Diet discrimination factors are inversely related to δ <sup>15</sup> N and δ <sup>13</sup> C values of food for fish under controlled conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent literature review reported negative relationships between diet discrimination factors (DDFs = X(fish) - X(food) ; X = δ(15) N or δ(13) C) and the values of δ(15) N and δ(13) C in the food of wild organisms but there has been no laboratory-based confirmation of these relationships to date. Laboratory reared guppies (Poecilia reticulata) fed a series of diets with a range of δ(13) C (-22.9 to -6.6‰) and δ(15) N (6.5 to 1586‰) values were used to magnify diet-tissue dynamics in order to calculate DDFs once the fish had achieved equilibrium with each of the diets. Values of DDFs range widely for δ(15) N (7.1 to -849‰) and δ(13) C (1.1 to -7.0‰) and showed a strong negative correlation with the stable isotope value in the food for δ(15) N (slope = -0.59 ± 0.02, r(2) = 0.95) and δ(13) C (slope = -0.56 ± 0.02, r(2) = 0.94). Based on these relationships, the magnitude of DDF change over environmentally relevant values of δ(15) N or δ(13) C would be significant and could confound the interpretation of stable isotopes in the environment. Using highly enriched experimental diets, our study adds to a growing number of studies that undermine the consistent trophic enrichment paradigm with results that demonstrate the currently poor mechanistic understanding of how DDFs arise. The results of our study highlight that the magnitude of the stable isotope values in prey must be considered when choosing DDF values. Future laboratory studies should therefore be directed at uncovering the mechanistic basis of DDFs and, like others before, we recommend the determination of diet-dependent DDFs under laboratory conditions before modeling dietary proportions or calculating trophic positions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".