Applications, Considerations, and Sources of Uncertainty When Using Stable Isotope Analysis in Ecotoxicology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stable isotope analysis (SIA) has become a powerful tool for ecotoxicologists to study dietary exposure and biomagnification of contaminants in wild animal populations. The use of SIA in ecotoxicology continues to expand and, while much more is known about the mechanisms driving patterns of isotopic ratios in consumers, there remain several considerations or sources of uncertainty that can influence interpretation of data from field studies. We outline current uses of SIA in ecotoxicology, including estimating the importance of dietary sources of carbon and their application in biomagnification studies, and we present six main considerations or sources of uncertainty associated with the approach: (1) unequal diet-tissue stable isotope fractionation among species, (2) variable diet-tissue stable isotope fractionation within a given species, (3) different stable isotope ratios in different tissues of the animal, (4) fluctuating baseline stable isotope ratios across systems, (5) the presence of true omnivores, and (6) movement of animals and nutrients between food webs. Since these considerations or sources of uncertainty are difficult to assess in field studies, we advocate that researchers consider the following in designing ecotoxicological research and interpreting results: assess and utilize variation in stable isotope diet-tissue fractionation among animal groups available in the literature; determine stable isotope ratios in multiple tissues to provide a temporal assessment of feeding; adequately characterize baseline isotope ratios; utilize stomach contents when possible; and assess and integrate life history of study animals in a system.
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 | 0.257 | 0.427 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".