Comparison of methods for stable isotope ratio (δ<sup>13</sup>C, δ<sup>15</sup>N, δ<sup>2</sup>H, δ<sup>18</sup>O) measurements of feathers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Natural variations in the stable isotope ratios of bioelements in bird feathers are being increasingly used by animal ecologists to investigate different aspects of bird life. However, to ensure reliability of the data, a critical and very delicate aspect is the preparatory phase (cleaning, drying and subsampling) and the proper analysis, mainly in relation to δ2H and δ18O, respectively, for the presence of exchangeable Hs and of nitrogen and sulphur in keratin. With respect to determination of the isotope ratios of C, N, O and H, in this work, we compare the cleaning mixture most commonly used in the literature (chloroform : methanol 2 : 1) with diethylether : methanol 2 : 1, which avoids the use of the carcinogenic solvent chloroform. We also compared oven‐drying with air‐drying of samples, as well as subsampling of feathers by cutting with surgical scissors or cryogenic pulverization. Finally, we investigated whether stable isotope ratios varied along the vane and between the rachis and vane. The different methods compared in the three preparatory stages showed no differences performance‐wise and can therefore be used interchangeably. Variability in stable isotope ratios can be considerable, both along the vane and between rachis and vane, which is because their compositions register changes in diet, area and climate. However, in this specific study, when the parts of the feather closest to the calamus were removed, the delta values were clearly more homogeneous. Finally, we demonstrate that a casein with a known δ2H value, although probably differing from keratin in the number of exchangeable Hs, can be used to normalize the δ2H values of feathers, although only in the range of values close to that of the reference material. In determining δ18O, the use of a longer gas chromatography‐GC column, its frequent change and the use of a linear equation built with matrix match equivalent reference materials seems to reduce the drift of GC column performance due to the presence of nitrogen and the accumulation of sulphur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".