| Literature DB >> 24465384 |
Kyle H Elliott1, Mikaela Davis2, John E Elliott3.
Abstract
Stable isotope ratios are biogeochemical tracers that can be used to determine the source of nutrients and contaminants in avian eggs. However, the interpretation of stable carbon ratios in lipid-rich eggs is complicated because (13)C is depleted in lipids. Variation in (13)C abundance can therefore be obscured by variation in percent lipids. Past attempts to establish an algebraic equation to correct carbon isotope ratios for lipid content in eggs have been unsuccessful, possibly because they relied partly on data from coastal or migratory species that may obtain egg lipids from different habitats than egg protein. We measured carbon, nitrogen and sulphur stable isotope ratios in 175 eggs from eight species of aquatic birds. Carbon, nitrogen and sulphur isotopes were enriched in lipid-extracted egg samples compared with non extracted egg samples. A logarithmic equation using the C∶N ratio and carbon isotope ratio from the non extracted egg tissue calculated 90% of the lipid-extracted carbon isotope ratios within ±0.5‰. Calculating separate equations for eggs laid by species in different habitats (pelagic, offshore and terrestrial-influenced) improved the fit. A logarithmic equation, rather than a linear equation as often used for muscle, was necessary to accurately correct for lipid content because the relatively high lipid content of eggs compared with muscle meant that a linear relationship did not accurately approximate the relationship between percent lipids and the C∶N ratio. Because lipid extraction alters sulphur and nitrogen isotope ratios (and cannot be corrected algebraically), we suggest that isotopic measurement on bulk tissue followed by algebraic lipid normalization of carbon stable isotope ratio is often a good solution for homogenated eggs, at least when it is not possible to complete separate chemical analyses for each isotope.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24465384 PMCID: PMC3898914 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083597
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Difference between lipid-extracted and non-extracted samples for bird egg tissue for carbon (Δδ13C), nitrogen (Δδ15N) and sulphur (Δδ34S).
| Species | N | Solvent | Δδ13C | Δδ15N | Δδ34S | Relationship | Reference |
| Bald eagle | 109 | Diethyl ether | 2.0±1.2‰ | 0.0±0.3‰ | None | Ricca et al. 2007 | |
| King eider | 18 | Chloroform-methanol | 4.1±1.2‰ | 1.2±0.3‰ | 2.3±1.1‰ | None | Oppel et al. 2010 |
| Spectacled eider | 15 | Chloroform-methanol | 2.8±0.4‰ | 1.0±0.7‰ | None | Oppel et al. 2010 | |
| Snow goose | 11 | Chloroform-methanol | 1.9‰ | 0.5‰ | None | Ehrich et al. 2011 | |
| 32 arctic species | 1–4 | Chloroform-methanol | 3.3‰ | 0.6‰ | Nonlinear | Ehrich et al. 2011 | |
| Glaucous-winged gull | 19 | Chloroform-methanol | 4.5±0.7‰ | 0.5±0.5‰ | Linear | Our study | |
| Ancient murrelet | 6 | Petroleum ether | 2.0±0.3‰ | 0.7±0.4‰ | Linear | Our study | |
| Double-crested cormorant | 10 | Petroleum ether | 1.3±0.3‰ | 0.4±0.2‰ | Linear | Our study | |
| Great blue heron | 2 | Petroleum ether | 1.0±0.3‰ | 0.5±0.2‰ | None | Our study | |
| Leach's storm-petrel | 68 | Petroleum ether | 2.3±0.4‰ | 0.9±0.5‰ | −0.1±0.9‰ | Linear | Our study |
| Osprey | 12 | Petroleum ether | 1.0±0.6‰ | 0.8±0.2‰ | None | Our study | |
| Pelagic cormorant | 26 | Petroleum ether | 1.8±0.5‰ | 0.9±0.4‰ | Nonlinear | Our study | |
| Rhinoceros auklet | 51 | Petroleum ether | 2.2±0.2‰ | 1.3±0.3‰ | 1.6±1.7‰ | Nonlinear | Our study |
| All species (except gulls) | 175 | Petroleum ether | 2.0±0.6‰ | 0.9±0.5‰ | 0.5±1.5‰ | Nonlinear | Our study |
Uncertainty represents SD, where given in published studies. “Relationship” shows whether the relationship was reported to be non-significant (“None”), significant and linear (“Linear”) or significant and non-linear (“Non-linear”).
1 Compared percent lipids rather than C∶N ratio.
2 Analyzed whole yolk; all other studies examined egg homogenate.
Ranking of models used to describe the difference between lipid-extracted and non-extracted bird egg tissue.
| Model | ΔAIC | Equation |
| Δδ13C | ||
| Species | 102.38 | |
| Linear | 54.48 | |
| Non-linear | 38.08 | −4.46±0.35+7.32±0.40 * Log (C∶N Ratio) |
| Linear+Species | 17.16 | |
| Linear+Habitat | 11.10 | |
| Non-linear+Species+Non-linear*Species | 10.21 | |
| Non-linear+Species | 6.99 | |
| Non-linear+Habitat+Non-linear*Habitat | 3.97 | |
| Non-linear+Habitat | 0.00 | −3.65±0.34+6.03±0.40 * Log (C∶N Ratio)+0.32±0.07 (If Offshore)+0.50±0.07 (If Pelagic) |
| Δδ15N | ||
| Linear | 25.97 | |
| Non-linear | 24.84 | −1.47±0.49+2.72±0.55 * Log (C∶N Ratio) |
| Habitat | 22.01 | |
| Species | 8.84 | |
| Non-linear+Habitat | 8.43 | |
| Non-linear+Species+Nonlinear*Species | 7.03 | |
| Linear+Species | 1.53 | |
| Non-linear+Species | 0.00 | −1.66±0.74+2.50±0.76 * Log (C∶N Ratio)−0.02±0.24 (If double-crested cormorant)+0.27±0.37 (If great blue heron)+0.26±0.18 (If Leach's storm-petrel)+0.56±0.24 (If osprey)+0.43±0.20 (If pelagic cormorant)+0.62±0.18 (If rhinoceros auklet) |
| Δδ34S | ||
| Non-linear | 8.57 | |
| Linear5 | 8.50 | 4.69±3.51+−0.50±0.43 (C∶N Ratio) |
| Non-linear+Species+Species*Non-linear | 1.61 | |
| Linear+Species+Species*Linear | 1.59 | |
| Species | 0.58 | |
| Non-linear+Species | 0.02 | |
| Linear+Species | 0.00 | 0.93±3.23+−0.12±0.38 * (C∶N Ratio)+1.68±0.50 (If rhinoceros auklet) |
Equations are shown for the most parsimonious complete models and most-parsimonious species- and habitat-independent models. Habitat classifications were “terrestrially-influenced” (default), “offshore” (continental shelf) or “pelagic” (beyond the shelf).
Figure 1Difference between lipid-extracted and non-extracted stable isotope ratios for bird egg tissue.
Specifically (A) carbon (Δδ13C), (B) nitrogen (Δδ15N) and (C) sulphur (Δδ34S) increases with ratio of carbon to nitrogen by weight (C∶N ratio) across seven aquatic bird species: ancient murrelet (ANMU), double-crested cormorant (DCCO), great blue heron (GBHE), Leach's storm-petrel (LESP), osprey (OSPR), pelagic cormorant (PECO) and rhinoceros auklet (RHAU). Also shown are results from studies listed in Table 1 (eider average with SD bars shown, Arctic birds) and best-fit habitat- and species-dependent regression models listed in Table 2. (D) Δδ13C for groups within our study compared with arithmetic lipid-correction models proposed by Post et al. [29], Ehrich et al. [33] (filled lines) and within our own study (dashed lines).