Is lipid correction necessary in the stable isotope analysis of fish tissues?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Stable isotope analysis (SIA) is a powerful tool for examining diet and food-web dynamics. SIA assumes "you are what you eat" relative to carbon (C) and nitrogen (N). However, fractionation of carbon during lipid synthesis violates this assumption; high-lipid tissues do not reflect δ(13) C values of diet and therefore have the potential to skew mixing model results and diet interpretations, making corrections necessary. METHODS: Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) white muscle and liver samples from several fish species representing the temperate North American cold- and warm-water fish community were corrected for lipids via chemical lipid extraction and mathematical lipid normalization. To assess the accuracy of model-predicted lipid-free δ(13) C values calculated from four normalization models, we compared model-predicted values with those measured after lipid extraction. RESULTS: We found that chemical lipid extraction is unnecessary for Brook Trout white muscle tissue with low initial lipid content. However, in tissues with C:N ratios greater than 3.5, lipid extraction increased δ(13) C values in fish liver by more than 1.0 ‰, indicating that liver lipid content is sufficient to bias δ(13) C values. We also found that lipids were accurately accounted for with mathematical normalization and recommend that tissues with C:N ratios greater than 3.5 be corrected mathematically. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that mathematical normalization is sufficient to account for bias in δ(13) C values associated with lipid content in fish tissues when C:N ratios are above 3.5. C:N ratios below 3.5 indicate that tissues have insufficient levels of lipid to bias the δ(13) C values. Generally, these findings support the use of more timely and cost-effective processing and analysis methods in future aquatic food-web studies utilizing SIA. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.023 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".