| Literature DB >> 25992561 |
Natasha J Gownaris1, Ellen K Pikitch1, William O Ojwang2, Robert Michener3, Les Kaufman4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25992561 PMCID: PMC4437984 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Diet and Fishery Contribution of the Seven Species Studied.
| Species | N | 1960–2011 Average Portion of Catch (%) | 2011 Portion of Catch (%) | Assumed Main Diet Component |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 73 | 0.5 | 3 | Zooplankton |
|
| 113 | 2.05 | 2 | Fish |
|
| 77 | 16.48 | 14 | Epibenthic algae/Detritus |
|
| 111 | 16.45 | 16 | Fish/Prawns |
|
| 114 | 27.89 | 43 | Phytoplankton |
|
| 92 | 2.46 | 3 | Zooplankton/Insects/Benthos |
|
| 55 | N/A | N/A | Macrophytes/Epilithic algae |
Fig 1Map of Africa with an inset of Lake Turkana showing the study’s six sampling sites.
Breeding Vulnerability Index Factor Categories and Their Scores.
| Categories | Description | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flood Pulse Dependence | |||
| Critical | Breeds exclusively during periods of spate. | 2 | |
| Moderate | Ripe females ≥50% more abundant during periods of spate. | 1 | |
| Low | Consistent breeding year-round or ripe females ≤50% more abundant during periods of spate. | 0 | |
| Breeding Habitat | |||
| Most Threatened | Eastern Shore Shallow Areas (steep bathymetry) or Omo River | 2 | |
| Threatened | Western Shore Shallow Areas (gradual bathymetry) or All Rivers | 1 | |
| Least Threatened | Pelagic | 0 |
Mean ± SD of Isotopic Signatures, Isotopic Niche and Layman’s Metrics for the Seven Species Studied.
| Species | N | Mean δ13C | SD δ13C | Mean δ15N | SD δ15N | SEAc | Hullb | CDb | MNNDb | sdMNNDb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 73 | -20.18 | 1.31 | 11.34 | 1.93 | 6.47 | 25.56 | 1.98 | 0.30 | 0.23 |
|
| 113 | -19.35 | 1.07 | 13.26 | 2.54 | 6.35 | 55.11 | 2.06 | 0.29 | 0.57 |
|
| 77 | -18.82 | 1.42 | 6.66 | 2.18 | 9.53 | 37.20 | 2.26 | 0.30 | 0.21 |
|
| 111 | -18.46 | 2.86 | 10.93 | 2.86 | 12.58 | 62.00 | 2.99 | 0.33 | 0.72 |
|
| 114 | -17.21 | 1.69 | 5.03 | 2.61 | 10.37 | 56.80 | 2.72 | 0.31 | 0.38 |
|
| 92 | -18.20 | 1.49 | 9.28 | 2.19 | 8.62 | 44.48 | 2.23 | 0.34 | 0.26 |
|
| 55 | -16.68 | 1.33 | 7.22 | 1.39 | 5.47 | 29.64 | 1.50 | 0.44 | 0.52 |
Fig 2Isotopic niches for the seven fish species examined in this study.
Symbols represent individual isotope values within species. Isotopic niches were calculated as standard ellipses in R, using the δ13C and δ15N signatures for each species.
Fig 3Box-plot of the Monte-Carlo stimulation for isotopic niches in R.
This simulation accounts for the uncertainty in the isotope data and sizes of the isotopic niches. The black dot in each species’ box-plot represents the average isotopic niche size from the Monte-Carlo stimulation, SEAB, while the white box represents the SEAc isotopic niche value.
Bayesian Probability for Isotopic Niche Size Comparisons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| x | 0.48 | 0.99 | 1 | 1 | 0.96 | 0.17 |
|
| 0.52 | x | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.98 | 0.15 |
|
| 0.01 | 0 | x | 0.97 | 0.73 | 0.27 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0.03 | x | 0.08 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0.27 | 0.92 | x | 0.09 | 0 |
|
| 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.73 | 1 | 0.91 | x | 0 |
|
| 0.83 | 0.85 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | x |
Rows- Probability that one isotope niche is smaller than another; Columns- Probability that one isotopic niche is larger than another.
Fig 4Boxplot of phytoplankton baseline isotope signatures at the study’s six sampling sites.
Plankton samples were collected in five size fractions at each sampling site. Significant differences were found between the <20μm size class and all other size classes for δ13C and δ15N. Significant differences were found between the grassy gulf and open lake sites for δ13C.
Fig 5The amount of variation in isotopic signature (r2) described by site, year and their interaction terms.
These values were calculated using size-corrected multivariate models, i.e. were run on the residuals of regressions between size and isotope signature for each species, and therefore account for differences in size ranges sampled across sites and years.
Fig 6Breeding Vulnerability Index versus Trophic Diversity for the seven species studied.
The Breeding Vulnerability index was calculated based on flood pulse dependence and breeding habitat requirements. Trophic Diversity (axis in reverse order) is represented by isotopic niche size, calculated using the δ13C and δ15N signatures for each species and standard ellipses in R. The grey line represents the direction of increasing vulnerability and is not a trendline.