Literature DB >> 32179976

Are you really what you eat? Stomach content analysis and stable isotope ratios do not uniformly estimate dietary niche characteristics in three marine predators.

Julia C Petta1, Oliver N Shipley2, Sabine P Wintner3,4,5, Geremy Cliff3,4,5, Matt L Dicken4,5,6, Nigel E Hussey7.   

Abstract

Calculation of dietary niche characteristics using stable isotopes has become a popular approach to understand the functional role of taxa across food webs. An underlying assumption of this approach is that stable isotopes accurately reflect the dietary breadth of a species over a temporal duration defined by tissue-specific isotopic turnover rates. In theory, dietary niche estimates derived from fast turnover rate tissues (e.g., blood plasma and liver) may augment stomach content-derived estimates more agreeably than slower turnover rate tissues (e.g., muscle or fin). We tested this hypothesis by comparing commonly used dietary niche estimates derived from stomach contents (nicheSCA: Levins', Shannon-Wiener's, and Smith's), with those estimated using stable isotopes [nicheSIA: standard ellipse area (SEA), convex hull total area (TA), theta (θ), and ellipse eccentricity (E)] of liver and muscle tissue. Model species were three large-bodied sharks: white (Carcharodon carcharias), dusky (Carcharhinus obscurus), and scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini). Within-technique comparisons for nicheSCA and nicheSIA metrics (i.e., SEA vs. TA) were often correlated; however, we did not observe any statistically significant correlations between nicheSCA and liver/muscle tissue nicheSIA (i.e., Levins' vs. SEA). We conclude that nicheSCA and nicheSIA do not provide comparable estimates of dietary niche, at least for the three predator species examined. This fundamental discrepancy highlights technique-specific limitations to estimating organismal dietary niche and identifies a need for the use of clearly defined niche metrics, i.e., the standardized use and reporting of the term isotopic niche as proposed by Newsome et al. (Front Ecol Environ 5:429-436, 2007). Finally, further investigation into the factors underpinning nicheSIA is required to better contextualize this popular ecological metric when compared to nicheSCA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carbon and nitrogen isotopes; Elasmobranch; Isotopic niche; Shark; Stomach content niche

Year:  2020        PMID: 32179976     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-020-04628-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  3 in total

1.  A trophic latitudinal gradient revealed in anchovy and sardine from the Western Mediterranean Sea using a multi-proxy approach.

Authors:  Eneko Bachiller; Marta Albo-Puigserver; Joan Giménez; Maria Grazia Pennino; Neus Marí-Mena; Antonio Esteban; Elena Lloret-Lloret; Angelique Jadaud; Belén Carro; José María Bellido; Marta Coll
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  Trophic structure of a nektobenthic community exploited by a multispecific bottom trawling fishery in Northeastern Brazil.

Authors:  Alex Souza Lira; Flávia Lucena-Frédou; Frédéric Ménard; Thierry Frédou; Júlio Guazzelli Gonzalez; Valdimere Ferreira; José Souto Rosa Filho; Jean-Marie Munaron; François Le Loc'h
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Diet type influences the gut microbiome and nutrient assimilation of Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus).

Authors:  Lara Parata; Debashish Mazumder; Jesmond Sammut; Suhelen Egan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.