Climatic controls on leaf wax hydrogen isotope ratios in terrestrial and marine sediments along a hyperarid to humid gradient

Gaviria Lugo, Nestor; Läuchli, Charlotte; Wittmann, Hella; Bernhard, Anne; Frings, Patrick; Mohtadi, Mahyar; Rach, Oliver; Sachse, Dirk

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831

Preprints

04 May 2023

| 04 May 2023

Climatic controls on leaf wax hydrogen isotope ratios in terrestrial and marine sediments along a hyperarid to humid gradient

Nestor Gaviria Lugo, Charlotte Läuchli, Hella Wittmann, Anne Bernhard, Patrick Frings, Mahyar Mohtadi, Oliver Rach, and Dirk Sachse

Abstract. The hydrogen isotope composition of leaf wax biomarkers (δ²H_wax) is a valuable tool for reconstructing continental paleohydrology, as it serves as a proxy for the hydrogen isotope composition of precipitation (δ²H_pre). To yield robust palaeohydrological reconstructions using δ²H_wax in marine archives, it is necessary to examine the impacts of regional climate on δ²H_wax and assess the similarity between marine sedimentary δ²H_wax and the source of continental δ²H_wax. Here, we examined an aridity gradient from hyperarid to humid along the Chilean coast. We sampled sediments at the outlets of rivers draining into the Pacific, soils within catchments and marine surface sediments adjacent to the outlets of the studied rivers and analyzed the relationship between climatic variables and δ²H_wax values. We find that apparent fractionation between leaf waxes and source water is relatively constant in humid/semiarid regions (average: −121 ‰). However, it becomes less negative in hyperarid regions (average: −86 ‰) as a result of evapotranspirative processes affecting soil and leaf water ²H enrichment. We also observed that along strong aridity gradients, the ²H enrichment of δ²H_wax follows a non-linear relationship with water content and water flux variables, driven by strong soil evaporation and plant transpiration. Furthermore, our results indicated that δ²H_wax values in marine surface sediments largely reflect δ²H_wax values from the continent, confirming the robustness of marine δ²H_wax records for paleohydrological reconstructions along the Chilean margin. These findings also highlight the importance of considering the effects of hyperaridity in the interpretation of δ²H_wax values and pave the way for more quantitative paleohydrological reconstructions using δ²H_wax.

Received: 26 Apr 2023 – Discussion started: 04 May 2023

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 4135 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (4135 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

07 Nov 2023

Climatic controls on leaf wax hydrogen isotope ratios in terrestrial and marine sediments along a hyperarid-to-humid gradient

Nestor Gaviria-Lugo, Charlotte Läuchli, Hella Wittmann, Anne Bernhardt, Patrick Frings, Mahyar Mohtadi, Oliver Rach, and Dirk Sachse

Biogeosciences, 20, 4433–4453, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-4433-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-4433-2023, 2023

Short summary

Nestor Gaviria Lugo, Charlotte Läuchli, Hella Wittmann, Anne Bernhard, Patrick Frings, Mahyar Mohtadi, Oliver Rach, and Dirk Sachse

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-831', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jun 2023

Overview:
This manuscript presents new d2Hwax data from soils, river and marine sediments along the Chilean coast. The results show that there is a constant apparent fractionation in humid regions, whereas in arid regions evapotranspiration contributes to the d2Hwax signal. The d2Hwax of C29/C31 is shown to also be related to the aridity gradient, and potentially can reflect vegetation type changes. d2Hwax of marine sediments reflect the terrestrial d2Hwax input.
Review:
This manuscript is very interesting, provides novel data and important global insights and is structured and written very well. I congratulate the authors for a well-presented paper. The MS presents novel and systematic data, combined with a wide array of global databases (climate, vegetation etc.) and an updated d2Hwax database. The manuscript is particularly interesting in its assessment of the evaporation effect on d2Hwax in arid regions, and provides a global perspective on this process. The modeling and model parametrization are explained very well and lay out the method for utilizing this method in other places.
I recommend publishing the paper pending some minor and textual comments.

Minor:
L116. Please explain how you calculate the uncertainty of the d2H values (e.g., average of duplicates? long-term error? error of the A6? etc..).
L297. This correlation is for soils and lakes combined?
L350. Why not present the annual average from each site compared to the OIPC data? Or, maybe just average the growing season months? In addition, it would be useful if you could provide the average residuals and standard deviation of the residuals (what is the difference between measured and OIPC data in permil).
L498 – 519. The statistical test shows that the marine, river and soils d2H overlap and are not statistically different from one another. However, Fig. 7 shows that marine sediments are, on average, heavier from rivers and soils and don’t really overlap at the 1 sigma level. Is this of importance? The Peru current flows northward, so ocean mixing would cause the opposite effect. Maybe higher contribution from coastal sediments (that should be heavier than the rivers based on Fig. 1c)?

Textual comments:
L33. Add the abbreviation d2H_wax (instead of line 37)
L65. Notation d13C X2
L112. Notation H3+
L181. The wording here is not so clear (what is the purpose of this test? Testing the similarity of two populations?). Can you please rephrase.
L198. Reference format
L199. missing “back to isotopic ratios”
L273. Table 1 - IGSN not defined
Table 2. df, is this the same as the number of samples used for the regression? If so, I think number of samples is a more straightforward definition of this.
L475. Should be ‘explained’ not ‘exposed’
L547. Maybe ‘also’ instead of ‘more strongly’

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Nestor Gaviria-Lugo, 29 Jul 2023
  
  Thank you for your positive and constructive comments on our submitted manuscript. Attached you find a point-by-point response to each of the comments and revisions suggested.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-AC1
  - EC1: 'Reply on AC1', Todd A. Ehlers, 21 Aug 2023
    
    I have read through the manuscript, the reviewer's comments, and the author's response to reviewers. The original submission of this manuscript was well prepared, and the figures are clear and relevant to the arguments made. Both reviewers' comments on the manuscript were very constructive, thorough, and positive. They both recommend minor revisions (mostly clarifications). None of the reviewer's comments highlighted fatal flaws in the studies, but rather clarifications around caveats associated with the data interpretation, analysis, and the presentation of uncertainties.
    The authors have done a very good and thorough job responding to comments - and I thank them for the clarity in how they presented their response and edits made to the main text. All concerns raised have been addressed and the end result is a nice piece of work. I see no need for an additional round of reviews of this manuscript, and the authors should submit a revised version that includes the changes they mention in their response to reviews.
    The original (and revised) text are well suited for this special issue.
    -Todd Ehlers
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-EC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-831', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jun 2023
The manuscript contains a dataset of δ²H_wax values from different terrestrial, riverine and marine sediment samples across environments with different aridity indexes in Chile. These δ²H_wax values are accompanied by δ²H values of precipitation, and a large set of different environmental characteristics, with the aim of identifying how well sediment derived δ²H_wax values track δ²H values of precipitation, and with that provide new insights into the validity of using δ²H_wax values for paleoclimatic reconstructions. The results show that on a global scale, the obtained δ²H_wax values follow δ²H values of precipitation quite well. However, within the dataset itself, across the aridity gradient, other environmental drivers also appear to become important in shaping δ²H_wax values. The latter even seems to differ for δ²H values of the two studied leaf wax n-alkane C-chain lengths, possibly related to changes in vegetation types. Lastly, the δ²H_wax values found in marine sediment samples reflect the δ²H_wax values from the terrestrial and riverine sediments.
I enjoyed reading the manuscript, which is written well with clear explanations of objectives and implications. The data presented here provides interesting new insight into how well δ²H_wax values track δ²H values of precipitation on a global scale, but also considers in more detail deviation of δ²H_wax from the expected δ²H_pre pattern by different drivers, like changes in evapotranspiration and vegetation type, along the aridity gradient. I think this is a valuable new approach to gain more insights into the drivers of δ²H_wax values. Although I am not an expert in the modelling approach and therefore cannot judge its accuracy very well, the explanation of the model was clear enough that I could follow what was being done. I only have a few minor comments that may help further strengthen the manuscript, and I think this paper is suitable for publication after these minor points have been addressed.

