Body size predicts ontogenetic nitrogen stable-isotope (δ15N) variation, but has little relationship with trophic level in ectotherm vertebrate predators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large predators have disproportionate effects on their underlying food webs. Thus, appropriately assigning trophic positions has important conservation implications both for the predators themselves and for their prey. Large-bodied predators are often referred to as apex predators, implying that they are many trophic levels above primary producers. However, theoretical considerations predict both higher and lower trophic position with increasing body size. Nitrogen stable isotope values (δ15N) are increasingly replacing stomach contents or behavioral observations to assess trophic position and it is often assumed that ontogenetic dietary shifts result in higher trophic positions. Intraspecific studies based on δ15N values found a positive relationship between size and inferred trophic position. Here, we use datasets of predatory vertebrate ectotherms (crocodilians, turtles, lizards and fishes) to show that, although there are positive intraspecific relationships between size and δ15N values, relationships between stomach-content-based trophic level (TPdiet) and size are undetectable or negative. As there is usually no single value for 15N trophic discrimination factor (TDF) applicable to a predator species or its prey, estimates of trophic position based on δ15N in ectotherm vertebrates with large size ranges, may be inaccurate and biased. We urge a reconsideration of the sole use of δ15N values to assess trophic position and encourage the combined use of isotopes and stomach contents to assess diet and trophic level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".