable.
Kerosene also serves as azeotrope for water.To use this method, first,toluene and soil are mixed
such that water present in the soil makes azeotrope mixture with water. After that the mixture is
heated at 84.1°C.At this temperature,mixture evaporates which is then condensed in a
20
condensing setup. After condensation, toluene floats on top of water and water is taken for its
isotopic analysis.
Figure 2.3 Experimental set up for azeotropic distillation (Recesz and Woods, 1990)
Recesz and Woods (1990) observed that the method serves as a simple, inexpensive and fast
method for soil water extraction (20 min). The safety issue is the major concern in this method.
They reported the accuracy of 2‰and 0.2‰for oxygen and hydrogen isotopes, respectively.
Ingraham and Shadel (1992) compared this method with cryogenic vacuum distillation method
and found both the methods give fractionated sample,however, azeotropic method served well
as it has better temperature control. Leaney et al. (1993) found that fractionation can occur in
this method which may be up to 3‰for hydrogen isotope in case of clay soil.
2.3.2.3 Squeezing
This method works on the principle that soil and water are impressible therefore when very high
pressure is applied on them air present in soil is expelled,and escape of water from pores of soil
takes place (Bonito et al., 2005 ). Most of the water extraction using this method is during
primary consolidation only. Bonito et al. (2005) found that in the case of sandy loam soil,
extraction efficiency (percentage of soil water extracted to the amount of water present in the
21
soil sample) 27.4%. Entwisele and Reeder(1993) found that for moisture content less than 7 %
no water can be extracted.
Figure 2.4 Squeezer machine (Banito et al., 2005)
The soil sample from which water is to extract is placed inside a squeezing cell in which
pressure is applied by using ahydraulic pump. TheHydraulic pump is capable of increasing
pressure from 70 MPa to 160 MPa. There is a temperature controller which controls the
temperature of squeezing sample. Once pressure is applied due to primary consolidation, pore
water is squeezed out which is collected in syringe placed near the squeezing cell. Orlowaski et
al. (2016) used different methods for soil water extraction and they found that the squeezing
method performed well as compared to cryogenic vacuum distillation method.
2.3.2.4 Centrifuge
The Centrifugal method of soil water extraction works on the principle of drainage by
centrifugal force. This method can be classifiedinto two parts
a) Drainage Centrifuge
Reynolds (1984) used centrifuge tube (shown in Figure 2.5) at a speed of 10000 rpm for a
variable time. He found that certain weight of soil and rotational speed make optimum
combination otherwise centrifuge tube may get damaged. He reported that centrifuge time less
than one hour give low yield of soil water. He also warned that complete removal of water is not
22
possible in this method so care should be taken for representative sample collection. At
highestspeed, pressure applied can reach up to 1500 kPa (Bonito etal. 2005)
Figure 2.5 Centrifuge tube with inbuilt water collection set up (Reynolds (1984))
Bonito etal.(2005)reported that complete removal of pore water is not possible using this
method. Theyreported that even at 14,500 rpm 5-15% pore water might remain in the soil. They
concluded that if appropriately done the extraction efficiency can be upto 90%.
Fraters et al. (2017) tried to find out the effect of centrifuge time and rotational speed on water
extraction. They used centrifugation at two relative centrifugal forces (RCF) (733 and 6597g)
and five centrifuge times (20, 35, 60, 120 and 240 min). They found that RCF is a more
important factor than centrifuge time.
Orlowski et al. (2016) tried five different methods to extract soil water for isotope analysis.
They reported centrifugation method performed relatively well as compared to other techniques
like cryogenic distillation and microwave. They reported that since there is no phase change of
water in this method, therefore, it performs well. They also reported that soil type hasa major
effect on the efficiency of the soil water extraction method used.
23
b) Centrifuge with a displacement liquid
To overcome the capillary potential of water in the soil, if a displacement liquid is used, it can
drastically increase the yield. In this process, a displacement liquid is selected whose density is
higher than water which forces water to come out of pores.
Kinniburgh and Miles (1983) said that mechanics involved in displacement method of soil water
extraction is quite tedious and not clearly understood, particularly with regards to trapped air.
They formulated a simple model which assumes that at equilibrium driving pressure is in
equilibrium with capillary pressure.Many researchers have tried different types of displacement
liquid to extract soil water some of them are listed in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Comparison of different displacement liquid

S.N. Literature Displacement Density Limitation
Liquid (g/cc)
1. Mubarak and Olsen (1976) Carbon Tetrachloride 1.59 Highly toxic, special
centrifuge bottles are
needed.
2. Batley and Gills(1979) Fluorocarbon Ozone layer
(FC78: 3M) depleting substance.
Banned in Montreal
protocol (1987)
3. Whealen and Carbon Tetrachloride 1.59
Barrow(1980) 1.1.1-trichloroethane 1.32 Carcinogen
Tetrachloroethylene 1.62
4. Kinniburgh and Trifluoroethane (F113) 1.57 Low boiling point
Miles(1983)
5. Jin and Edmunds(2010) HFE 7100 1.5 Expensive
24
In isotope hydrology, following are the main considerations in the selection of a displacement
liquid
1. Effect on isotopic composition: Displacement liquid used as soil water extraction
should not change the isotopic composition of water present in the soil. Thisis generally
tested is displacement liquids containing hydrogen or oxygen atom.
2. Availability: Montreal protocol (1987) was the first worldwide agreement to protect the
environment by regulating the production, distribution and transportation of ozone-
depleting substances. Most of the displacement liquids used earlier in use are banned by
this protocol. Example includes Carbon tetrachloride and 1,1,1- trichloroethane.
Therefore the selection of displacement liquid requires a lot of research.
3. Cost: Cost is also a very important factor as these liquids are very costly.
2.3.3 Plant Water
Cryogenic vacuum distillation (CVD) is a simple, user-friendly and efficient method to extract
both soil and plant water (Dalton, 1988, Orlowaski et al., 2013). During waterextraction sample
is heated under a defined vacuum and when vapour evaporates it is condensed in a liquid
nitrogen trap. Various variations of CVD have been reported in the literature. Some important
variations of CVD are described below.
Dalton(1989): To study plant water uptake Dalton(1989) designed an experimental setup which
used water isotopes to verify physical processes related to plant water uptake directly. He
planted six tomato plants in a very fine sandy soil,andthe nutrient solution was applied. The
entire setup was covered to minimise soil evaporation. Each pot was weighted to find the weight
of transpired water. Soil samples were taken for extraction using vacuum distillation. Extraction
unit consisted of a safety trap, cold finger, ethanol (-64 °C) and a vacuum pump. Entire setup
runs for 12 hours for complete soil water extraction.
25
Figure 2.6 Soil water extraction setup (Dalton, 1989)
1) West et al. (2006): Objective of their study was to find out the minimum time required
to extract unfractionated soil, stem and leaf water. They did their analysis of different
types of soils (2), different types of the stems (3) and different kinds of the leaves (3).
Their experimental setup had a vacuum of 8 Pa.
Figure 2.7 Cryogenic vacuum distillation (West et al., 2006)
They concluded in the study that after a certain extraction time there is no change in the
value of isotopic composition obtained. They reported that extraction time required for
soil may range from 20 min to 40 min (20 min for sandy soil, 40 min for clay), for stem
it may range from 60 min to 75 min, and for leaf it may range from 20 min to 30 min.
26
2) Orlowski et al. (2013 and 2016): They designed a multi-port vacuum distillation
apparatus capable of extracting 18 samples at a time. They performed different
functionality test on their equipment and found itperformed well. They questioned the
applicability of the CVD method under fixed extraction time. They found that there is
the larger error in this method as compared to other methods like squeezing or
centrifugation.
Figure 2.8 Cryogenic vacuum distillation (Orlowski et al., 2013)
They reported that if the effect of time of extraction and the applied pressure is
excluded, then the temperature is the most important factor which affectsthe isotopic
composition.
27
Table 2.4 Comparisons of different methods of soil water extraction
Method Advantage Limitation
Soil suction lysimeter No phase change of water occurs The range of suction
Bonito et al.(2008) Portable pressure is limited Yield
Complete Recovery is not essential Low sampling rates at
capillary pressures below
– 70 kPa
sorption of solutes from
the pore water (Bonito et
al.,)
Centrifuge No phase change of water occurs Low yield for fine grade
Reynolds (1984) Quick and easy soils
Edmunds and Bath (1976) Centrifugation covers a wider range Low moisture content
Fraters et al. (2017) of pore sizes causes no/negligible yield
Orlowski et al. (2016) Complete Recovery is not essential
Centrifuge with No phase change of water occurs Most of the displacement

displacement liquid Higher yield liquids are ozone
Mubarak and Olsen (1976) Quick and easy degrading
Batley and Gills(1979) Centrifugation covers a wider range Toxic
Kinniburgh and Miles(1983) of pore sizes
Jin and Edmunds(2010) Complete Recovery is not essential
Cryogenic distillation Frequently used Complete Recovery is
Dalton (1988) Complete sample can be obtained essential
West et al.(2006) No toxic solvents are used
Orlowski et al.(2013)
Azeotropic distillation Well-developed method Toxic solvents are used
Recesz and Woods (1990) like (Phenol and
Ingraham and Shadel (1992) Kerosene ) for water
Leaney et al. (1993) Risk involved is high
Complete Recovery is
essential
Squeezing Very less contact with atmosphere Extraction time can be
Entwisele and Reeder (1993) Complete Recovery is not essential very high
Bonito et al.(2005) Low extraction efficiency
Orlowski et al. (2016)
28
3 STUDY AREA AND MATERIALS
3.1 Study Area
Experiments were conducted in an experimental rice-wheat field (Figure 3.1 ) located at Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur (26.5168N, 80.2314E; altitude 135.94 m from MSL) in Middle
Gangetic plains of Uttar Pradesh, India. Kanpur is a semi-arid region with average rainfall
between 820-940 mm and anaverage annual temperature of 25.83°C. The experimental plot was
divided into 21 subplots of size 4 m × 4 m (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1 Study area