Minor comments:
Although changes in δ²H_wax values as an effect of differences in vegetation type are discussed in section 4.2, it is not addressed in the manuscript introduction. In L47-L59 I believe it might be valuable to already introduce the possible effects of species variation on δ²H_wax along the aridity gradient where changes in plant community composition may occur. Additionally, for the discussion section 4.2, it could be considered that even within taxonomically/physiologically constrained groups like herbaceous plants or eudicots, species differences in ε_wax/pre can still be very large (Chikaraishi et al., 2004, Phytochem.; Gao et al., 2014, PLoS ONE; He et al., 2020, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta; Baan et al., 2023, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta). This complicates the interpretation of the effect of the broad term ‘vegetation type’ changes on δ²H_waxvalues and requires more detailed knowledge on the integration of n-alkanes and their δ²H values from different plant species into the sediment (as you state in L540).

Even though in Fig. 2A & B all of the datapoints from the Chilean dataset would be considered to fall within error among the datapoints in the global dataset (i.e. roughly falls on the expected line in a global δ²H_pre gradient), it seems that once the Chilean dataset is isolated, there is no longer a strong relationship between δ²H_wax and δ²H_pre Can the authors comment on the relation between δ²H_wax and δ²H_pre within the Chilean dataset? From Fig. 2A & B it looks like this relationship is not very strong, and if this is the case, could this be an effect of uncertainty in δ²H_pre values, or an effect of additional environmental/biological control on δ²H_wax values? As a result of this, what magnitude of error could be introduced when reconstructing δ²H_pre from δ²H_wax for a given site that may be subject to additional environmentally/biologically induced variation in δ²H_wax values over time? I suppose the latter is difficult to answer quantitatively, but perhaps the authors can comment on this. Overall, I find the different comparisons made in Fig. 2 very interesting, but it might be valuable to clear up the interpretation and implications of the results on different spatial scales.

L527-L533: The results presented suggest that changes in the hydrological and vegetation characteristics of a given study site over time (i.e. irrespective of its current aridity state) can introduce some error in the reconstructed δ²H_pre from sedimentary δ²H_wax values, which is somewhat in contrast to the statement made in L527. As such, the continuation of this paragraph seems to be slightly opposing the initial statement, as hydrological changes may not be reflected in δ²H_pre Perhaps this paragraph could be slightly revised to provide a better overview of the nuances required for paleoclimate reconstructions from δ²H_wax values.

Phrasing/textual comments:
L30: Italicize ‘n’ in ‘n-alkanes’. This is not consistently done throughout the manuscript.
L52: although ‘less negative’ is not incorrect, I find that this can be a somewhat confusing term. More straightforward referencing between different δ and ε values could simply be ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ than (in this specific case ‘higher’). Also goes for further on in the manuscript (e.g. L286 and L287).
L65: superscript of ‘13’ and subscript of ‘wax’ should be fixed.
L93: Was the internal standard also used as a recovery standard to account for losses during sample processing? This is not mentioned later in the paragraph regarding n-alkane quantification (L107).
L198: Reference format: should not be in separate brackets?
L445: ‘They’ refers to herbaceous plants? ‘Deeper rooting depths’ relative to what (other vegetation types or with aridity, I presume the latter, but it is not entirely clear from this sentence)?
L493-494: ‘…, as they integrate over larger regions.’ seems a bit confusing at the end of the sentence since ‘… as they average both vegetation and climatic variability to a greater extent …’ is already mentioned before (i.e. last part of the sentence is redundant I think). Perhaps change to something like: ‘… as they integrate both vegetation and climatic variability over larger regions than soil samples.’
Table 4: This table seems somewhat redundant, as the p values are already shown in Fig. 7. The table itself could perhaps be moved to a supplemental info document or somehow processed into the text, if manuscript length would be in issue.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Nestor Gaviria-Lugo, 29 Jul 2023
  
  Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and the constructive comments. Attached you find a point-by-point response to each of the comments and revisions suggested.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-AC2
  - EC2: 'Reply on AC2', Todd A. Ehlers, 21 Aug 2023
    
    I have read through the manuscript, the reviewer's comments, and the author's response to reviewers. The original submission of this manuscript was well prepared, and the figures are clear and relevant to the arguments made. Both reviewers' comments on the manuscript were very constructive, thorough, and positive. They both recommend minor revisions (mostly clarifications). None of the reviewer's comments highlighted fatal flaws in the studies, but rather clarifications around caveats associated with the data interpretation, analysis, and the presentation of uncertainties.
    The authors have done a very good and thorough job responding to comments - and I thank them for the clarity in how they presented their response and edits made to the main text. All concerns raised have been addressed and the end result is a nice piece of work. I see no need for an additional round of reviews of this manuscript, and the authors should submit a revised version that includes the changes they mention in their response to reviews.
    The original (and revised) text are well suited for this special issue.
    -Todd Ehlers
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-EC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-831', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jun 2023

Overview:
This manuscript presents new d2Hwax data from soils, river and marine sediments along the Chilean coast. The results show that there is a constant apparent fractionation in humid regions, whereas in arid regions evapotranspiration contributes to the d2Hwax signal. The d2Hwax of C29/C31 is shown to also be related to the aridity gradient, and potentially can reflect vegetation type changes. d2Hwax of marine sediments reflect the terrestrial d2Hwax input.
Review:
This manuscript is very interesting, provides novel data and important global insights and is structured and written very well. I congratulate the authors for a well-presented paper. The MS presents novel and systematic data, combined with a wide array of global databases (climate, vegetation etc.) and an updated d2Hwax database. The manuscript is particularly interesting in its assessment of the evaporation effect on d2Hwax in arid regions, and provides a global perspective on this process. The modeling and model parametrization are explained very well and lay out the method for utilizing this method in other places.
I recommend publishing the paper pending some minor and textual comments.

Minor:
L116. Please explain how you calculate the uncertainty of the d2H values (e.g., average of duplicates? long-term error? error of the A6? etc..).
L297. This correlation is for soils and lakes combined?
L350. Why not present the annual average from each site compared to the OIPC data? Or, maybe just average the growing season months? In addition, it would be useful if you could provide the average residuals and standard deviation of the residuals (what is the difference between measured and OIPC data in permil).
L498 – 519. The statistical test shows that the marine, river and soils d2H overlap and are not statistically different from one another. However, Fig. 7 shows that marine sediments are, on average, heavier from rivers and soils and don’t really overlap at the 1 sigma level. Is this of importance? The Peru current flows northward, so ocean mixing would cause the opposite effect. Maybe higher contribution from coastal sediments (that should be heavier than the rivers based on Fig. 1c)?

Textual comments:
L33. Add the abbreviation d2H_wax (instead of line 37)
L65. Notation d13C X2
L112. Notation H3+
L181. The wording here is not so clear (what is the purpose of this test? Testing the similarity of two populations?). Can you please rephrase.
L198. Reference format
L199. missing “back to isotopic ratios”
L273. Table 1 - IGSN not defined
Table 2. df, is this the same as the number of samples used for the regression? If so, I think number of samples is a more straightforward definition of this.
L475. Should be ‘explained’ not ‘exposed’
L547. Maybe ‘also’ instead of ‘more strongly’

