| Literature DB >> 27280067 |
Carl J Reddin1, Nessa E O'Connor2, Chris Harrod3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Theoretically, each species' ecological niche is phylogenetically-determined and expressed spatially as the species' range. However, environmentalEntities:
Keywords: Diet; Intertidal; Isotopic niche; Littorinid; Physiological condition; Range limit; Stable isotopes; Stress gradient; Trophic niche width; Trophic variation
Year: 2016 PMID: 27280067 PMCID: PMC4893340 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2034
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Mass and length (mean ± SD) of E. peruviana individuals at three relative shore height groups.
| Height | Mass (g) | Length (mm) | Samples ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 10.9 ± 1.4 | 20 |
| Mid | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 10.9 ± 1.1 | 20 |
| High | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 11.0 ± 1.5 | 20 |
Figure 1Isotopic variation among Echinolittorina peruviana individuals grouped by relative height on the shore.
(A) Individual values on an δ15N-δ13C biplot, with standard ellipses (equivalent to a bivariate SD), corrected for small sample size (SEAc), plotted as calculated by the SIBER procedure (Jackson et al., 2011). Plot lines and symbols represent shore height (see legend). (B) E. peruviana isotopic niche width (SEA.B) at different shore heights, plotted with 95, 75 and 50% credible intervals and mode as a black point. Macroalgae includes Lessonia nigrescens, Dictyota sp. and Ulva sp. pooled.
Figure 2Separate (A) carbon and (B) nitrogen isotopic variation of E. peruviana individuals from different shore heights.
Range estimates calculated by a Bayesian implementation of Layman et al. (2007) in the R package SIBER (Jackson et al., 2011). A black dot shows the mode, while boxes represent the 95, 75 and 50% credible intervals.
Figure 3Comparison of isotopic niche widths (SEA.B) of E. peruviana individuals, grouped by relative height on shore, over Antofagasta Bay (black boxes) and Mejillones Peninsula (white boxes).
This geographical split follows the ecological differences identified over this region by Reddin et al. (2015). Plotted are 95, 75 and 50% credible intervals (boxes) and the mode (black or white dot). Sample sizes per height level for both geographical groups, ‘low’ n = 10, ‘mid’ n = 10, ‘high’ n = 7.
Figure 4Trend of decreasing (A) % C and (B) % N, and (C) increasing C:N, of E. peruviana muscle tissue with increasing relative shore height.
Shown are the median (dark line), inter-quartile range (box), range (whiskers) and outliers (points).
Figure 5Contributions of putative resources to E. peruviana diet at high (A and B), middle (C and D) and low (E and F) shore heights.
Contributions estimated by SIAR mixing models (Parnell et al., 2010) run separately for Antofagasta Bay (A, C, E) and Mejillones Peninsula (B, D, F). Plotted are contribution estimates’ 95, 75 and 50% Bayesian credible intervals (boxes), mode values (dots) and probability of differences between putative resource contributions of POM, macroalgae (L. nigrescens, Dictyota sp. and Ulva sp. pooled), and epilithic biofilm.