3.2 Weather Condition
Monthly average metrological data collected at the site are plotted (Figure 3.2 to Figure 3.7)
below. From the graphs following conclusion can be drawn. It is seen that maximumand
minimum temperature at the study site occurs during May and January, respectively. The
reverse is with the case of relative humidity, which is maximum in January and minimum in
July.
29
Figure 3.2 Variation of average monthly temperature at study site
Figure 3.3 Variation of average monthly relative humidity at study site
It was noted that the maximum and minimum average wind speed (monthly average) occurs
during June and October, respectively. It was found that maximum and minimum Barometric
pressure was found during October and July, respectively. Maximum solar radiation was found
during June.
30
Figure 3.4 Variation of average monthly wind speed at study site
Figure 3.5 Variation of average net solar radiation and pressure at study site
S September O October N November D December
J January F February M March A April
M May J June J July
Windrose diagrams were drawn,and it was observed that most prevailing wind direction is SW
wind. It was observed that when the windrose (Figure 3.7) is drawn using maximum wind speed
then wind direction was more scattered between SW ascompared to wind rose (Figure 3.6)
drawn using average wind speed.
31
Figure 3.6 Windrose diagram with average wind speed Figure 3.7 Windrose diagram with maximum wind speed
3.3 Soil properties
Soil properties were found using different tests. Specific gravity was measured using
Pycnometer method(IS 2720-3-1). Dry density was measured using the core cutter method (IS
2720-29). For finding the soil texture sieve analysis was done. Soil water retention curve was
drawn using the filter paper method. The results obtained are shown in Figure 3.8 to Figure
3.10.
Figure 3.8 Average dry density at the study site
32
Figure 3.9 Soil water retention curve of soil at the study site (Brooks-Corey (BC) Model)
Figure 3.10 Particle size distribution curve for the soil at the study site
3.4 Crop Details
The rice and wheat crops used in the study are described below.
3.4.1 Rice
In India, wet cultivation of rice is more popular. Generally, paddy seeds are shown in a small
farm area then transplantation of rice plant is done in the flooded field. Continuous availability
of water during rice growth is required for optimum productivity. Depending on the suitability,
it was decided to use Pioneer Rice Hybrid 71 (PHB 71) rice variety which has the following
qualities.
33
Table 3.1 Properties of rice variety used in the study
S.N. Features Property
1 Name PHB 71
2 Owner Pioneer Hybrid India Seeds
3 Feature Drought/ Stress Tolerant/ Salinity Tolerant
4 Growth duration 130- 135 days
5 Plant height 110-130 cm
6 Yield potential 6500-7000 kg/hectare
7 Area Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh
The various steps required in rice cultivation are shown using picture in Figure 3.11
Figure 3.11 Rice cultivation procedure

a) Paddy plants, b) Transplanting rice plant, c) Pesticide control, d) Measuring LAI, e) Removing dried seeds,
and f) Rice seeds
34
3.4.2 Wheat
In India, mostly winter wheat is cultivated.The locallypopular variety of wheatK 7903
(HALNA) was used for our research purpose. The seed is developed by Chandrashekhar Azad
University of Agriculture and Technology (CSUAT), Kanpur.
Table 3.2 Properties of wheat variety used in the study

1 Developed by Chandrashekhar Azad University of Agriculture
and Technology (CSUAT), Kanpur
2 Name K 7903 (HALNA)
3 Feature Irrigated
4 Duration 126-134 days
5 Plant Height 70-80 cm
6 Yield Potential 4000-4500 kg/hectare
7 Area Uttar Pradesh
8 Plantation date 5 January
Figure 3.12 shows various steps involved in wheat cultivation procedure. Figure 3.13 shows
plant height and leaf area index (LAI) measured for the wheat crop. The corresponding values
are produced in Table 3.3.
35
Figure 3.12 Wheat cultivation procedure
a) Manual application of wheat seeds, b) Emergence of wheat plants, c) Tillering,d) Stem extension stage, e)
Headling stage started, f) Headling stage finished, g) Ripening stage began, and h) Harvesting of wheat
Figure 3.13 Variation of plant height and leaf area index of wheat plant
36
Table 3.3Variation of plant height and leaf area index of wheat plant
S.N. DOY Plant Height (mm) 𝒎𝟐
LAI (𝒎𝟐)
1 40 11.5±0.48 0.42 ±0.05
2 48 15.11 ±0.37 1.28 ±0.18
3 59 30.73 ±0.66 3.22 ±0.20
4 63 36.35 ±0.95 4.41 ±0.27
5 72 58.85 ±0.71 4.78 ±0.31
6 87 67.16 ±0.57 3.51 ±0.17
7 98 66.08 ±0.74 3.24 ±0.62
8 103 64.69 ±0.93 1.98 ±0.09
3.5 Data collection
3.5.1 Automatic Weather Station (AWS)
AnAWS at study site was installed before the actual start of experiments. Figure 3.14 shows
AWS installed at study site. Specifications of various components of AWS are listed in theTable
3.4.
37
Figure 3.14 Actual figure showing different components of automatic weather station at study site
Table 3.4 Different components of automatic weather station and their accuracy
S.N. Features Accuracy
1 Temperature (T) ± 0.2°C
2 Relative Humidity (RH) ± 3%
3 Precipitation (P) ±5%
4 Global Solar Radiation (GSR) ±5%
5 Wind Speed (WS) ± 0.5 m/s
6 Wind Direction (WD) ± 5°
7 Barometric Pressure (BP) ±0.2 hPa
8 Evaporation (E) ±1%
3.5.2 Air Intake structure (AIS)
In this study a structure was made which contains sensors listed inTable 3.5. AIS was
constructed in such a manner that its heights can be adjusted depending on plant height. It has
structure has four T & RH sensors were installed. Air was sucked from all the four heights using
pipes simultaneously. Figure 3.15 shows AIS installed at the study site.
Table 3.5 Different components of air intake structure and their accuracy
1 Temperature (T) ± 0.2° C
2 Relative Humidity (RH) ± 0.8 %
3 Soil Moisture (w) ±3%
4 Soil Temperature (ST) ± 0.8° C
5 Soil Electrical Conductivity (EC) ±2%
38
Figure 3.15 Actual figure showing air intake structure at study site
39
4 METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology used for
I. Collection of atmospheric, soil and plant water sample for isotopic analysis
II. Isotopic analysis of collected samples
III. Sensitivity analysis of partitioning methods
IV. Filling gaps in metrological observations
4.1 Atmospheric Water Vapour Sample collection
4.1.1 Peltier element trap
This trap works on the principle of thermoelectric cooling (based on the Peltier effect). When
two dissimilar materials are joined together at on junction and setup is attached to a DC
current then it brings heat from one side to the other. Therefore one side becomes cooler,and
one side becomes heated. The heated side is attached to a heat sink which brings the
temperature of the hotter junction to ambient and cooler side becomes more and cooler.Figure
4.1shows the working principle of Peltier module.
Figure 4.1 Working principle of Peltier element
Figure 4.2 shows different components of Peltier element trap developed in the studyand Table
4.1presents the specifications of the components used in Peltier trap. We tried to make a setup
using Peltier modules through which atmospheric water vapour can be collected. Things needed
for Peltier trap
40
Figure 4.2 Things needed to design and construct Peltier element based cold trap
a) Design of copper tube, b) On field application of Peltier element based cold trap, c) Nitrile insulator, d)
Peltier element, and e) fan with a heat sink
Table 4.1 Materials and their specifications used in construction of Peltier element cold trap
S.N. Material Property Values
1 Copper Thermal conductivity 385
(W/mK)
2 Nitrile Insulator Thermal conductivity 0.24
(W/mK)
3 Peltier Element Name TEC1-12715
Size (mm) 50 x 50 x 3.9
Imax (A) 15.6
∆Tmax (C) 68
4 Heatsink Fan Speed (RPM) 900-1500
Dimension (cm) 11.9 x 10.9 x 16.3
41
Figure 4.3 Variation of temperature of cold and hot side of Peltier element cold trap setup when there was no air
circulated
Figure 4.4 Temperature variation of cold side of Peltier element cold trap with and without air flow
However, the Peltier element trap designed in this study could achieve temperature up to -20 °C
when there was no air circulation (Figure 4.3). When air was flowing, it can achieve up to -5 °C
(Figure 4.4) which is sufficient to trap all the water present in the air. This trap required very
high power input and electrical efficiency was found to be very low. Therefore we continued
with LN2 trap for rest of study.
4.1.2 Air Intake Structure (AIS)using LN2 trap
42
One of the most critical steps involved in this thesis was to design a robust setup by which
atmospheric water vapour can be collected at four different heights simultaneously. For this
purpose, we designed LN2 trap described below.
The designed AIS consisted of 4 temperature
and 4 relative humidity sensors whose heights
were adjusted depending on the height of
plants. The bottommost sensor was fixed at
0.15 m above the ground. Teflon tubes were
used as pipes in the AIS. All the tubeswere
connected to a manifold which had flow
regulators. The manifold was then connected
to an oil-free vacuum pump. Other ends of
tubes were connected with acold trap which
was placed in a Dewar flask consisting on
LN2.All dewar flasks were of size 1 l which

Figure 4.5 On field picture of air intake structure
was coated with silver nitrate coated.
The Dewar flasks were made from glass blowing laboratory at IIT Kanpur. We made wooden
stands in which Dewar flasks can be placed so that operation with the cold trap with liquid
nitrogen is easy. Bottom of these stands was filled with cotton.
43
Figure 4.6 Atmospheric water vapour sample collection
a) T and RH sensor, b) Installation of Teflon tubes through which air will be sucked by vacuum pump, c)
Dewar flask with all connections done, d) Pouring LN2 into Dewar flasks,and e) Finally collected
atmospheric water vapour samples
4.2 Soil and Plant water
4.2.1 Cryogenic Vacuum distillation (CVD) apparatus
Cryogenic vacuum distillation apparatus consists of a heating plate on which a stainless steel
beaker is placedwith water. Plant samples are placed in a flask which is connected with
distillation apparatus. Other end of the distillation setup is immersed in liquid nitrogen Dewar
flask.The entiresetup of distillation is maintained at a very high low vacuum of about 20.265 Pa
(~0.0002 atm.). Low vacuum is necessary as it reduces the boiling point drastically due to which
time required to complete distillation reduces significantly. In case of soil, it was observed that
some of the soil particles were getting mixed with evaporated water. In order to prevent, cotton
was placed on top of glass flask in which sample was placed.Figure 4.7 shows CVD apparatus
used in this study.
44
Figure 4.7 Cryogenic vacuum distillation for soil and plant water extraction
4.2.2 Displacement liquid centrifugation
One of the greatest challenges in this method was to select the most suitable displacement
liquid. The density of displacement liquid should be greater than that of water but less than the
density of soil. Tetrachloroethylenewas selected as displacement liquid whose properties are
listed below (Table 4.2)
45
Figure 4.8 Working principle of displacement liquid centrifugation method
𝒓𝟐
𝒑𝒄 = ∫ ∆𝝆 𝒘𝟐 𝒓 𝒅𝒓 Eq. (4.1)
𝒓𝟏
ρ = 𝜌𝑑 - 𝜌𝑤
𝜌𝑑 = density of displacement liquid
𝜌𝑤 = density of water
46
Table 4.2 Property of tetrachloroethylene
S.N. Material Property
1. Chemical structure
2. Chemical Formula C2 Cl4
3. Molecular mass 165.82 g.
4. Appearance Colourless
5. Density 1.62g/cc
6. Boiling Point 121.1°C
7. Main Hazard Dangerous for the environment
8. Toxicity Moderate to low (Carcinogen)
After displacement liquid was selected as tetrachloroethylene,the next main challenge was to
decide asuitable speed of the rotor. Selection of rotor speed depends onnumber of factors like
type of soil, water content of the soil, minimum solution volume requirement and the material of
the centrifuge bottle. Inthis study we used polypropylene (PP) bottles were used for
centrifugation as we were not able to get any other superior bottles. The PP bottles can have
maximum relative centrifugation force (RCF) about 9,400 g.Using this data, we calculated the
maximum possible speed of rotor using the Eq. (4.2)
𝑅𝐶𝐹
ω= √ × 1000
𝑟 × 1.118 Eq. (4.2)
RCF = relative centrifugal force
Ω = rotational speed (revolution per minute)
r = centrifugal radius in mm (= 115 mm for setup used in the study)
47
9,400
=√ × 1000 = 8,550.55 rpm
115 × 1.118
The rotor speed was fixed to 8,000 rpm.
Figure 4.9Soil water extraction using displacement liquid centrifugation using tetrachloroethylene
48
Table 4.3 Experimental procedure days and schedules for different activities
DOY LAI and PH Irrigation Sample collection
29 ##
40 ##
48 ## ##
49 ##
59 ## ##
63 ##
64 ##
72 ## ##
78 ##
86 ##
87 ##
90 ##
97
98 ##
103 ##
111 ##
4.3 Sampling Protocol
Water vapour and soil samples were collectedtwo times on a sampling day once between 11am-
12 pm and next between 1pm-2pm.Stem samples were taken at 12:00 noon.Once samples were
collected, they were immediately stored in bottles which were then tightly wrapped with Para
filmto prevent any loss of moisture. After that the bottles were placed in a refrigerator untill
they were analysed in LGR’s Liquid water isotope analyser.
49
4.4 Analysis of water samples for Isotope analysis
The water isotope analyses of collected samples were conducted using Los Gatos Research’s
Liquid Water Isotope Analyser (LGR’s LWIA). Figure 4.10 shows LWIA at our institute.
Figure 4.10 LGR's Liquid water isotope analyser at our institute
Instrument operates on principle of off-axis integrated cavity output spectroscopy (OA- ICOS)
to quantify deuterium and oxygen isotope simultaneously. This laser-based water isotope
analyser has following advantages-
1) Very high speed of sample analysis (up to 800 injections per day)
2) Low power requirement (average 70W)
3) Lower average cost per sample
4.4.1 Sample loading
For isotope analysis, the extracted samples were placed in 2 ml glass vials in the tray which
includes five standard samples and two dummy water sample as shown in Figure 4.11. It is
necessary to use calibrated stable water isotope standards within each measuring campaign after
every 5th sample the internal standards are measured.
50
Figure 4.11 Loading of standard and actual samples of the tray for isotopic analysis
For the instrument used in the study the following 5 standard samples are provided by LGR
which are listed inTable 4.4.
Table 4.4 Isotopic composition of standard samples used in LGR's LWIA