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Nestor Gaviria-Lugo, 29 Jul 2023
  
  Thank you for your positive and constructive comments on our submitted manuscript. Attached you find a point-by-point response to each of the comments and revisions suggested.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-AC1
  - EC1: 'Reply on AC1', Todd A. Ehlers, 21 Aug 2023
    
    I have read through the manuscript, the reviewer's comments, and the author's response to reviewers. The original submission of this manuscript was well prepared, and the figures are clear and relevant to the arguments made. Both reviewers' comments on the manuscript were very constructive, thorough, and positive. They both recommend minor revisions (mostly clarifications). None of the reviewer's comments highlighted fatal flaws in the studies, but rather clarifications around caveats associated with the data interpretation, analysis, and the presentation of uncertainties.
    The authors have done a very good and thorough job responding to comments - and I thank them for the clarity in how they presented their response and edits made to the main text. All concerns raised have been addressed and the end result is a nice piece of work. I see no need for an additional round of reviews of this manuscript, and the authors should submit a revised version that includes the changes they mention in their response to reviews.
    The original (and revised) text are well suited for this special issue.
    -Todd Ehlers
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-EC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-831', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jun 2023
The manuscript contains a dataset of δ²H_wax values from different terrestrial, riverine and marine sediment samples across environments with different aridity indexes in Chile. These δ²H_wax values are accompanied by δ²H values of precipitation, and a large set of different environmental characteristics, with the aim of identifying how well sediment derived δ²H_wax values track δ²H values of precipitation, and with that provide new insights into the validity of using δ²H_wax values for paleoclimatic reconstructions. The results show that on a global scale, the obtained δ²H_wax values follow δ²H values of precipitation quite well. However, within the dataset itself, across the aridity gradient, other environmental drivers also appear to become important in shaping δ²H_wax values. The latter even seems to differ for δ²H values of the two studied leaf wax n-alkane C-chain lengths, possibly related to changes in vegetation types. Lastly, the δ²H_wax values found in marine sediment samples reflect the δ²H_wax values from the terrestrial and riverine sediments.
I enjoyed reading the manuscript, which is written well with clear explanations of objectives and implications. The data presented here provides interesting new insight into how well δ²H_wax values track δ²H values of precipitation on a global scale, but also considers in more detail deviation of δ²H_wax from the expected δ²H_pre pattern by different drivers, like changes in evapotranspiration and vegetation type, along the aridity gradient. I think this is a valuable new approach to gain more insights into the drivers of δ²H_wax values. Although I am not an expert in the modelling approach and therefore cannot judge its accuracy very well, the explanation of the model was clear enough that I could follow what was being done. I only have a few minor comments that may help further strengthen the manuscript, and I think this paper is suitable for publication after these minor points have been addressed.

Minor comments:
Although changes in δ²H_wax values as an effect of differences in vegetation type are discussed in section 4.2, it is not addressed in the manuscript introduction. In L47-L59 I believe it might be valuable to already introduce the possible effects of species variation on δ²H_wax along the aridity gradient where changes in plant community composition may occur. Additionally, for the discussion section 4.2, it could be considered that even within taxonomically/physiologically constrained groups like herbaceous plants or eudicots, species differences in ε_wax/pre can still be very large (Chikaraishi et al., 2004, Phytochem.; Gao et al., 2014, PLoS ONE; He et al., 2020, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta; Baan et al., 2023, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta). This complicates the interpretation of the effect of the broad term ‘vegetation type’ changes on δ²H_waxvalues and requires more detailed knowledge on the integration of n-alkanes and their δ²H values from different plant species into the sediment (as you state in L540).

