John P Whiteman1,2, Mauriel Rodriguez Curras2,3, Kelli L Feeser2,4, Seth D Newsome2. 1. Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA. 2. Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA. 3. Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. 4. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 87545, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Ecologists increasingly determine the δ15 N values of amino acids (AA) in animal tissue; "source" AA typically exhibit minor variation between diet and consumer, while "trophic" AA have increased δ15 N values in consumers. Thus, trophic-source δ15 N offsets (i.e., Δ15 NT-S ) reflect trophic position in a food web. However, even minor variations in δ15 Nsource AA values may influence the magnitude of offset that represents a trophic step, known as the trophic discrimination factor (i.e., TDFT-S ). Diet digestibility and protein content can influence the δ15 N values of bulk animal tissue, but the effects of these factors on AA Δ15 NT-S and TDFT-S in mammals are unknown. METHODS: We fed captive mice (Mus musculus) either (A) a low-fat, high-fiber diet with low, intermediate, or high protein; or (B) a high-fat, low-fiber diet with low or intermediate protein. Mouse muscle and dietary protein were analyzed for bulk tissue δ15 N using elemental analyzer-isotope ratio mass spectrometry (EA-IRMS), and were also hydrolyzed into free AA that were analyzed for δ15 N using gas chromatography-combustion-IRMS. RESULTS: As dietary protein increased, Δ15 NConsumer-Diet slightly declined for bulk muscle tissue in both experiments; increased for AA in the low-fat, high-fiber diet (A); and remained the same or decreased for AA in the high-fat, low-fiber diet (B). The effects of dietary protein on Δ15 NT-S and on TDFT-S varied by AA but were consistent between variables. CONCLUSIONS: Diets were less digestible and included more protein in Experiment A than in Experiment B. As a result, the mice in Experiment A probably oxidized more AA, resulting in greater Δ15 NConsumer-Diet values. However, the similar responses of Δ15 NT-S and of TDFT-S to diet variation suggest that if diet samples are available, Δ15 NT-S accurately tracks trophic position. If diet samples are not available, the patterns presented here provide a basis to interpret Δ15 NT-S values. The trophic-source offset of Pro-Lys did not vary across diets, and therefore may be more reliable for omnivores than other offsets (e.g., Glu-Phe).
RATIONALE: Ecologists increasingly determine the δ15 N values of amino acids (AA) in animal tissue; "source" AA typically exhibit minor variation between diet and consumer, while "trophic" AA have increased δ15 N values in consumers. Thus, trophic-source δ15 N offsets (i.e., Δ15 NT-S ) reflect trophic position in a food web. However, even minor variations in δ15 Nsource AA values may influence the magnitude of offset that represents a trophic step, known as the trophic discrimination factor (i.e., TDFT-S ). Diet digestibility and protein content can influence the δ15 N values of bulk animal tissue, but the effects of these factors on AA Δ15 NT-S and TDFT-S in mammals are unknown. METHODS: We fed captive mice (Mus musculus) either (A) a low-fat, high-fiber diet with low, intermediate, or high protein; or (B) a high-fat, low-fiber diet with low or intermediate protein. Mouse muscle and dietary protein were analyzed for bulk tissue δ15 N using elemental analyzer-isotope ratio mass spectrometry (EA-IRMS), and were also hydrolyzed into free AA that were analyzed for δ15 N using gas chromatography-combustion-IRMS. RESULTS: As dietary protein increased, Δ15 NConsumer-Diet slightly declined for bulk muscle tissue in both experiments; increased for AA in the low-fat, high-fiber diet (A); and remained the same or decreased for AA in the high-fat, low-fiber diet (B). The effects of dietary protein on Δ15 NT-S and on TDFT-S varied by AA but were consistent between variables. CONCLUSIONS: Diets were less digestible and included more protein in Experiment A than in Experiment B. As a result, the mice in Experiment A probably oxidized more AA, resulting in greater Δ15 NConsumer-Diet values. However, the similar responses of Δ15 NT-S and of TDFT-S to diet variation suggest that if diet samples are available, Δ15 NT-S accurately tracks trophic position. If diet samples are not available, the patterns presented here provide a basis to interpret Δ15 NT-S values. The trophic-source offset of Pro-Lys did not vary across diets, and therefore may be more reliable for omnivores than other offsets (e.g., Glu-Phe).
Authors: Barbara M Tomotani; Rodrigo B Salvador; Amandine J M Sabadel; Colin M Miskelly; Julie C S Brown; Josette Delgado; Patrick Boussès; Yves Cherel; Susan M Waugh; Sarah J Bury Journal: Oecologia Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 3.225