S.N. Sample δ2H (‰) δ18O (‰)
1. VSMOW (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water) 0.00 0.00
2. SLAP (Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation) -427.50 -55.5
3. GISP (Greenland Ice Sheet Precipitation) -189.50 -24.76
4. LGR-3C -97.30 -13.39
5. LGR-5C -9.20 -2.69
51
For every sample,auto sampler takes six sequential 1.2
µL aliquot of a water sample using a Hamilton syringe
(Figure 4.12). Samples are then injected to the optical
cell of the instrument. To avoid the memory effect of
the previoussamplefirst, three samples are
discarded,and last three samples are averaged and
reported asthe final result.
Figure 4.12 Process of automatic injection of

samples in the optical cavity
4.4.2 Working Principle of LWIA
Very high vacuum is created before the samples enter the optical cell,in which the samples
vaporised. The tuneable diode laser of the LWIA produces near infrared radiation passing the
vaporised water sample in the optical cell. The optical cellhas two highreflecting mirrors which
are designed in such a manner that there is thousands ofthe collisions of photons with the
vaporised sample produced. As a result, when laser photons leave the optical cell are focused by
a lens on a photo-detector, which then detects the optical absorption. Measured absorptions are
compared with the absorption of the internal standard of known isotopic signature. Once the
process is completed, water vapour in the optical cell is evacuated. The accuracy of this method
is about 0.2 ‰ for 𝑂18 /𝑂16and 0.6 ‰ for D/H isotopes.
52
4.5 Senstivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is performed to find the contribution of different factors in the estimates of
transpiration factor FT.
4.5.1 Transpiration Factor
In ET partitioning transpiration fraction
𝜕𝐸𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸
𝐹𝑇 = Eq. (4.3)
𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸
2 2 2
2
𝜕𝐹𝑇 𝜕𝐹𝑇 𝜕𝐹𝑇
(𝜕𝐹𝑇 ) = ( 𝜕𝜕 ) + ( 𝜕𝜕 ) + ( 𝜕𝜕 ) Eq. (4.4)
𝜕𝜕𝐸𝑇 𝐸𝑇 𝜕𝜕𝑇 𝑇 𝜕𝜕𝐸 𝐸
where 𝜕𝐸𝑇 , 𝜕𝑇 and 𝜕𝐸 are isotopic composition of ET, T and E, respectively.
Differentiating and squaring both side of Eq. (4.3)
To estimae terms in RHS, Eq. (4.3)is differentiated w.r.t. 𝜕𝐸𝑇 , 𝜕𝑇 and 𝜕𝐸 . The obtained
expressions are as follows.
𝜕𝐹𝑇 1
=( ) Eq. (4.5)
𝜕𝜕𝐸𝑇 𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸
𝜕𝐹𝑇 𝜕𝐸𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸
= − Eq. (4.6)
𝜕𝜕𝑇 (𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸 )2
𝜕𝐹𝑇 (𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸𝑇 )

=− Eq. (4.7)
𝜕𝜕𝐸 (𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸 )2
Using Eq. (4.5), Eq. (4.6)and Eq. (4.7)
2 2 2
2
1 (𝜕𝐸𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸 ) (𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸𝑇 )
(𝜕𝐹𝑇 ) = (( ) 𝜕𝜕𝐸𝑇 ) + (− 𝜕𝜕𝑇 ) + (− 𝜕𝜕 ) Eq. (4.8)
𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸 (𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸 )2 (𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸 )2 𝐸
1
= [(𝜕𝜕𝐸𝑇 )2 + 𝐹𝑇 2 (𝜕𝜕𝑇 )2 + (1 − 𝐹𝑇 )2 (𝜕𝜕𝐸 )2 ] Eq. (4.9)
(𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸 )2
From Eq. (4.9)it is clear that uncertainty in the transpiration fraction is dependent on the
following
53
1) Inversly proporsional to square of difference in the isotopic composition of sources
from which the mixture is made
2) Transpiration fraction value itself
3) Uncertainty in isotopic compositions of ET, T and E
In the following sub-sections the contribution of different sources of uncertainity is investigated
using synthetic data.
4.5.1.1 Difference in isotopic composition of sources
AssumingFT = 0.5, uncertainities in isotopic signature ot ET, T and E are same 𝜕𝜕𝐸𝑇 = 𝜕𝜕𝑇 =
𝜕𝜕𝐸 = σ2
Figure 4.13 Variation of uncertainty in transpiration fraction with the difference in source isotopic composition at
different values of uncertainty
From Figure 4.13 it is clear that asthe difference between the isotopic compositions of sources
increases, the uncertainty in transpiration factor reduces. On theother hand, if the difference
between the isotopic compositions of sources is less than the uncertainty in transpiration factor
is observed to high. The uncertainty curve shifts upwards (uncertainty increases) with the
increase inuncertainty of isotopic composition of ET, T and E (all assumed to be same).
54
4.5.1.2 FT fraction
Assuming difference in isotopic composition of T and E 𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸 = 30, uncertainities in
isotopic signature ot ET, T and E are same 𝜕𝜕𝐸𝑇 = 𝜕𝜕𝑇 = 𝜕𝜕𝐸 = σ2
Figure 4.14 Variation of uncertainty in transpiration fraction with transpiration fraction at different values of
uncertainty
From Figure 4.14 it can be seen thatthe transpiration factor (FT) approaches to 0.5, uncertainties
were minimum. Uncertainties increases symmetrically around FT = 0.5.
4.5.1.3 Due to uncertainty in the measurement of the isotopic composition of T, E, and
ET
Assuming 𝜕𝑇 − 𝜕𝐸 = 30 and uncertainities in isotopic signature ot ET, T and E are same
𝜕𝜕𝐸𝑇 = 𝜕𝜕𝑇 = 𝜕𝜕𝐸 = σ2
55
Figure 4.15 Variation of uncertainty in transpiration fraction with uncertainty in ET, T and E at different values of
uncertainty
From Figure 4.15it is found that uncertainty in transpiration fraction increases parabolically
with uncertainty in ET, T and E.
The sensitivity analysis suggest that the uncertainty in FT is high when
I. The difference in isotopic composition of E and T is less
II. When the transpiration factor is very high or very low
4.5.2 Variation of uncertainty in absolute water content
Application of SIF partitioning requires absolute water content [𝐻2 𝑂] at different heights.
Given the measurements of temperature (T) and relative humidity (RH) the absolute water
content can be estimated by using the following formula given by McRae (1980).
𝑃𝑠
[𝐻2 𝑂] = 10 𝑅𝐻 Eq. (4.10)
𝑃𝑎
𝑃𝑠 = 𝑃𝐴 exp(13.3185𝑡 − 1.9760𝑡 2 − 0.6445𝑡 3 − 0.1299𝑡 4 ) Eq. (4.11)
373.15 Eq. (4.12)

𝑡 =1−
𝑇
56
where 𝑃𝑠 is saturation vapour pressure and 𝑃𝑎 is atmospheric pressure. 𝑃𝐴 is standard
atmospheric pressure (1013.25 mbar).
Differentiating and squaring both side of Eq. (4.10)
2 2 2
2
𝜕[𝐻2 𝑂] 𝜕[𝐻2 𝑂] 𝜕[𝐻2 𝑂]
(𝜕[𝐻2 𝑂]) = ( 𝜕(𝑅𝐻)) + ( (𝜕𝑇)) + ( (𝜕𝑃𝑎 )) Eq. (4.13)
𝜕(𝑅𝐻) 𝜕𝑇 𝜕𝑃𝑎
To estimae terms in RHS, Eq. (4.10)is differentiated w.r.t. RH, T and 𝑃𝑎 . The obtained
expressions are as follows.
𝜕[𝐻2 𝑂] 𝑃𝑠 [𝐻2 𝑂]
= 10 == Eq. (4.14)
𝜕(𝑅𝐻) 𝑃𝑎 𝑅𝐻
𝜕[𝐻2 𝑂] 𝑃𝑠 −[𝐻2 𝑂]
= −10 𝑅𝐻 2 = Eq. (4.15)
𝜕𝑃𝑎 𝑃𝑎 𝑃𝑎 2
𝜕[𝐻2 𝑂] 𝜕[𝐻2 𝑂] 𝜕𝑃𝑠 𝜕𝑡

