Methodological study demonstrates robust source fraction estimations across diverse Earth surface environments, highlighting improved quantification of end-member uncertainty.
The implementation of isotopic tracers as constraints on source contributions has become increasingly relevant to understanding Earth surface processes. Interpretation of these isotopic tracers has become more accessible with the development of Bayesian Monte Carlo (BMC) mixing models, which allow uncertainty in mixing end‐members and provide methodology for systems with multicomponent mixing. This study presents an open source multiple isotope BMC mixing model that is applicable to Earth surface environments with sources exhibiting distinct end‐member isotopic signatures. Our model is first applied to new δ 18 O and δD measurements from the Athabasca Glacier, which showed expected seasonal melt evolution trends and vigorously assessed the statistical relevance of the resulting fraction estimations. To highlight the broad applicability of our model to a variety of Earth surface environments and relevant isotopic systems, we expand our model to two additional case studies: deriving melt sources from δ 18 O, δD , and 222 Rn measurements of Greenland Ice Sheet bulk water samples and assessing nutrient sources from ɛ Nd and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr measurements of Hawaiian soil cores. The model produces results for the Greenland Ice Sheet and Hawaiian soil data sets that are consistent with the originally published fractional contribution estimates. The advantage of this method is that it quantifies the error induced by variability in the end‐member compositions, unrealized by the models previously applied to the above case studies. Results from all three case studies demonstrate the broad applicability of this statistical BMC isotopic mixing model for estimating source contribution fractions in a variety of Earth surface systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arendt et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: