Ryan B. Stephens, Andrew P. Ouimette, Erik A. Hobbie, Rebecca J. Rowe
{"title":"重新评估营养区分因子(Δδ13C和Δδ15N)以重建饮食","authors":"Ryan B. Stephens, Andrew P. Ouimette, Erik A. Hobbie, Rebecca J. Rowe","doi":"10.1002/ecm.1525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Stable isotope analysis is increasingly being used to assess diet and trophic positions of animals. Such assessments require estimates of trophic discrimination factors (TDFs)—offset between the isotopic composition of diet and animal tissues—with imprecise applications of TDFs leading to biased conclusions in resource use. Because TDFs are unavailable for most species, ecologists often apply values from taxonomically similar species or use trophic step increases of approximately 1‰ for carbon (TDF-δ<sup>13</sup>C) and 3‰ for nitrogen (TDF-δ<sup>15</sup>N). Such practices may yield inaccuracies since TDFs vary greatly, even within a species. To better understand the factors that influence TDFs, we conducted a meta-analysis of TDF-δ<sup>13</sup>C and TDF-δ<sup>15</sup>N for mammals and quantified variation in relation to consumer type (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore) and diet source (C<sub>3</sub>-based, C<sub>4</sub>-based, marine-based, mixture). Additionally, to guide TDF choice, we used an isotopic data set of small mammal tissues and diet items to assess how predicted dietary contributions vary with TDFs estimated using (1) taxonomic relatedness, (2) consumer type and diet source, or (3) values derived from wild animals eating natural diets. Our meta-analysis revealed that metabolic routing and interactions between consumer class, dietary source, and the protein versus energy content of diets best explained variation in TDF-δ<sup>13</sup>C values (−1.5‰ to 7.3‰), whereas consumer class best explained variation in TDF-δ<sup>15</sup>N values (−0.5‰ to 7.1‰). Our test of methods to estimate TDFs indicated that ecologists should avoid relying on taxonomic relatedness when selecting TDF-δ<sup>13</sup>C because mixed-diet lab studies may produce misleading results for herbivores and omnivores. Additionally, field-derived estimates could help fill TDF gaps where diets within a consumer class are absent. Overall, we suggest that using standard TDF trophic step values should be abandoned, because feeding studies are often poor proxies for natural diets, particularly for herbivores and omnivores. Instead, we make recommendations on how to select TDFs, along with a range of TDF-δ<sup>13</sup>C and TDF-δ<sup>15</sup>N values depending on diet source, consumer class, and tissue type. Use of these more refined recommendations and TDF values in isotopic assessments will improve estimates of diets and trophic interactions in natural systems, leading to a better understanding of ecological interactions and communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":11505,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Monographs","volume":"92 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reevaluating trophic discrimination factors (Δδ13C and Δδ15N) for diet reconstruction\",\"authors\":\"Ryan B. Stephens, Andrew P. Ouimette, Erik A. Hobbie, Rebecca J. Rowe\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ecm.1525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Stable isotope analysis is increasingly being used to assess diet and trophic positions of animals. Such assessments require estimates of trophic discrimination factors (TDFs)—offset between the isotopic composition of diet and animal tissues—with imprecise applications of TDFs leading to biased conclusions in resource use. Because TDFs are unavailable for most species, ecologists often apply values from taxonomically similar species or use trophic step increases of approximately 1‰ for carbon (TDF-δ<sup>13</sup>C) and 3‰ for nitrogen (TDF-δ<sup>15</sup>N). Such practices may yield inaccuracies since TDFs vary greatly, even within a species. To better understand the factors that influence TDFs, we conducted a meta-analysis of TDF-δ<sup>13</sup>C and TDF-δ<sup>15</sup>N for mammals and quantified variation in relation to consumer type (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore) and diet source (C<sub>3</sub>-based, C<sub>4</sub>-based, marine-based, mixture). Additionally, to guide TDF choice, we used an isotopic data set of small mammal tissues and diet items to assess how predicted dietary contributions vary with TDFs estimated using (1) taxonomic relatedness, (2) consumer type and diet source, or (3) values derived from wild animals eating natural diets. Our meta-analysis revealed that metabolic routing and interactions between consumer class, dietary source, and the protein versus energy content of diets best explained variation in TDF-δ<sup>13</sup>C values (−1.5‰ to 7.3‰), whereas consumer class best explained variation in TDF-δ<sup>15</sup>N values (−0.5‰ to 7.1‰). Our test of methods to estimate TDFs indicated that ecologists should avoid relying on taxonomic relatedness when selecting TDF-δ<sup>13</sup>C because mixed-diet lab studies may produce misleading results for herbivores and omnivores. Additionally, field-derived estimates could help fill TDF gaps where diets within a consumer class are absent. Overall, we suggest that using standard TDF trophic step values should be abandoned, because feeding studies are often poor proxies for natural diets, particularly for herbivores and omnivores. Instead, we make recommendations on how to select TDFs, along with a range of TDF-δ<sup>13</sup>C and TDF-δ<sup>15</sup>N values depending on diet source, consumer class, and tissue type. Use of these more refined recommendations and TDF values in isotopic assessments will improve estimates of diets and trophic interactions in natural systems, leading to a better understanding of ecological interactions and communities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Monographs\",\"volume\":\"92 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecm.1525\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecm.1525","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reevaluating trophic discrimination factors (Δδ13C and Δδ15N) for diet reconstruction
Stable isotope analysis is increasingly being used to assess diet and trophic positions of animals. Such assessments require estimates of trophic discrimination factors (TDFs)—offset between the isotopic composition of diet and animal tissues—with imprecise applications of TDFs leading to biased conclusions in resource use. Because TDFs are unavailable for most species, ecologists often apply values from taxonomically similar species or use trophic step increases of approximately 1‰ for carbon (TDF-δ13C) and 3‰ for nitrogen (TDF-δ15N). Such practices may yield inaccuracies since TDFs vary greatly, even within a species. To better understand the factors that influence TDFs, we conducted a meta-analysis of TDF-δ13C and TDF-δ15N for mammals and quantified variation in relation to consumer type (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore) and diet source (C3-based, C4-based, marine-based, mixture). Additionally, to guide TDF choice, we used an isotopic data set of small mammal tissues and diet items to assess how predicted dietary contributions vary with TDFs estimated using (1) taxonomic relatedness, (2) consumer type and diet source, or (3) values derived from wild animals eating natural diets. Our meta-analysis revealed that metabolic routing and interactions between consumer class, dietary source, and the protein versus energy content of diets best explained variation in TDF-δ13C values (−1.5‰ to 7.3‰), whereas consumer class best explained variation in TDF-δ15N values (−0.5‰ to 7.1‰). Our test of methods to estimate TDFs indicated that ecologists should avoid relying on taxonomic relatedness when selecting TDF-δ13C because mixed-diet lab studies may produce misleading results for herbivores and omnivores. Additionally, field-derived estimates could help fill TDF gaps where diets within a consumer class are absent. Overall, we suggest that using standard TDF trophic step values should be abandoned, because feeding studies are often poor proxies for natural diets, particularly for herbivores and omnivores. Instead, we make recommendations on how to select TDFs, along with a range of TDF-δ13C and TDF-δ15N values depending on diet source, consumer class, and tissue type. Use of these more refined recommendations and TDF values in isotopic assessments will improve estimates of diets and trophic interactions in natural systems, leading to a better understanding of ecological interactions and communities.
期刊介绍:
The vision for Ecological Monographs is that it should be the place for publishing integrative, synthetic papers that elaborate new directions for the field of ecology.
Original Research Papers published in Ecological Monographs will continue to document complex observational, experimental, or theoretical studies that by their very integrated nature defy dissolution into shorter publications focused on a single topic or message.
Reviews will be comprehensive and synthetic papers that establish new benchmarks in the field, define directions for future research, contribute to fundamental understanding of ecological principles, and derive principles for ecological management in its broadest sense (including, but not limited to: conservation, mitigation, restoration, and pro-active protection of the environment). Reviews should reflect the full development of a topic and encompass relevant natural history, observational and experimental data, analyses, models, and theory. Reviews published in Ecological Monographs should further blur the boundaries between “basic” and “applied” ecology.
Concepts and Synthesis papers will conceptually advance the field of ecology. These papers are expected to go well beyond works being reviewed and include discussion of new directions, new syntheses, and resolutions of old questions.
In this world of rapid scientific advancement and never-ending environmental change, there needs to be room for the thoughtful integration of scientific ideas, data, and concepts that feeds the mind and guides the development of the maturing science of ecology. Ecological Monographs provides that room, with an expansive view to a sustainable future.