=( )( )( ) Eq. (4.16)
𝜕𝑇 𝜕𝑃𝑠 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑇
Synthetic data are used to study the uncertainity in estimate of [𝐻2 𝑂] for different values of T
and RH for different assumed uncertainity of T and RH.
4.5.2.1 Temperature
For following assumed values, the effect of T in range of 0°C to 40°C was investigated
AssumingPa = 1000.3 mbar, PA= 1013.25 mbar and RH = 0.5;
57
Figure 4.16 Variation of uncertainty in absolute water vapour concentration with the temperature at different values
of uncertainty
From Figure 4.16 it can be observed that for low-temperature values uncertainty in absolute
water content is low but as the value of temperature increases uncertainty increases.
4.5.2.2 Humidity
For following assumed values, the effect of RH in range of 0 to 1 was investigated
AssumingPa = 1000.3 mbar, PA= 1013.25 mbar and T = 20°C.
Figure 4.17 Variation of uncertainty in absolute water vapours concentration with the temperature at different values
of uncertainty
From Figure 4.17 it can be seen that for the lowvalue of relative humidity, uncertainty in
absolute water content is high but as relative humidity approaches to 1 value of uncertainty in
absolute water content reduces rapidly and finally approaches zero.
4.5.3 Craig Gordon (CG) Model
The CG model estimates the isotopic composition of evaporated water given air temperature
(T), soil temperature (Ts), relative humidity (RH), isotopic composition of soil water (𝜕𝑠 ),
isotopic composition of water vapour (𝜕𝑣 ).
1
𝜕𝑠 (α ) − ℎ𝜕𝑣 −∈𝑒𝑞 − (1 − ℎ) ∈𝑘
eq Eq. (4.17)
𝜕𝐸 =
(1 − ℎ) + 10−3 (1 − ℎ) ∈𝑘
58
𝜕𝑠 , 𝜕𝑣 = Isotopic composition of soil evaporation front and water vapour respectively
ℎ = Normalised RH w.r.t. soil & air temperature
1
∈𝑒𝑞 = (1 − ) × 1000
αeq
1.137×106 0.4516×103
𝑇2
− 𝑇
− 2.0667
αeq = +1
1000
𝐷𝑖
∈𝑘 = 𝑛 (1 − ) × 1000
𝐷
1 𝜃 − 𝜃𝑟𝑒𝑠
𝑛 = 1− ( )
2 𝜃𝑠𝑎𝑡 − 𝜃𝑟𝑒𝑠
The measured quantities in the CG model are𝜕𝑣 , 𝜕𝑠 , αeq & ℎ. To study the senstivity of CG
model Eq. (4.17)is differentiated w.r.t. 𝜕𝑣 , 𝜕𝑠 , αeq & ℎ
2 2 2
2
𝜕𝜕𝐸 𝜕𝜕𝐸 𝜕𝜕𝐸
(𝜕𝜕𝐸 ) = ( (𝜕𝜕𝑠 )) + ( (𝜕𝜕𝑣 )) + ( (𝜕ℎ))
𝜕𝜕𝑠 𝜕𝜕𝑣 𝜕ℎ
2 Eq. (4.18)
𝜕𝜕𝐸
+ ( (𝜕αeq ))
𝜕 ∝+
1
𝜕𝜕𝐸 αeq Eq. (4.19)
=
𝜕𝜕𝑠 (1 − ℎ)(1 + 10−3 ∈𝑘 )
𝜕𝜕𝐸 −ℎ
= Eq. (4.20)
𝜕𝜕𝑣 (1 − ℎ)(1 + 10−3 ∈𝑘 )
𝜕𝜕𝐸 ∈𝑘 𝜕𝑠 +∝+ (−∈𝑘 𝜕𝑣 −∈𝑒𝑞 ∈𝑘 ) + 𝜕𝑠 −∝+ 𝜕𝑣 −∝𝑒𝑞 ∝+ )

= Eq. (4.21)
𝜕ℎ 1000(αeq (1 − ℎ + 10−3 ∈𝑘 (1 − ℎ))2
𝑠 −𝜕 1000
𝜕𝜕𝐸 (αeq )2
− (α )2 −1000 − 𝜕𝑠 Eq. (4.22)
eq
= −3
=
𝜕αeq (1 − ℎ)(1 + 10 ∈𝑘 ) (∝ ) (1 − ℎ)(1 + 10−3 ∈𝑘 )
+ 2
59
𝜕αeq 451.6 2274000
= 0.001 ( 2 − ) Eq. (4.23)
𝜕𝑇 𝑇 𝑇3
Synthetic data are used to study the uncertainity in estimate of𝜕𝐸 .
4.5.3.1 Variation in isotopic composition of evaporation for different T and RH
Assuming 𝜕𝑠 = -8‰, 𝜕𝑣 = -21‰, ∈𝑘 = 16.4, 𝜎𝜕𝑠 = 𝜎𝜕𝑣 = 0.1 , and 𝜎ℎ = 𝜎𝑇 = 0.01
Figure 4.18 Variation of uncertainty in the isotopic composition of evaporation with the change in temperature at
different values of relative humidity
FromFigure 4.18it can be seen that as the value of relative humidity is increasing uncertainty in
the isotopic composition of evaporation is increasing. It is also observed that as the value of
temperature is increasing,uncertainty in the isotopic composition of evaporation is reducing.
4.5.3.2 Variation in isotopic composition of evaporation for different RH and n
Assuming 𝜕𝑠 = -8‰, 𝜕𝑣 = -21‰, ∈𝑘 = 16.4, 𝜎𝜕𝑠 = 𝜎𝜕𝑣 = 0.1 , T = 20°c and 𝜎ℎ = 𝜎𝑇 = 0.01
60
Figure 4.19 Variation of uncertainty in the isotopic composition of evaporation with the change in relative humidity
with different values of n
From Figure 4.19it can be seen that as the value of relative humidity is increasing, uncertainty
in the isotopic composition of evaporation is increasing,andthe rate of increase is very rapid as
value is approaches1. It can be seen that the effect of n of the isotopic composition of
evaporation is negligible. For the higher value of n, curve shifts downwards.
Overall, the results suggest that the estimate of 𝜕𝐸 is sensitive to variation of RH and
irrespective of n.
61
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this study, the ET partitioning was performed for both rice and wheat crops. The results for
rice are first shown followed by the results for wheat.
5.1 Results for Rice season
During the rice season, we were able to collect samples of isotopic water vapour composition
for only one day, 26 October, 2017.The AWS data for sampling day are shown inFigure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 AWS data on 26 October, 2017

(BP- Barometric pressure (mbar), SHF- Soil Heat flux (watt/m2), GSR- Global solar radiation (watt/m2), Max WS-
Maximum wind speed (m/s). WS- Wind speed (m/s), Temperature (°C), RH- relative humidity (%), VPD- Vapour
pressure deficit (kPa))
On 26 October the temperature increased from 32.16°C to 34.86°C during 10:00 to 15:00 and
then reduced to 34°C by 16:30.The relative humidity value also reduced during this period. The
wind speed fluctuated between 1 m/s to 2 m/s during this period. The GSR reached a maximum
62
value of 990 Watt/m2 during noon. The barometric pressure was found to be continuously
reducing. The windrose diagram for the sampling day is also plotted inFigure 5.2. It can be seen
that the prevailing wind direction on that day was NE.
Figure 5.2 Wind rose for 26 October, 2017
Global Meteoric Water Line is a line which gives the relationship
between hydrogen and oxygen isotope ratios in natural terrestrial waters, expressed as a
worldwide average. Harmon Craig (Craig ,1961) first developed this line. The equation of this
line is 𝜕𝐷 = 8.0. 𝜕𝑂18 + 10 ‰
A plot showingthe isotopic composition of different samples collected on October 26, 2017 is
presented in Figure 5.3where clusters of collected data can be seen. The clusters for ponded
water and atmospheric water vapour (WV) are conspicuous. As expected ponded water is more
enriched and water vapour is more depleted in heavier isotopes. This is obvious because when
evaporation takes place, the residual water is more enriched in heavier isotope and the water
vapours get depleted in isotopic composition. It is also seen that leaf water is very much
enrichedwith respect to stem water. This can be attributed to evaporation taking place from the
leaf surface.
63
Figure 5.3 Isotopic composition of different water sources collected on 26-10-2017
Temporal variation of the isotopic composition of leaf water is plotted inFigure 5.4. It can be
seen that as transpiration rate increases after sunshine,leaf water becomes more and more
enriched. The maximum enrichment is found at 12:00 noon.
Figure 5.4 Variation in the isotopic composition of rice leaf water during the experiment duration
The isotopic composition of evaporation was calculated using Craig Gordon model.
Theimportant parameters, used in the model are listed inTable 5.1.
64
Table 5.1Parameters of the CG model applied to estimate𝜕𝐸 for 26th October, 2017
𝑻𝒂𝒊𝒓 (K) 𝑻𝑺 (K) h’ 𝛆𝒌 𝛆𝒆𝒒 𝛂𝐞𝐪 𝛅𝒔 (‰) 𝛅𝒗 (‰) 𝛅𝑬 (‰)
299.35 298.05 0.344 31.88 77.31 1.08378 -31.05 -61.58 -156.149
The Keeling plot (Figure 5.5)was drawn with absolute water concentration on the x axis and
isotopic composition of water vapour on the y-axis. The intercept of the best-fitted line on that
data represents the isotopic composition of ET.The isotopic composition of ET was estimated to
be -63.7‰.The isotopic composition of T was calculated using steady-state assumption which
says that, the isotopic composition of T is same as theisotopic composition of the stem water.
This steady-state assumption is applicable during 11 am to 1 pm when the transpiration rate is
maximum and nearly constant.
Figure 5.5 Keeling Plot for 26 October, 2017
Once the isotopic composition of E, T and ET are known,a two source mixing model
transpiration fraction is used to calculate. For October 26, 2017 the FT between 11:00 to 12:00
noon is estimated to be 0.856.
65
Table 5.2 Transpiration fractions on 26 October
S.N. 𝛅𝑬 (‰) 𝛅𝑻 (‰) 𝛅𝑬𝑻 (‰) 𝑭𝑻 (‰)
1. -156.15 -48.15 -63.7 0.856
5.2 Results for Wheat Season
The isotopic compositions of all the water samples collected during the wheat season are shown
inFigure 5.6. Distinct clusters of data can be clearly seen.Water vapours isotopic composition
cluster is at the leftmost corner as those contain lighter isotope as compared to other sources of
water. Leaf water is seenatthe rightmost corner of the graph which shows the most enriched
water. There is an overlap in soil and stem water isotopic composition, however the soil water
samples are slightly enriched compared to stem water. Both stem and soil water are enriched in
comparison to water vapour and depleted in comparision to leaf water.
Figure 5.6 Isotopic composition of different water sources collected during wheat cultivation
Figure 5.7compares isotopic composition of water samples during rice and wheat seasons.It is
observed that during summer time (wheat), isotopic composition of water vapour is more
depleted compared to winter time (rice). Ponded water on the rice fields is found to be more
66
enriched in heavier isotopes as compared to irrigation water during wheat season. Ponded water
on the rice fields is also found to be depleted as compared to soil water in wheat fields. We do
not have sufficient rainfall samples,so we were not able to draw local meteoric water line
(LMWL).
Figure 5.7 Isotopic composition of different water sources collected during entire study (both rice and wheat season)
67
Figure 5.8 Variation of the average isotopic composition of water vapour during the entire study with the standard
deviation
Figure 5.9shows isotopic composition of water vapour for the topmost (PH+2) and the
bottommost height (0.15 m) collected at 11:00 am during the wheat season. It is observed
thatfor deuterium the water vapour at PH+2 was more depleted in heavier isotope as compared
to water vapour sample at 0.15 m above ground. The pattern was same for the oxygen isotope,
except for DOY 90 & 108 when the isotopic composition at the two levels were very close to
each other.
68
Figure 5.9 Comparison of the isotopic composition of water vapour at the bottommost and the topmost level at 11 am
Compared to 11:00 am, the isotopic composition of WV at PH+2 and 0.15 m are much close to
each other at 13:00 (Figure 5.10). This could be because of increased transpiration rate at 13:00.
The sample collected on DOY 86 behaved differently from other samples. This difference could
be attributed to a flooding event that happened in the experimental field between DOY 78 to
DOY 80.
69
Figure 5.10 Comparison of the isotopic composition of water vapour at the bottommost and the topmost at 1 pm
Soil evaporation front is an area through which maximum evaporation takes place. In our study
duration, this evaporation front never went below15 cm. We found that most of the time soil
evaporation front was located between 0cm to 10 cm. From theFigure 5.11,it can be easily seen
that soil between 5-10 cm was on an average more enriched as compared to 0-5 cm soil. The
standard deviation was found to be loweratthe topmost level and the bottommost soil level
70
Figure 5.11 Variation of the average isotopic composition of soil water during the entire study with a standard
deviation
Figure 5.11showed that the evaporation occurs mostly from top 10 cm of soil. Figure 5.12shows
the comparison of isotopic composition of soil samples collected at 0- 10 cm and 10- 20 cm.
The Figure 5.11 suggests that 0- 10 cm layer is enriched during most of the wheat season. On
DOY 103 some irregularity is observed as the bottom layer is more enriched as compared to the
top layer. This may be because evaporation front has reached below 10 cm.
71
Figure 5.12 Comparison of the isotopic composition of soil water at 0- 10 cm and 10 - 20 cm
Figure 5.13 compares the isotopic composition of stem and leaf water during the wheat season.
As expected, the leaf water is more enriched as compared to stem water because of evaporation
happening from the leaf surface. Further, no significant changes in isotopic composition of stem
and leaf water is observed during the wheat season.
72
Figure 5.13 Comparison of the isotopic composition of plant water and leaf water
73
AWS data for 17 February, 2018 are shown in Figure 5.14.The temperature increased from
21.68°C to 27.39°C during 10:00 to 15:00 and then reduced to 26.68°C. The relative humidity
value during this period changed from 63.26% to 43.93%.The wind speed fluctuated between 1
m/s to 4 m/s during this period. The GSR reached a maximum value of 990 watt/m2 during
noon. The barometric pressure was found to be continuously reducing. The windrose diagram
for the sampling day is also plotted inFigure 5.15, which shows that prevailing wind direction
on that day was SW.
Figure 5.14 AWS data on 17 February, 2018

(BP- Barometric pressure (mbar), SHF- Soil Heat flux (watt/m2), GSR- Global solar radiation (watt/m2), Max WS-
Maximum wind speed (m/s). WS- Wind speed (m/s), Temperature (°C), RH- relative humidity (%), VPD- Vapour
pressure deficit (kPa))
74
Figure 5.15 Windrose on 17 February
From Figure 5.16and Figure 5.17 it is clear that the location of soil evaporation front is located
between 0-5 cm depths of soil as soil water at this depth is more enriched as compared to other
depths.
Figure 5.16 Soil water isotopic composition of Figure 5.17 Soil water isotopic composition on𝑂18 on 17
Deuterium on 17 February February
Figure 5.18 to Figure 5.21 show the air temperature, relative humidity and isotopic composition
of water vapours at different heights, respectively.
75
Figure 5.18 Variation of air temperature with height Figure 5.19 Variation of relative humidity with height
Figure 5.20 Variation of the isotopic composition of Figure 5.21 Variation of the isotopic composition of
water vapour with height water vapour with height
The Keeling plots for Feb 17, 2018 are shown in Figure 5.22&Figure 5.23. Figure 5.22is drawn
using data from entire day (11:00-12:00 and 13:00- 14:00) while Figure 5.23is drawn during
13:00-14:00. None of the keeling plots for 11:00- 12:00 performed well, therefore are not
shown here. From Figure 5.22&Figure 5.23isotopic composition of ET can be found by looking
at the intercept of best fitted line on the y-axis.
76
Figure 5.22 Keeling plot on 17 February, 2018
77
Figure 5.23 Keeling plot based on oxygen 17 February, 2018 between 13:00- 14:00
Variations inthe isotopic composition of the stem water are plotted inFigure 5.24. It can be seen
that in the noon, isotopic composition of stem water is not changing very much. During this
time, steady state assumptions are valid which states that the isotopic composition of the stem
water is equal to the isotopic composition of the transpiration water which is equal to the
isotopic composition of the source water. During that time,the leaf water is highly enriched.
78
Figure 5.24Variation of stem water on 28 February, 2018
Figure 5.25to Figure 5.31 are the Keeling plots drawn for the days Feb 28, March 13, 27&31
and 8 April and different days. The intercept of best fitted lines provides an estimate of ∂ET. The
isotopic composition of evaporation water (∂E) and the isotopic composition of transpiration
water (∂T) are listed in Table 5.4&Table 5.5.
79
Figure 5.25 Keeling plot for 28 February, 2018 for 11:00-12:00 & 13:00- 14:00
80
Figure 5.26 Keeling plot for 13 March, 2018
81
Figure 5.27 Keeling plot for 13 March, 2018 11:00-12:00 & 13:00- 14:00
82
Figure 5.28 Keeling plot for 27 March, 11:00-12:00 & 13:00- 14:00
83
Figure 5.29 Keeling plot for 31 March, 2018
84
Figure 5.30 Keeling plot for 31 March, 2018 11:00-12:00 & 13:00- 14:00
Figure 5.31 Keeling plot for 8 April, 2018
85
On 11 April, 2018 there was rainfallevent; therefore, isotope method for ET partitioning cannot
be applied. The temperature had reduced rapidly on that day once the rain had started (Figure
A.56in appendix) while the relative humidity increased. Generally, it is observed that as one
moves from bottom to top, the isotopic composition of water vapour gets depleted in heavier
isotopes. However, a reverse trend observed after the precipitation event. We found that the
isotopic composition of water vapour near the ground was more depleted than PH+2 (Figure
5.32). The trend isclear for hydrogen isotope but in case of oxygen isotope, there is an
anomalyat 12:00 noon .
Figure 5.32 Variation on the isotopic composition of water vapour on 11 April, 2018
86
Figure 5.33 Keeling plot for 13 April, 2018
87
Table 5.3 Parameters of CG model applied to estimate ∂Eduring wheat season
symbols used in table are described in section 2.1
Isotope Time DOY 𝑻𝒂𝒊𝒓 (K) 𝑻𝑺 (K) h’ 𝛆𝒌 𝛆𝒆𝒒 𝛂𝐞𝐪 𝛅𝒔 (‰) 𝛅𝒗 (‰) 𝛅𝑬 (‰)
1. D 11:00- 12:00 48 301.70 296.54 0.55 31.89 78.73 1.0854 -20.87 -80.55 -146.33
O 13:00- 14:00 48 301.70 296.54 0.55 16.40 9.42 1.0095 -3.10 -16.13 -24.07
D 11:00- 12:00 48 303.144 298.825 0.47 31.89 76.58 1.0829 -20.87 -78.84 -138.41
O 13:00- 14:00 48 303.144 298.825 0.47 16.4 9.23 1.0093 -20.87 -16.76 -24.35
2. D 11:00- 12:00 59 305.96 298.33 0.74 31.89 77.0432 1.083474 -16.85 -70.51 -180.408
O 13:00- 14:00 59 305.96 298.33 0.74 16.40 9.27 1.009359 -1.13 -11.97 -22.0224
D 11:00- 12:00 59 308.19 298.33 0.73 31.89 78.88 1.085633 -16.85 -69.93 -188.709
O 13:00-14:00 59 308.19 298.33 0.73 16.4 9.43 1.009519 -1.13 -14.70 -15.0859
3. D 11:00-12:00 72 308.76 299.50 0.54 31.89 75.96 1.0822 -1.66 -60.18 -125.78
O 13:00- 14:00 72 308.76 299.50 0.54 16.4 9.18 1.0093 -0.05 -12.13 -21.85
D 11:00- 12:00 72 311.22 297.57 0.52 31.89 77.75 1.0843 -1.66 -62.85 -125.49
O 13:00- 14:00 72 311.22 297.57 0.52 16.4 9.33 1.0094 -0.05 -13.39 -20.97
4. D 11:00-12:00 86 304.94 295.97 0.79 31.89 79.28 1.0861 -11.73 -60.96 -224.38
O 13:00- 14:00 86 304.94 295.97 0.79 16.4 9.46 1.0096 -1.20 -13.77 -15.11
88
D 11:00- 12:00 86 307.12 298.64 0.69 31.89 79.28 1.0831 -11.73 -56.68 -182.86
O 13:00- 14:00 86 307.12 298.64 0.69 16.4 9.46 1.0093 -1.20 -14.55 -17.37
5. D 11:00- 12:00 90 306.31 298.98 0.59 31.89 76.44 1.0827 -22.71 -60.96 -177.04
O 13:00- 14:00 90 306.31 298.98 0.59 16.4 9.22 1.0093 -1.69 -13.77 -22.70
D 11:00- 12:00 90 309.51 300.92 0.54 31.89 74.66 1.0806 -22.71 -56.68 -168.07
O 13:00- 14:00 90 309.51 300.92 0.54 16.4 9.07 1.0091 -1.69 -14.55 -22.29
6. D 11:00- 12:00 98 307.66 298.27 0.69 31.89 77.1 1.0835 -14.80 -62.76 -181.09
O 13:00- 14:00 98 307.66 298.27 0.69 16.4 9.28 1.0094 1.63 -14.39 -8.48
7. D 11:00- 12:00 108 308.95 298.48 0.68 31.89 76.91 1.0833 11.95 -53.80 -119.55
O 13:00- 14:00 108 308.95 298.48 0.68 16.4 9.26 1.0093 0.35 -12.27 -17.90
89
Once ∂ET(Keeling plot), ∂E(CG model) and ∂T(stem water)are obtained the transpiration fraction
FT was estimated using two source model (section4.5.1). The results so obtained are
summarised inTable 5.4&Table 5.5.
Table 5.4 Transpiration fraction during wheat season (average)

S.N Date Time 𝛅𝑬 𝛅𝑻 𝛅𝑬𝑻 𝑭𝑻
(DOY) (‰) (‰) (‰)
1. 17 Feb (48) Avg. -142.37 -35.98 -47.15 0.895
17 Feb (48) Avg. -24.21 -4.69 -5.46 0.960
2. 28 Feb (59) Avg. -184.56 -37.58 -96.04 0.602
28 Feb (59) Avg. -18.55 -5.50 -9.29 0.709
3. 13 March (72) Avg. -21.41 -7.28 -9.82 0.820
13 March (72) Avg. -125.33 -49.06 -53.35 0.944
4. 27 March* (86) Data didn’t performed well
5. 31 March (90) Avg. -22.50 -4.41 -14.92 0.419
Table 5.5 Transpiration fraction during wheat season

S.N Date Time 𝛅𝑬 𝛅𝑻 𝛅𝑬𝑻 𝑭𝑻
(DOY) (‰) (‰) (‰)
1. 17 Feb (48) 13:00-14:00 -24.35 -4.69 -6.35 0.915
2. 13 March (72) 13:00-14:00 -21.85 -7.28 -11.78 0.691
3. 27 March* (86) Data didn’t performed well
4. 31 March (90) 11:00-12:00 -22.70 -4.41 -15.73 0.381
31 March (90) 13:00-14:00 -22.29 -4.41 -13.98 0.464
5. 8 April (98) 11:00-12:0 -181.09 -24.52 -33.97 0.939
6. 11 April (103)** 11:00-12:00 Rainy Day
7. 13 April (108) 11:00-12:00 -17.90 -1.06 -8.57 0.55
* Keeling plots didn’t performed well
90
** Rainy day
The results suggest that the transpiration fraction varied during wheat season. After irrigation
and rainfall event transpiration fraction was high as 95 %. During the late season FT dropped to
around 30%
5.2.1 Comparison of isotope and hydrometric methods
As we know that
𝜕𝐸𝑇 −𝜕𝐸
𝐹𝑇 = 𝜕𝑇 −𝜕𝐸
and
0 < 𝐹𝑇 < 1 therefore to satisfy the following condition
𝜕𝐸𝑇 > 𝜕𝐸 &𝜕𝐸𝑇 < 𝜕𝑇 , Unfortuanately for some of the times this conditions was not satisfied and
those data and keeling plots are discared.
Finally, transpiration fraction using stable isotope fractionation method was compared with
transpiration fraction obtained using the hydrometric method (Figure 5.34).These plotted values
are average values of transpiration fraction obtained for 11:00-12:00 and 13:00- 14:00. From
Figure 5.34it is evident that SIF and hydrometric methods matched for DOY 48, 59, 72, 90. For
DOY 86, the transpiration fraction was not available using SIF as (the Keeling plots performed
poorly). For DOY 98 and 108, differencesare higher and may be attributed to the limitation of
model to predict T and RH accurately. DOY 103 was rainy day, therefore SIF method could not
be used.
91
Figure 5.34 Comparison of transpiration factor obtained by the hydrometric method and stable isotope fractionation
method for wheat
5.2.2 Background noise in Isotopic Composition of ET
To check the contribution of background noise in the estimation of 𝜕𝐸𝑇 due to nearby plants, we
performed an experiment (after the wheat crop was harvested 2 May, 2018) and the
experimental field was barren. The experiment was performed in same study plot. Plot was
surrounded by other vegetation including a big Limonia acidissima (Kaitha) tree.
Figure 5.35 Experimental plot on May 2, 2018 ( AIS represents air intake structure)
92
If the experimental field has no crop 𝐹𝑇 = 0, Then 𝜕𝐸𝑇 should be fully contributed by 𝜕𝐸 and
𝐹𝐸 should be equal to 1. The difference between 𝜕𝐸𝑇 and 𝜕𝐸 can provide a measure for the
magnitude of background noise.
Figure 5.36 AWS data on 2 May, 2018
Figure 5.36 shows AWS data for May 02, 2018.Global solar radiation was found to be
irregular. It increased before noon and then reduced about 12 then again increased on that
day becomes cloudy day. The wind velocity was seen to be very high during that day as
compared to other sampling day. The atmospheric pressure sensor behaved abnormally
during that day.From Figure 5.37 it can be infered that themost prevailing direction of the
wind was NE.
93
Figure 5.37 Windrose on 2 May
Figure 5.38 to Figure 5.40 represent soil moisture, electrical conductivity, soil temperature, and
soil isotopic composition,. Measure on May 2, 2018. Figure 5.41 to Figure 5.44show air
temperature, relative humidity and isotopic composition of water vapour at all the four heights.
94
Figure 5.38 Soil moisture, electrical conductivity and temperature variation with depth
Figure 5.39 Soil isotopic composition variation with

