MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883575838 · doi:10.1002/rcm.8239

Discrimination factors of carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes from diet to hair in captive large Arctic carnivores of conservation concern

2018· article· en· W2883575838 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent L’Hérault, Nicolas Lecomte, Marie‐Hélène Truchon, Dominique Berteaux

Bibliographic record

VenueRapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonARCTIConnexionUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArcticNet
KeywordsIsotopes of nitrogenIsotope analysisStable isotope ratioTrophic levelIsotopes of carbonδ15NChemistryArcticIsotopeIsotope-ratio mass spectrometryδ13CNitrogenEcologyAnimal scienceEnvironmental chemistryMass spectrometryTotal organic carbonBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale Stable isotope analysis is widely used to reconstruct diet, delineate trophic interactions, and determine energy pathways. Such ecological inferences are based on the idea that animals are, isotopically, what they eat but with a predictable difference between the isotopic ratio of a consumer and that of its diet, coined as the discrimination factor. Providing correct estimates of diet‐consumer isotopic discrimination in controlled conditions is key for a robust application of the stable isotopes technique in the wild. Methods Using a Finnigan Mat Delta Plus isotope‐ratio mass spectrometer, we investigated isotopic discrimination of carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios (δ 13 C and δ 15 N values) in guard hairs of four Arctic predators; the wolf ( n = 7), the wolverine ( n = 2), the grizzly bear ( n = 2), and the polar bear ( n = 3). During a 3‐month trial, carnivores were fed a mixed diet. The δ 13 C and δ 15 N values, and the mass (g) of diet items, were monitored weekly for each individual to determine their Total Diet Average ratios. Results Diet‐hair isotopic discrimination (Δx) varied according to species, ranging [1.88 ± 0.69‰: 3.2 ± 0.69‰] for δ 13 C values, and [1.58 ± 0.17‰: 3.81 ± 0.22‰] for δ 15 N values. Adult wolves Δ 13 C average (2.03 ± 0.7‰) was lower than that of young wolves (2.60 ± 0.8‰) and any other species (combined average of 2.59 ± 0.28‰), except for the wolverine (2.12 ± 0.23‰). Wolves Δ 15 N averages (juveniles: 3.51 ± 0.34‰, adults: 3.68 ± 0.28‰) were higher than those of any other species (combined average: 2.50 ± 0.58‰). Conclusions The discrimination factors for δ 13 C and δ 15 N values calculated in this study could be used in ecological studies dealing with free‐ranging animals, with implications for non‐invasive research approaches. As in other controlled discrimination studies, we recommend caution in applying our discrimination factors when the population structure is heterogeneous.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRapid Communications in Mass SpectrometrySame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207