An unbiased method to estimate individual specialisation from multi‐tissue isotopic data

Individual specialisation could affect several ecological and evolutionary processes. Assessing isotopic data from different tissues of a single individual (multi‐tissue approach) represents a common method to estimate individual trophic specialisation (ITS). However, a neglected problem with this a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Freshwater biology 2019-08, Vol.64 (8), p.1427-1436
Hauptverfasser: Naya, Daniel E., Franco‐Trecu, Valentina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1436
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1427
container_title Freshwater biology
container_volume 64
creator Naya, Daniel E.
Franco‐Trecu, Valentina
description Individual specialisation could affect several ecological and evolutionary processes. Assessing isotopic data from different tissues of a single individual (multi‐tissue approach) represents a common method to estimate individual trophic specialisation (ITS). However, a neglected problem with this approach is that isotopic values of two tissues from a single individual are not statistically independent, and hence, an underestimation of the within‐individual component of variance should be theoretically expected. In this study, we evaluate this potential problem by comparing ITS estimations as currently calculated (uncorrected ITS) against ITS estimations based on a new method that considers the non‐independence problem (corrected ITS). We used unpublished δ15N and δ13C data for nine fish species, together with previously published δ15N and δ13C data for eight other vertebrate species, to estimate (and compare) components of variance and ITS values, using uncorrected and corrected isotopic data. In addition, for each species, we used a Monte Carlo resampling routine to test the null hypothesis that all individuals sample equally from the population diet distribution. We found that the use of uncorrected δ15N values provided an average ITS estimation which is, depending on the overlap among tissues turnover rates, 14%–35% (fish dataset) and 17%–40% (all species dataset) lower than estimations based on corrected values. Similarly, the use of uncorrected δ13C values provided an average ITS estimation which is 12%–29% (fish dataset) and 21%–45% (all species dataset) lower than corrected estimations. The implications of these results in an ecological context are of great significance. For instance, the fish dataset showed that while uncorrected estimations indicate that three (δ13C) or four (δ15N) species are trophic specialists at the individual level, a moderate correction in isotopic values indicate that none (δ13C) or only one (δ15N) species is a trophic specialist at that level. Noticeably, this last result is much more congruent with dietary data obtained from stomach content analysis. Given the several pros of the multi‐tissue approach, such as its reduced operative costs, we suggest not to abandon this method, but to cope with the non‐independence problem by using the correction proposed here or, at least, by selecting body tissues with a minimal overlap in their turnover rates.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/fwb.13316
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2253178570</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2253178570</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2976-f73d22ad9f9f58199c024f3ab51938cc9891d3577a080a4a6647eaed6ccac7a03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1OwzAQhS0EEqWw4AaWWLFI658kjpelooBUiQ0IiY3l-ke4SuIQO1TdcQTOyElwCVtmM9Lom5n3HgCXGM1wqrndbWaYUlwegQmmZZGRnLBjMEEoL7MCMXQKzkLYIoSqgpEJeF20cGg3TgajYWPim9cwemhCdI2MBrpWuw-nB1nD0BnlZO2CjM630Pa-gc1QR_f9-RVdCEOig4--cwpqGeU5OLGyDubir0_B8-r2aXmfrR_vHpaLdaYIZ2VmGdWESM0tt0WFOVeI5JbKTYE5rZTiFceaFoxJVCGZy7LMmZFGl0pJlYZ0Cq7Gu13v34ekXGz90LfppSCkoJglpwfqeqRU70PojRVdnyz2e4GROEQnUnTiN7rEzkd252qz_x8Uq5ebceMHNA1x8g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2253178570</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An unbiased method to estimate individual specialisation from multi‐tissue isotopic data</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Naya, Daniel E. ; Franco‐Trecu, Valentina</creator><creatorcontrib>Naya, Daniel E. ; Franco‐Trecu, Valentina</creatorcontrib><description>Individual specialisation could affect several ecological and evolutionary processes. Assessing isotopic data from different tissues of a single individual (multi‐tissue approach) represents a common method to estimate individual trophic specialisation (ITS). However, a neglected problem with this approach is that isotopic values of two tissues from a single individual are not statistically independent, and hence, an underestimation of the within‐individual component of variance should be theoretically expected. In this study, we evaluate this potential problem by comparing ITS estimations as currently calculated (uncorrected ITS) against ITS estimations based on a new method that considers the non‐independence problem (corrected ITS). We used unpublished δ15N and δ13C data for nine fish species, together with previously published δ15N and δ13C data for eight other vertebrate species, to estimate (and compare) components of variance and ITS values, using uncorrected and corrected isotopic data. In addition, for each species, we used a Monte Carlo resampling routine to test the null hypothesis that all individuals sample equally from the population diet distribution. We found that the use of uncorrected δ15N values provided an average ITS estimation which is, depending on the overlap among tissues turnover rates, 14%–35% (fish dataset) and 17%–40% (all species dataset) lower than estimations based on corrected values. Similarly, the use of uncorrected δ13C values provided an average ITS estimation which is 12%–29% (fish dataset) and 21%–45% (all species dataset) lower than corrected estimations. The implications of these results in an ecological context are of great significance. For instance, the fish dataset showed that while uncorrected estimations indicate that three (δ13C) or four (δ15N) species are trophic specialists at the individual level, a moderate correction in isotopic values indicate that none (δ13C) or only one (δ15N) species is a trophic specialist at that level. Noticeably, this last result is much more congruent with dietary data obtained from stomach content analysis. Given the several pros of the multi‐tissue approach, such as its reduced operative costs, we suggest not to abandon this method, but to cope with the non‐independence problem by using the correction proposed here or, at least, by selecting body tissues with a minimal overlap in their turnover rates.