Figure 5.40 Soil isotopic composition variation with depth
depth (Hydrogen) (Oxygen)
95
Figure 5.41 Variation of air temperature with height Figure 5.42 Variation of relative humidity with height
Figure 5.43 Variation of the isotopic composition of Figure 5.44 Variation of the isotopic composition of
96
Table 5.6 Parameters of CG model applied to estimate 𝜕𝐸 for 2 May, 2018
𝑻𝒂𝒊𝒓 𝑻𝑺 (K) h’ 𝛆𝒌 𝛆𝒆𝒒 𝛂𝐞𝐪 𝛅𝒔 (‰) 𝛅𝒗 (‰) 𝛅𝑬 (‰)
(K)
309.44 312.38 0.36 31.88 64.92 1.0694 -8.18 -62.53 -106.65
312.20 315.90 0.28 31.89 62.11 1.0662 -8.18 -59.16 -102.54
The isotopic composition of evaporation water on May 2, 2018 at two times 11 am-12:00 pm
and 1:00 pm -2 pm were -106.65‰ and -102.54‰. Keeling plots were drawn for deuterium
(Figure 5.45) as well as oxygen isotope (Figure 5.46). However, the Keeling plots for oxygen
did not perform well therefore were not considered in analysis.
Figure 5.45 Keeling plot for 2 May, 2018
97
Figure 5.46 Keeling plot for 2 May, 2018
If the experimental plot has no crop, the isotopic composition of the evapotranspired water
should be nearly equal to the isotopic composition of the evaporated water. From the Figure
5.45andFigure 5.46, we can see that there is some differences in the isotopic composition of ET
and E. We found that contribution E on ET was 82.06 % and 86.88 % between 11:00 – 12:00
noon and 13:00- 14:00, respectively.Thus from this experiment it can be concluded that
vegetation present outside the experimental plot modified the isotopic composition of ET.
5.2.3 Average Isotopic Composition of Hydrological Fluxes
Figure 5.47 and Figure 5.48 show the isotopic composition of different hydrological fluxes
measured (or calculated) during the wheat season. Precipitation water was found to be highly
enriched. There is significant difference in the isotopic composition of evaporation water and
transpiration water. Soil water between 5 -10 cm was found to be more enriched as compared to
other depth. Leaf water is highly enriched as compared to stem water because of evaporation
from the leaf surface.
98
Figure 5.47 Isotopic composition of oxygen isotope different fluxes and samples measured (or calculated) during the
wheat season
99
Figure 5.48Isotopic composition of hydrogen isotope different fluxes and samples measured (or calculated) during
the wheat season
100
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION REMARKS
This was the first ever study done in India for evapotranspiration partitioning using stable
isotope fractionation method. The main challenge in this study was the construction of an
experimental setup to partition ET during rice and wheat seasons. Most of our efforts
werefocussed on arranging raw materials and equipment for constructing the setup. The
summary and the main conclusions drawn from the study are listed below.
1. Experimental setups designed to sample atmospheric water, soil water and plant water are
briefly summarized below:
a. Atmospheric water: Atmospheric water vapour collection was done using an air intake
structure which was capable of collecting water vapours at four heights simultaneously.
Air was forced to pass through cold trap which was immersed in liquid nitrogen so that
the entire water vapour can be trapped.
Apart from a liquid nitrogen cold trap, we also checked the feasibility of a Peltier
element based cold trap, which consisted of a copper set-up insulated using a nitrile
insulator. This trap performed well, and we could achieve temperature up to -20°C.
However, because of the large DC power requirement, it was not feasible to collect
atmospheric water samples at multiple heights using the Peltier element based cold trap.
b. Soil and plant water: For extraction of soil and plant water, cryogenic vacuum
distillation (CVD) apparatus was used. The time required for removal of soil water for
our soil sampled was found to be 80 minutes. To find extraction efficiency of the
developed CVD apparatus, a completely dried soil was mixed with tap water of known
isotopic composition water and after running it for 80 minutes, the isotopic composition
of the extracted water was compared with the tap water. We found the extraction
efficiency was quite good and that the set-up could be used to reliably estimate isotopic
composition of the soil and plant water.
101
Soil water extraction was also done using the displacement liquid centrifugation technique.
In this method, we used tetrachloroethylene as a displacement liquid. This method
performed better than the cryogenic vacuum distillation method. However, we felt the need
for more systematic investigation to draw final conclusions.
2. The ET partitioning was performed using a simple two-source mixing model, which required
estimation of isotopic composition of evapotranspiration (𝜕𝐸𝑇 ), evaporation (𝜕𝐸 ) and
transpiration (𝜕𝑇 ).
3. The Keeling plots were used to estimate isotopic composition of evapotranspiration. We had
collected water vapour samples in two sets between 11:00-12:00 and 13:00-14:00. Due to
functional limitation and cost-constraints,thewater vapour samples could be collected at only
four heights simultaneously, which caused uncertainty in the estimation𝜕𝐸𝑇 .
4. The Craig-Gordon (CG) model was used to calculate the isotopic composition of Evaporation.
During the rice season, the experimental plot was flooded and hence the condition was similar
to lake evaporation. In case of wheat, finding the location of soil evaporation front was a
challenging task. We took soil samples at four different depths 0-5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-15 cm and
15- 20 cm and found that soil evaporation front fluctuates mostly between 0- 10 cm because the
soil water samples were more enriched at that depth.
The sensitivity analysis of the CG model suggested that its results are very much sensitive to
relative humidity especially when relative humidity is high. Therefore we used the best
available temperature and relative humidity sensorsavailable in the market at a reasonable cost.
5. The isotopic composition of transpiration was estimated using the stem water under the stead-
state assumption. To check the applicability of steady-state assumption, we collected plant stem
water samples at different times and found that the isotopic composition of stem water is almost
constant between 11:00 to 13:00. Hence for ET partitioning, all the stem samples were collected
during this time interval.
6. For the rice season, we could collect samples only for one day, i.e. 26 October 2017. The
results suggested that on that day, the transpiration fraction in evapotranspiration was 85.6%.
102
7. For the wheat season, we collected multiple samples during different stages of crop growth.
The transpiration fraction in ET varied between 38% and 96% depending upon the crop growth
stage and availability of water. The water available for crop varied because of rainfall and
irrigation.
8. The comparison of transpiration fraction obtained from isotope fractionation and hydrometric
methods suggested that the results from the two methods are similar for most of the days.
However, there were differences on some days which were attributed touncertainties in the
estimation of temperature and relative humidity (as these variables could not be observed on
those days).
9. To find the contribution of nearby trees on ET partitioning, an experimentwas done on May 2,
2018 when the experimental field had no crop. Since there was no crop, we expected only soil
evaporation will contribute to ET. However, we found that transpiration fraction was around
15%, which was the contribution of nearby trees and vegetation.
103
7 LIMITATION AND FUTURE SCOPE
The study presented in this thesis has many limitations arising due to constraints in money,
time, technology and our understanding of the physical processes. Some of them are listed
below-
1) We were not able to collect sufficient number samples during the rice season.
2) A number of data points for the Keeling plots were less due to the functional limitation
of the experimental set-up. This can be improved if a field deployable Water Vapour
Isotope Analyser is used in future.
3) We have done our study assuming steady-state assumption but in actual case this
assumption may not always betrue. So non steady-state transpiration fraction can be
investigated in futurestudies.
4) We used tetrachloroethylene as displacement liquid in centrifugation. However,
systematic studies are needed to evaluate its performance. Future studies can also be
performed to find the effect of soil grain size, soil type, water content and speed of rotor
on extraction efficiency of this method.
If in future efficient Peltier element cold traps are available which can run on solar power, then
the sampling of atmospheric water can be automated.
104
A) APPENDIX
A.1 Time of Extraction
To find time required for complete removal of water from soil sample experiments were done.
50g oven dried soil sample was mixed with water (10%) of known isotopic composition. Water
samples were collected for different time durations and isotopic composition was found. From
Figure A.1it can be seen that after 60 minutes yield of obtained water is almost constant.
Difference of isotopic composition is also reducing. Therefore extraction time was selected as
80 minutes for experimental plot soil.
Figure A.1 Performance of cryogenic vacuum distillation apparatus
A.2 Comparison of performance of DFC and CVD
To compare DFC and CVD oven dried soil sample was mixed with lab water of known isotopic
composition. Once properly mixed water was extracted using both methods and isotopic
composition was compared. Figure A.2compares methods to extract soil water extraction using
displacement fluid centrifugation and cryogenic vacuum distillation. It has been observed that
DFC works well as compared to CVD. It has been observed that both methods resulted
fractionated sample.
105
Figure A.2 Comparison of performance of displacement fluid centrifugation and cryogenic vacuum distillation
A.3 Model for Data Imputation
Due to some unfortunate events temperature and relative humidity data for a few days were not
recorded. To fill missing values simple linear regression equation is used. .The model develops
a linear relationship between observed variables at AWS and AIS at different heights.
A.3.1 Model Development
A.3.1.1 Temperature
Table A.1contains the correlation of different AWS variables with temperature of AIS at all four
depths.
106
Table A.1 Correlation of different automatic weather station variables with temperature
S.N. Variables T1ais T2ais T3ais T4ais
1 T1aws 0.9803 0.9795 0.9754 0.9577
2 RH1aws -0.5947 -0.5941 -0.5944 -0.5589
3 T2aws 0.9799 0.9794 0.9758 0.9581
4 RH2aws -0.5981 -0.5975 -0.5981 -0.5625
5 Wind Speed -0.0149 -0.0079 0.0045 -0.0007
6 Avg. Wind Speed -0.0346 -0.0259 -0.0113 -0.0149
7 Max. Wind Speed -0.0567 -0.0439 -0.0364 -0.0450
8 Wind Direction -0.2701 -0.2674 -0.2535 -0.2328
9 Solar Global -0.0501 -0.0406 -0.0251 0.0073
10 Barometric Pressure -0.6214 -0.6152 -0.6235 -0.6009
11 SHF 1 0.6142 0.6095 0.6226 0.6347
107
Figure A.3 Graph showing relationship correlation of T1aws with all the temperature
From the aboveTable A.1and Figure A.3, it is clear that T1aws is best correlated with T1 of
AIS.
Table A.2 Different models for predicting T1ais