Even though in Fig. 2A & B all of the datapoints from the Chilean dataset would be considered to fall within error among the datapoints in the global dataset (i.e. roughly falls on the expected line in a global δ²H_pre gradient), it seems that once the Chilean dataset is isolated, there is no longer a strong relationship between δ²H_wax and δ²H_pre Can the authors comment on the relation between δ²H_wax and δ²H_pre within the Chilean dataset? From Fig. 2A & B it looks like this relationship is not very strong, and if this is the case, could this be an effect of uncertainty in δ²H_pre values, or an effect of additional environmental/biological control on δ²H_wax values? As a result of this, what magnitude of error could be introduced when reconstructing δ²H_pre from δ²H_wax for a given site that may be subject to additional environmentally/biologically induced variation in δ²H_wax values over time? I suppose the latter is difficult to answer quantitatively, but perhaps the authors can comment on this. Overall, I find the different comparisons made in Fig. 2 very interesting, but it might be valuable to clear up the interpretation and implications of the results on different spatial scales.

L527-L533: The results presented suggest that changes in the hydrological and vegetation characteristics of a given study site over time (i.e. irrespective of its current aridity state) can introduce some error in the reconstructed δ²H_pre from sedimentary δ²H_wax values, which is somewhat in contrast to the statement made in L527. As such, the continuation of this paragraph seems to be slightly opposing the initial statement, as hydrological changes may not be reflected in δ²H_pre Perhaps this paragraph could be slightly revised to provide a better overview of the nuances required for paleoclimate reconstructions from δ²H_wax values.

Phrasing/textual comments:
L30: Italicize ‘n’ in ‘n-alkanes’. This is not consistently done throughout the manuscript.
L52: although ‘less negative’ is not incorrect, I find that this can be a somewhat confusing term. More straightforward referencing between different δ and ε values could simply be ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ than (in this specific case ‘higher’). Also goes for further on in the manuscript (e.g. L286 and L287).
L65: superscript of ‘13’ and subscript of ‘wax’ should be fixed.
L93: Was the internal standard also used as a recovery standard to account for losses during sample processing? This is not mentioned later in the paragraph regarding n-alkane quantification (L107).
L198: Reference format: should not be in separate brackets?
L445: ‘They’ refers to herbaceous plants? ‘Deeper rooting depths’ relative to what (other vegetation types or with aridity, I presume the latter, but it is not entirely clear from this sentence)?
L493-494: ‘…, as they integrate over larger regions.’ seems a bit confusing at the end of the sentence since ‘… as they average both vegetation and climatic variability to a greater extent …’ is already mentioned before (i.e. last part of the sentence is redundant I think). Perhaps change to something like: ‘… as they integrate both vegetation and climatic variability over larger regions than soil samples.’
Table 4: This table seems somewhat redundant, as the p values are already shown in Fig. 7. The table itself could perhaps be moved to a supplemental info document or somehow processed into the text, if manuscript length would be in issue.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Nestor Gaviria-Lugo, 29 Jul 2023
  
  Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and the constructive comments. Attached you find a point-by-point response to each of the comments and revisions suggested.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-AC2
  - EC2: 'Reply on AC2', Todd A. Ehlers, 21 Aug 2023
    
    I have read through the manuscript, the reviewer's comments, and the author's response to reviewers. The original submission of this manuscript was well prepared, and the figures are clear and relevant to the arguments made. Both reviewers' comments on the manuscript were very constructive, thorough, and positive. They both recommend minor revisions (mostly clarifications). None of the reviewer's comments highlighted fatal flaws in the studies, but rather clarifications around caveats associated with the data interpretation, analysis, and the presentation of uncertainties.
    The authors have done a very good and thorough job responding to comments - and I thank them for the clarity in how they presented their response and edits made to the main text. All concerns raised have been addressed and the end result is a nice piece of work. I see no need for an additional round of reviews of this manuscript, and the authors should submit a revised version that includes the changes they mention in their response to reviews.
    The original (and revised) text are well suited for this special issue.
    -Todd Ehlers
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-831-EC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (21 Aug 2023) by Todd A. Ehlers

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (22 Aug 2023) by Sara Vicca (Co-editor-in-chief)

AR by Nestor Gaviria-Lugo on behalf of the Authors (22 Aug 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (19 Sep 2023) by Todd A. Ehlers

ED: Publish as is (21 Sep 2023) by Sara Vicca (Co-editor-in-chief)

AR by Nestor Gaviria-Lugo on behalf of the Authors (26 Sep 2023)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

07 Nov 2023

Climatic controls on leaf wax hydrogen isotope ratios in terrestrial and marine sediments along a hyperarid-to-humid gradient

Nestor Gaviria-Lugo, Charlotte Läuchli, Hella Wittmann, Anne Bernhardt, Patrick Frings, Mahyar Mohtadi, Oliver Rach, and Dirk Sachse

Biogeosciences, 20, 4433–4453, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-4433-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-4433-2023, 2023

Short summary

Nestor Gaviria Lugo, Charlotte Läuchli, Hella Wittmann, Anne Bernhard, Patrick Frings, Mahyar Mohtadi, Oliver Rach, and Dirk Sachse

IGSN

Quebrada Salitrosa river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10013

Rio Pan de Azucar river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10000

Rio Salado river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10012

Quebrada Pto Flamenco river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000S

Rio Copiapo river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10014

Quebrada Totoral river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000T

Rio Huasco river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10015

Quebrada Los Choros river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000U

Rio Elqui river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10016

Rio Limari river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10017

Rio Choapa river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10018

Quebrada La Campana river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10019

Rio Aconcagua river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000V

Rio Maipo river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1001A

Rio Maule river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000W

Rio Chovellen river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1001C

Rio Itata river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000X

Rio BioBio river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1001D

Estero Los Gringos river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000Y

Rio Imperial river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000Z

Rio Tolten river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1001B

Rio Cruces river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10010

Rio CalleCalle river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1001E

Rio Bueno river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1001F

Rio Llico river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG10011

Rio Maullin river sediment Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1001G

Choros soil Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000F

Talca soil A Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000R

Talca soil B Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000J

Cajon del Maipo soil Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000G

SanAntonio-Maipo soil Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000K

Rapel soil Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000L

BioBio soil A Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000E

BioBio soil B Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000M

CalleCalle soil Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000N

Bueno soil Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000P

Maullin soil Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000H

Maullin soil Nestor Gaviria-Lugo GFNG1000Q

Nestor Gaviria Lugo, Charlotte Läuchli, Hella Wittmann, Anne Bernhard, Patrick Frings, Mahyar Mohtadi, Oliver Rach, and Dirk Sachse

Viewed

Total article views: 570 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
392	148	30	570	12	12

HTML: 392
PDF: 148
XML: 30
Total: 570
BibTeX: 12
EndNote: 12

Views and downloads (calculated since 04 May 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2023	113	42	7	162
Jun 2023	69	29	7	105
Jul 2023	60	26	5	91
Aug 2023	60	17	5	82
Sep 2023	39	14	1	54
Oct 2023	40	19	4	63
Nov 2023	11	1	1	13
Dec 2023	0
Jan 2024	0
Feb 2024	0
Mar 2024	0
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 May 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2023	113	42	7	162
Jun 2023	69	29	7	105
Jul 2023	60	26	5	91
Aug 2023	60	17	5	82
Sep 2023	39	14	1	54
Oct 2023	40	19	4	63
Nov 2023	11	1	1	13
Dec 2023	0
Jan 2024	0
Feb 2024	0
Mar 2024	0
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 643 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 643 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 02 Sep 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (4135 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We analyzed how leaf wax hydrogen isotopes in continental and marine sediments respond to climate along one of the strongest aridity gradients in the world, from hyperarid to humid along the Chilean coast Chile. We found that under extreme aridity, the relationship between hydrogen isotopes in waxes and climate is non-linear, suggesting that we should be careful when reconstructing past hydrological changes using leaf wax hydrogen isotopes to avoid overestimating how much climate has changed.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0