Amino acid δ<sup>15</sup>N underestimation of cetacean trophic positions highlights limited understanding of isotopic fractionation in higher marine consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Compound‐specific stable isotope analysis (CSIA) of amino acids (AAs) has been rapidly incorporated in ecological studies to resolve consumer trophic position (TP). Differential 15N fractionation of “trophic” AAs, which undergo trophic 15N enrichment, and “source” AAs, which undergo minimal trophic 15N enrichment and serve as a proxy for primary producer δ15N values, allows for internal calibration of TP. Recent studies, however, have shown the difference between source and trophic AA δ15N values in higher marine consumers is less than predicted from empirical studies of invertebrates and fish. To evaluate CSIA‐AA for estimating TP of cetaceans, we compared source and trophic AA δ15N values of multiple tissues (skin, baleen, and dentine collagen) from five species representing a range of TPs: bowhead whales, beluga whales, short‐beaked common dolphins, sperm whales, and fish‐eating (FE) and marine mammal‐eating (MME) killer whale ecotypes. TP estimates (TPCSIA) using several empirically derived equations and trophic discrimination factors (TDFs) were 1–2.5 trophic steps lower than stomach content‐derived estimates (TPSC) for all species. Although TPCSIA estimates using dual TDF equations were in better agreement with TPSC estimates, our data do not support the application of universal or currently available dual TDFs to estimate cetacean TPs. Discrepancies were not simply due to inaccurate TDFs, however, because the difference between consumer glutamic acid/glutamine (Glx) and phenylalanine (Phe) δ15N values (δ15NGlx‐Phe) did not follow expected TP order. In contrast to pioneering studies on invertebrates and fish, our data suggest trophic 15N enrichment of Phe is not negligible and should be examined among the potential mechanisms driving “compressed” and variable δ15NGlx‐Phe values at high TPs. We emphasize the need for controlled diet studies to understand mechanisms driving AA‐specific isotopic fractionation before widespread application of CSIA‐AA in ecological studies of cetaceans and other marine consumers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".