Variable Model Variables Equation 𝑹𝟐
M1 T T1ais = 0.955T1aws+1.629 0.9610

Temperature
M2 T and SHF T1ais = 0.9384T1aws+0.0089SHF+2.0163 0.9615
108
Table A.3 Models predicting T2ais, T3ais, and T4ais
S.N. Equation 𝑹𝟐
1 T1ais = (0.955±0.0.032)T1aws+(1.629±0.8844) 0.9610
2 T1ais = (0.9384±0.0403)T1aws+(0.0089±0.0132)SHF+2.0163±(1.1288) 0.9615
3 T2ais = (1.019±0.00685)T1ais-(0.4223±0.1924) 0.9984
4 T3ais = (1.002±0.01)T1ais+(0.4727±0.2875) 0.9962
5 T4ais = (1.008±0.0307)T1ais+(1.551±0.8587) 0.9677
Figure A.4to Figure A.7shows correlation between different variables predicted.
Figure A.4 Scatter plot between T1aws and T1ais
Value of R2 for M 1 was found to be 0.9610 if only temperature data of AWS was used as
input parameter.
109
110
Once the value of T1ais was calculated,then T2ais, T3ais and T4aisis calculated using equations
listed inTable A.4. From Figure A.4to Figure A.7it can be seen that the values of temperatures
are more scattered for T4ais.
M 2 is created using two input parameters (Tais and SHF). Figure A.8shows data used in M 2. It
was observed that there is a slight increase in the value of R2 was observed.
Figure A.8 Scatter plot between T1aws, T1ais and SHF
111
A.3.1.2Relative Humidity
Table A.4 contains the correlation of different AWS variables with relative humidity of AIS at
all four depths.
Table A.4 Correlations of different automatic weather station variables with relative humidity
S.N. Variables RH1ais RH2ais RH3ais RH4ais
1 T1aws -0.4791 -0.4577 -0.4427 -0.3792
2 RH1aws 0.9511 0.9466 0.9423 0.8691
3 T2aws -0.4773 -0.4566 -0.4424 -0.3815
4 RH2aws 0.9489 0.9450 0.9414 0.8720
5 Wind Speed 0.0339 0.0285 0.0125 -0.0276
6 Avg. Wind Speed 0.1478 0.1408 0.1168 0.0387
7 Max. Wind Speed 0.0771 0.0744 0.0571 0.0032
8 Wind Direction 0.0870 0.0794 0.0596 0.0187
9 Solar Global -0.2872 -0.2939 -0.3154 -0.3471
10 Barometric Pressure 0.3845 0.3723 0.3798 0.4186
11 SHF 1 -0.4657 -0.4676 -0.4745 -0.5390
112
Figure A.9 Graph showing relationship correlations of RH1aws with all the RH
FromTable A.4, T1aws and SHF have the + correlation with T1ais. While creating models, first
T1ais is predicted, and then different temperatures like T2ais, T3ais and T4ais are calculated
using different equation listed inTable A.6.
Two models M 1 and M 2 are developed using T, T& SHF data, respectively (Table A.5).
Table A.6contains the correlation of different AWS variables with temperature of AIS at all four
depths.Figure A.10toFigure A.13showcorrelation between different variables predicted.
Table A.5 Different models for predicting RH1ais

Variabl Mode Variables Equation 𝑹𝟐
e l
M1 RH RH1ais = 0.9592RH1aws+0.2806 0.9006
M2 RH, WS and P RH1ais = 0.9674RH1aws+0.21WS- 0.9615

