| Literature DB >> 25834776 |
Christopher D Stallings1, James A Nelson2, Katherine L Rozar1, Charles S Adams1, Kara R Wall1, Theodore S Switzer3, Brent L Winner3, David J Hollander1.
Abstract
Research that uses stable isotope analysis often involves a delay between sample collection in the field and laboratory processing, therefore requiring preservation to prevent or reduce tissue degradation and associated isotopic compositions. Although there is a growing literature describing the effects of various preservation techniques, the results are often contextual, unpredictable and vary among taxa, suggesting the need to treat each species individually. We conducted a controlled experiment to test the effects of four preservation methods of muscle tissue from four species of upper trophic-level reef fish collected from the eastern Gulf of Mexico (Red GrouperEntities:
Keywords: Fixatives; Food webs; Methodology; Protein fractionation; Protein hydrolysis; Stable isotope analysis
Year: 2015 PMID: 25834776 PMCID: PMC4380155 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.874
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Study region in the eastern Gulf of Mexico where samples were collected (locations of collection sites shown with black stars). 10 m isobaths are shown from 10–100 m.
Sample sizes, length information [mean (SE), minimum, and maximum], and C/N values of the focal species.
| Species | No. collected | Mean (SE) TL (mm) | Max TL (mm) | Min TL (mm) | Mean (SE) C/N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 24 | 569 (26) | 360 | 764 | 3.22 (0.13) |
|
| 19 | 841 (38) | 500 | 1090 | 3.25 (0.15) |
|
| 15 | 569 (13) | 512 | 664 | 3.22 (0.15) |
|
| 20 | 677 (16) | 546 | 794 | 3.22 (0.10) |
Mean (SE) offset (‰) for nitrogen and carbon isotopes across four focal species based on absolute values of preservative–control.
| Preservative | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ice | 0.20 (0.02) | 0.28 (0.03) |
| EtOH | 0.56 (0.04) | 0.42 (0.04) |
| NaCl | 0.47 (0.04) | 0.34 (0.05) |
Figure 2Offsets (preservative–control) in (A) δ15N and (B) δ13C isotopic values due to preservation technique (mean ± 2 SE).
Offsets for preservatives that were statistically different from the liquid nitrogen controls are noted as ∗(P < 0.05), ∗∗(P < 0.01), and ∗∗∗(P < 0.001). Fish illustrations courtesy of Diane Peebles.
Summary of paired t-tests and two-sided P-values across species and preservation method for δ15N and δ13C isotopes. Significant P-values are bold-typed.
| Species | Preservation(df) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| ice(23) | −1.494 | 0.149 | −0.885 | 0.385 | |
| ethanol (22) | −9.956 |
| −7.446 |
| |
| salt(23) | −7.400 |
| −2.472 |
| |
|
| |||||
| ice(18) | −1.276 | 0.218 | −0.418 | 0.681 | |
| ethanol(18) | −11.077 |
| 2.438 |
| |
| salt(15/18) | −1.569 | 0.134 | −0.939 | 0.360 | |
|
| |||||
| ice(13) | −0.498 | 0.627 | −0.533 | 0.603 | |
| ethanol(12) | −6.906 |
| −5.794 |
| |
| salt(13) | −5.464 |
| −0.892 | 0.389 | |
|
| |||||
| ice(19) | −1.318 | 0.203 | −0.802 | 0.432 | |
| ethanol(18) | −5.040 |
| −1.269 | 0.221 | |
| salt(18) | −6.246 |
| −0.189 | 0.852 | |
Figure 3Mass balance corrected values against control values for E. morio.
The 1:1 line (hashed), predicted (solid), and 95% confidence intervals are given for (A) ethanol δ13C, (B) ethanol δ15N, (C) salt δ13C, and (D) salt δ15N.
Figure 6Mass balance corrected values against control values for L. campechanus.
The 1:1 line (hashed), predicted (solid), and 95% confidence intervals are given for (A) ethanol δ13C, (B) ethanol δ15N, (C) salt δ13C, and (D) salt δ15N.
Mean (SE) change in C/N due to ethanol and salt preservation methods.
| Species | EtOH | NaCl |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.06 (0.19) | 0.03 (0.15) |
|
| 0.02 (0.20) | −0.18 (0.57) |
|
| 0.04 (0.20) | −0.02 (0.14) |
|
| −0.09 (0.22) | −0.07 (0.24) |
Figure 7Carbon and nitrogen isotope values for the four study species showing the relative trophic positions and the effects of different preservation methods. Fish illustrations courtesy of Diane Peebles.