RH
0.0783P+77.9975
Table A.6lists the different equations developed to predict RH.
113
Table A.6 Models predicting RH2ais, RH3ais, and RH4ais
S.N. Equation 𝑹𝟐
1 RH1ais = (0.9592±0.05185)RH1aws+(0.2806±0.28) 0.9006
2 RH1ais = 0.9674RH1aws+0.21WS-0.0783P+77.9975
3 RH2ais = (0.984±0.008)RH1ais+(0.4535±0.3605) 0.9976
4 RH3ais = (0.9464±0.015)RH1ais+(1.7±0.6712) 0.9912
5 RH4ais = (0.7603±0.0475)RH1ais+(11.23±2.1469) 0.8763
Figure A.10 Scatter plot between RH1aws and RH1
Figure A.11 Scatter plot between RH1aws and RH2ais
114
A.3.2 Testing of models for T and RH
Once we have different models to find the values of temperature and relative humidity, testing
of theperformance of models for unused data.
115
Figure A.14 Testing of different models for predicting temperature
When testing of both the models wasdone, it was observed that extra term did not significantly
change % error instead in some of the points error got increased as compared to model 1 (Figure
A.14). Therefore, further in our study, we will use model 1 for predicting temperature.
When testing of both the models wasdone, it was observed that extra term did not significantly
change % error instead in some of the cases error got increased as compared to model 1 (Figure
A.15). Therefore, further in our study, we will use model 1 for predicting relative humidity. In
most of the cases, model 2 has performed poorly with respect to model 1.
Figure A.15 Testing of different models for predicting relative humidity
116
Figure A.16 AWS data on 28 February
Figure A.17Windrose on 28 February
117
Figure A.18 Soil isotopic composition on 28 February
118
Figure A.20 Variation of air temperature with height Figure A.21 Variation of air relative humidity with
height
Figure A.22 Variation of the isotopic composition of Figure A.23 Variation of the isotopic composition of
119
Figure A.24 AWS data on 13 March
Figure A.25Windrose on 13 March
120
Figure A.26 Soil isotopic composition on 13 March
121
height
122
123
Figure A.34 Soil isotopic composition on 27 March Figure A.35 Soil isotopic composition on 27 March
height
124
125
Figure A.42 Soil isotopic composition on 31 March Figure A.43 Soil isotopic composition on 31 March
126
height
127
Figure A.48 AWS data on 8 April
Figure A.49Windrose on 8 April
128
Figure A.50Soil isotopic composition on 8 April Figure A.51 Soil isotopic composition on 8 April
129
height
130
131
132
Figure A.60 Soil isotopic composition on 13 April Figure A.61 Soil isotopic composition on 13 April
133
height
134
Processed vs True Isotopic Composition of Standard Samples
Figure A.66Processed vs true isotopic composition of standard samples for oxygen isotope
Figure A.67Processed vs true isotopic composition of standard samples for hydrogen isotope
135
REFERENCES
1. Aouade, G., Ezzahar, J., Amenzou, N., Er-Raki, S., Benkaddour, A., Khabba, S., &
Jarlan, L. (2016). Combining stable isotopes, Eddy Covariance system and
meteorological measurements for partitioning evapotranspiration, of winter wheat, into
soil evaporation and plant transpiration in a semi-arid region. Agricultural Water
Management, 177, 181-192.
2. Batley, G. E., & Giles, M. S. (1979). Solvent displacement of sediment interstitial
waters before trace metal analysis. Water Research, 13(9), 879-886.
3. Boast, C. W., & Robertson, T. M. (1982). A “Micro-Lysimeter” Method for
Determining Evaporation from Bare Soil: Description and Laboratory Evaluation 1. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 46(4), 689-696
4. Breiman, A., & Graur, D. (1995). Wheat evolution. Israel Journal of Plant
Sciences, 43(2), 85-98.
5. Cappa, C. D., Hendricks, M. B., DePaolo, D. J., & Cohen, R. C. (2003). Isotopic
fractionation of water during evaporation. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres, 108(D16).
6. Cronin, A. A., Prakash, A., Priya, S., & Coates, S. (2014). Water in India: situation and
prospects. Water Policy, 16(3), 425-441.
7. Clark, I and Fritz, P. (1997) Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology. CRC Press, New
York, 328 p.
8. Craig, H., & Gordon, L. I. (1965). Deuterium and oxygen 18 variations in the ocean and
the marine atmosphere.
9. Dalton, FN. 1987. Plant root water extraction studies using stable isotopes. In Structural
and Functional Aspects of Transport in Roots, Loughamn BC, Gašparíková O, and
Kolek J (eds). Springer: Netherlands, 151–155.
10. Di Bonito, M., Breward, N., Crout, N., Smith, B., & Young, S. (2008). Overview of
selected soil pore water extraction methods for the determination of potentially toxic
136
elements in contaminated soils: operational and technical aspects. In Environmental
Geochemistry (pp. 213-249).
11. Edmunds, W. M., & Bath, A. H. (1976). Centrifuge extraction and chemical analysis of
interstitial waters. Environmental Science & Technology, 10(5), 467-472.
12. Entwisle, D. C. (1993). New apparatus for pore fluid extraction from mudrocks for
geochemical analysis. Geochemistry of clay-pore fluid interactions., 365-388.
13. Harrold, L. L., Peters, D. B., Dreibelbis, F. R., & McGuinness, J. L. (1959).
Transpiration Evaluation of Corn Grown on a Plastic-Covered Lysimeter 1. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 23(2), 174-178.
14. Helliker, B. R., Roden, J. S., Cook, C., & Ehleringer, J. R. (2002). A rapid and precise
method for sampling and determining the oxygen isotope ratio of atmospheric water
vapor. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 16(10), 929-932.
15. Ingraham, N. L., & Shadel, C. (1992). A comparison of the toluene distillation and
vacuum/heat methods for extracting soil water for stable isotopic analysis. Journal of
Hydrology, 140(1-4), 371-387.
16. Japas, M. L., Fernandez-Prini, R., Horita, J., & Wesolowski, D. J. (1995). Fractioning
of isotopic species between coexisting liquid and vapor water: Complete temperature
range, including the asymptotic critical behavior. The Journal of Physical
Chemistry, 99(14), 5171-5175.
17. Jin, L., & Edmunds, W. M. (2010). A New Immiscible Displacing Fluid for Extracting
Interstitial Water from Unsaturated Sediments and Soils. Vadose Zone Journal, 9(3),
787-793.
18. Köhler, P., Schmitt, J., & Fischer, H. (2006). On the application and interpretation of
Keeling plots in paleo climate research? deciphering? 13 C of atmospheric CO 2
measured in ice cores. Biogeosciences Discussions, 3(3), 513-573.
19. Kinniburgh, D. G., & Miles, D. L. (1983). Extraction and chemical analysis of
interstitial water from soils and rocks. Environmental Science & Technology, 17(6),
362-368.
137
20. Kool, D., Ben‐Gal, A., Agam, N., Šimůnek, J., Heitman, J. L., Sauer, T. J., &
Lazarovitch, N. (2014). Spatial and diurnal below canopy evaporation in a desert
vineyard: Measurements and modeling. Water Resources Research, 50(8), 7035-7049.
21. Leaney, F. W., Osmond, C. B., Allison, G. B., & Ziegler, H. (1985). Hydrogen-isotope
composition of leaf water in C3 and C4 plants: its relationship to the hydrogen-isotope
composition of dry matter. Planta, 164(2), 215-220.
22. Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W., & Costa-Roberts, J. (2011). Climate trends and global
crop production since 1980. Science, 1204531.
23. Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D., Nösberger, J., & Ort, D. R. (2006). Food
for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2
concentrations. Science, 312(5782), 1918-1921.
24. McRae, G. J. (1980). A simple procedure for calculating atmospheric water vapor
concentration. Journal of the air pollution control association, 30(4), 394-394.
25. Mathieu, R., & Bariac, T. (1996). A numerical model for the simulation of stable
isotope profiles in drying soils. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres, 101(D7), 12685-12696.
26. Meehl, G. A., Stocker, T. F., Collins, W. D., Friedlingstein, P., Gaye, T., Gregory, J.
M., ... & Raper, S. C. (2007). Global climate projections.
27. Mubarak, A., & Olsen, R. A. (1976). Immiscible displacement of the soil solution by
centrifugation. Soil Science Society of America Journal.
28. Majoube, M. (1971). Splitting of oxygen 18 and deuterium between water and its
vapor. Journal of Physical Chemistry , 68 , 1423-1436.
29. Merlivat, L., & Coantic, M. (1975). Study of mass transfer at the air‐water interface by
an isotopic method. Journal of Geophysical Research, 80(24), 3455-3464.
30. Newman, B. D., Wilcox, B. P., Archer, S. R., Breshears, D. D., Dahm, C. N., Duffy, C.
J., ... & Vivoni, E. R. (2006). Ecohydrology of water‐limited environments: A scientific
vision. Water resources research, 42(6).
138
31. Orlowski, N., Frede, H. G., Brüggemann, N., & Breuer, L. (2013). Validation and
application of a cryogenic vacuum extraction system for soil and plant water extraction
for isotope analysis. Journal of Sensors and Sensor Systems, 2(2), 179-193.
32. Orlowski, N., Breuer, L., & McDonnell, J. J. (2016). Critical issues with cryogenic
extraction of soil water for stable isotope analysis. Ecohydrology, 9(1), 1-5.
33. Pataki, D. E., Ehleringer, J. R., Flanagan, L. B., Yakir, D., Bowling, D. R., Still, C. J., ...
& Berry, J. A. (2003). The application and interpretation of Keeling plots in terrestrial
carbon cycle research. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17(1).
34. Peters, L. I., & Yakir, D. (2010). A rapid method for the sampling of atmospheric water
vapour for isotopic analysis. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 24(1), 103-
108.
35. Protocol, M. (1987). Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone
layer. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 26, 128-136.
36. Ray, D. K., Gerber, J. S., MacDonald, G. K., & West, P. C. (2015). Climate variation
explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nature communications, 6, 5989.
37. Revesz, K., & Woods, P. H. (1990). A method to extract soil water for stable isotope
analysis. Journal of Hydrology, 115(1-4), 397-406.
38. Reynolds, B. (1984). A simple method for the extraction of soil solution by high speed
centrifugation. Plant and Soil, 78(3), 437-440.
39. Sakuratani, T. (1981). A heat balance method for measuring water flux in the stem of
intact plants. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology, 37(1), 9-17.
40. Sivanagaraju, P. (2006). Traditional and SRI methods of paddy Cultivation–a
comparative economic analysis (Doctoral dissertation, UAS, Dharwad).
41. Soderberg, K., Good, S. P., Wang, L., & Caylor, K. (2012). Stable isotopes of water
vapor in the vadose zone: A review of measurement and modeling techniques. Vadose
Zone Journal, 11(3).
42. Sutanto, S. J., Van den Hurk, B., Dirmeyer, P. A., Seneviratne, S. I., Röckmann, T.,
Trenberth, K. E., ... & Hoffmann, G. (2014). HESS Opinions" A perspective on isotope
139
versus non-isotope approaches to determine the contribution of transpiration to total
evaporation". Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 18(8), 2815-2827.
43. Von Ehhalt, D., & Knott, K. (1965). Kinetische isotopentrennung bei der verdampfung
von wasser. Tellus, 17(3), 389-397.
44. Wei, Z., Yoshimura, K., Okazaki, A., Kim, W., Liu, Z., & Yokoi, M. (2015).
Partitioning of evapotranspiration using high‐frequency water vapor isotopic
measurement over a rice paddy field. Water Resources Research, 51(5), 3716-3729.
45. Walker, G. K. (1984). Evaporation from wet soil surfaces beneath plant
canopies. Agricultural and forest meteorology, 33(2-3), 259-264.
46. Weaver, C. B. (2014). Pore Water Extraction for Unsaturated Zone Isotope Research:
An Investigation using an Immiscible Displacement Fluid and a Centrifuge.
47. Wang, X. F., & Yakir, D. (2000). Using stable isotopes of water in evapotranspiration
studies. Hydrological Processes, 14(8), 1407-1421.
48. West, A. G., Patrickson, S. J., & Ehleringer, J. R. (2006). Water extraction times for
plant and soil materials used in stable isotope analysis. Rapid Communications in Mass
Spectrometry: An International Journal Devoted to the Rapid Dissemination of
Up‐to‐the‐Minute Research in Mass Spectrometry, 20(8), 1317-1321.
49. Whelan, B. R., & Barrow, N. J. (1980). A Study of a Method for Displacing Soil
Solution by Centrifuging with an Immiscible Liquid 1. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 9(2), 315-319.
50. Williams, D. G., Cable, W., Hultine, K., Hoedjes, J. C. B., Yepez, E. A., Simonneaux,
V., ... & Hartogensis, O. K. (2004). Evapotranspiration components determined by
stable isotope, sap flow and eddy covariance techniques. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology, 125(3-4), 241-258.
51. Wu, Y., Du, T., Ding, R., Tong, L., Li, S., & Wang, L. (2013). Multiple methods to
partition evapotranspiration in a maize field. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 18(1), 139-
149.
140
52. Yadav, R., Singh, S. S., Jain, N., pratap Singh, G., & Prabhu, K. V. (2010). Wheat
production in India: Technologies to face future challenges. Journal of Agricultural
Science, 2(2), 164.
53. Yakir, D., & da SL Sternberg, L. (2000). The use of stable isotopes to study ecosystem
gas exchange. Oecologia, 123(3), 297-311.
Zhang, S., Wen, X., Wang, J., Yu, G., & Sun, X. (2010). The use of stable isotopes to
partition evapotranspiration fluxes into evaporation and transpiration. Acta Ecologica
Sinica, 30(4), 201-209
54. Zhang, Y., Shen, Y., Sun, H., & Gates, J. B. (2011). Evapotranspiration and its
partitioning in an irrigated winter wheat field: a combined isotopic and
micrometeorologic approach. Journal of Hydrology, 408(3-4), 203-211.
141
BIBLIOGRAPHY OR GENERAL REFERENCES
1. Griffis, T. J., Lee, X., Baker, J. M., Billmark, K., Schultz, N., Erickson, M., ... & Hu, N.
(2011). Oxygen isotope composition of evapotranspiration and its relation to C4
photosynthetic discrimination. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Biogeosciences, 116(G1).
2. Hsieh, J. C., Chadwick, O. A., Kelly, E. F., & Savin, S. M. (1998). Oxygen isotopic
composition of soil water: quantifying evaporation and transpiration. Geoderma, 82(1-
3), 269-293.
3. Newberry, S. L., Nelson, D. B., & Kahmen, A. (2017). Cryogenic vacuum artifacts do
not affect plant water‐uptake studies using stable isotope analysis. Ecohydrology, 10(8),
e1892.
4. Wang, L., Good, S. P., Caylor, K. K., & Cernusak, L. A. (2012). Direct quantification
of leaf transpiration isotopic composition. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 154,
127-135.
5. Zhao, L., Xiao, H., Zhou, J., Wang, L., Cheng, G., Zhou, M., ... & McCabe, M. F.
(2011). Detailed assessment of isotope ratio infrared spectroscopy and isotope ratio
mass spectrometry for the stable isotope analysis of plant and soil waters. Rapid
Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 25(20), 3071-3082.
142

Evapotranspiration Partitioning Using: A Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Evapotranspiration Partitioning Using: A Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evapotranspiration Partitioning Using: A Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evapotranspiration Partitioning using

Stable Isotope Fractionation

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment

the Requirements For the Degree of

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR

A major challenge in ecohydrological studies is evapotranspiration (ET) partitioning,

which limits our understanding of soil-plant-atmospheric continuum. In this study, ET

the estimation of temperature and relative humidity.

Foremost, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my thesis supervisor Dr Shivam

a memorable experience to work under his supervision.

family for standing with me every time.

Thank you IIT Kanpur…

Figure 1.3 Isotopes of hydrogen.................................................................................................... 6

Figure 1.5 Variation of Rice and Wheat Yield in India ................................................................ 9

taken from standing sub-committee report of MoWR) ............................................................... 10

Figure 2.1 Craig- Gordon model ................................................................................................. 13

trap (Peters and Yakir, 2009) ...................................................................................................... 19

Figure 2.4 Squeezer machine (Banito et al., 2005) ..................................................................... 22

Figure 2.6 Soil water extraction setup (Dalton, 1989) ................................................................ 26

Figure 2.7 Cryogenic vacuum distillation (West et al., 2006) .................................................... 26

Figure 2.8 Cryogenic vacuum distillation (Orlowski et al., 2013) .............................................. 27

Figure 3.1 Study area .................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 3.2 Variation of average monthly temperature at study site ............................................ 30

Figure 3.6 Windrose diagram with average wind speed ............................................................. 32

Figure 3.7 Windrose diagram with maximum wind speed ......................................................... 32

Figure 3.8 Average dry density at the study site ......................................................................... 32

Figure 3.11 Rice cultivation procedure ....................................................................................... 34

Figure 3.12 Wheat cultivation procedure .................................................................................... 36

Figure 4.1 Working principle of Peltier element......................................................................... 40

there was no air circulated........................................................................................................... 42

Figure 4.5 On field picture of air intake structure ....................................................................... 43

Figure 4.6 Atmospheric water vapour sample collection ............................................................ 44

Figure 4.8 Working principle of displacement liquid centrifugation method ............................. 46

isotopic composition at different values of uncertainty .............................................................. 54

Figure 4.14 Variation of uncertainty in transpiration fraction with transpiration fraction at

different values of uncertainty .................................................................................................... 55

different values of uncertainty .................................................................................................... 56

temperature at different values of uncertainty............................................................................. 58

temperature at different values of uncertainty............................................................................. 58

in temperature at different values of relative humidity ............................................................... 60

in relative humidity with different values of n ............................................................................ 61

Figure 5.1 AWS data on 26 October, 2017 ................................................................................. 62

Figure 5.2 Wind rose for 26 October, 2017 ................................................................................ 63

Figure 5.5 Keeling Plot for 26 October, 2017 ............................................................................. 65

rice and wheat season) ................................................................................................................ 67

with the standard deviation ......................................................................................................... 68

topmost level at 11 am ................................................................................................................ 69

with a standard deviation ............................................................................................................ 71

Figure 5.12 Comparison of the isotopic composition of soil water at 0- 10 cm and 10 - 20 cm 72

Figure 5.14 AWS data on 17 February, 2018 ............................................................................. 74

Figure 5.15 Windrose on 17 February ........................................................................................ 75

Figure 5.16 Soil water isotopic composition of Deuterium on 17 February ............................... 75

Figure 5.17 Soil water isotopic composition on 𝑂18 on 17 February ....................................... 75

Figure 5.18 Variation of air temperature with height.................................................................. 76

Figure 5.19 Variation of relative humidity with height .............................................................. 76

Figure 5.22 Keeling plot on 17 February, 2018 ......................................................................... 77