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0046-5070</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2427</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/fwb.13316</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Content analysis ; Data ; Datasets ; Diet ; Ecological effects ; Ecological monitoring ; Fish ; isotopic niche ; niche specialisation ; Null hypothesis ; Resampling ; Specialization ; Species ; stable isotopes analysis ; Statistical methods ; Stomach ; Stomach content ; Tissue ; Tissues ; trophic specialisation ; Variance ; Variance analysis ; Vertebrates</subject><ispartof>Freshwater biology, 2019-08, Vol.64 (8), p.1427-1436</ispartof><rights>2019 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2976-f73d22ad9f9f58199c024f3ab51938cc9891d3577a080a4a6647eaed6ccac7a03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2976-f73d22ad9f9f58199c024f3ab51938cc9891d3577a080a4a6647eaed6ccac7a03</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8311-9263</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Ffwb.13316$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Ffwb.13316$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Naya, Daniel E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franco‐Trecu, Valentina</creatorcontrib><title>An unbiased method to estimate individual specialisation from multi‐tissue isotopic data</title><title>Freshwater biology</title><description>Individual specialisation could affect several ecological and evolutionary processes. Assessing isotopic data from different tissues of a single individual (multi‐tissue approach) represents a common method to estimate individual trophic specialisation (ITS). However, a neglected problem with this approach is that isotopic values of two tissues from a single individual are not statistically independent, and hence, an underestimation of the within‐individual component of variance should be theoretically expected. In this study, we evaluate this potential problem by comparing ITS estimations as currently calculated (uncorrected ITS) against ITS estimations based on a new method that considers the non‐independence problem (corrected ITS). We used unpublished δ15N and δ13C data for nine fish species, together with previously published δ15N and δ13C data for eight other vertebrate species, to estimate (and compare) components of variance and ITS values, using uncorrected and corrected isotopic data. In addition, for each species, we used a Monte Carlo resampling routine to test the null hypothesis that all individuals sample equally from the population diet distribution. We found that the use of uncorrected δ15N values provided an average ITS estimation which is, depending on the overlap among tissues turnover rates, 14%–35% (fish dataset) and 17%–40% (all species dataset) lower than estimations based on corrected values. Similarly, the use of uncorrected δ13C values provided an average ITS estimation which is 12%–29% (fish dataset) and 21%–45% (all species dataset) lower than corrected estimations. The implications of these results in an ecological context are of great significance. For instance, the fish dataset showed that while uncorrected estimations indicate that three (δ13C) or four (δ15N) species are trophic specialists at the individual level, a moderate correction in isotopic values indicate that none (δ13C) or only one (δ15N) species is a trophic specialist at that level. Noticeably, this last result is much more congruent with dietary data obtained from stomach content analysis. Given the several pros of the multi‐tissue approach, such as its reduced operative costs, we suggest not to abandon this method, but to cope with the non‐independence problem by using the correction proposed here or, at least, by selecting body tissues with a minimal overlap in their turnover rates.</description><subject>Content analysis</subject><subject>Data</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Ecological effects</subject><subject>Ecological monitoring</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>isotopic niche</subject><subject>niche specialisation</subject><subject>Null hypothesis</subject><subject>Resampling</subject><subject>Specialization</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>stable isotopes analysis</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Stomach</subject><subject>Stomach content</subject><subject>Tissue</subject><subject>Tissues</subject><subject>trophic specialisation</subject><subject>Variance</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><subject>Vertebrates</subject><issn>0046-5070</issn><issn>1365-2427</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1OwzAQhS0EEqWw4AaWWLFI658kjpelooBUiQ0IiY3l-ke4SuIQO1TdcQTOyElwCVtmM9Lom5n3HgCXGM1wqrndbWaYUlwegQmmZZGRnLBjMEEoL7MCMXQKzkLYIoSqgpEJeF20cGg3TgajYWPim9cwemhCdI2MBrpWuw-nB1nD0BnlZO2CjM630Pa-gc1QR_f9-RVdCEOig4--cwpqGeU5OLGyDubir0_B8-r2aXmfrR_vHpaLdaYIZ2VmGdWESM0tt0WFOVeI5JbKTYE5rZTiFceaFoxJVCGZy7LMmZFGl0pJlYZ0Cq7Gu13v34ekXGz90LfppSCkoJglpwfqeqRU70PojRVdnyz2e4GROEQnUnTiN7rEzkd252qz_x8Uq5ebceMHNA1x8g</recordid><startdate>201908</startdate><enddate>201908</enddate><creator>Naya, Daniel E.</creator><creator>Franco‐Trecu, Valentina</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8311-9263</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201908</creationdate><title>An unbiased method to estimate individual specialisation from multi‐tissue isotopic data</title><author>Naya, Daniel E. ; Franco‐Trecu, Valentina</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2976-f73d22ad9f9f58199c024f3ab51938cc9891d3577a080a4a6647eaed6ccac7a03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Content analysis</topic><topic>Data</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Ecological effects</topic><topic>Ecological monitoring</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>isotopic niche</topic><topic>niche specialisation</topic><topic>Null hypothesis</topic><topic>Resampling</topic><topic>Specialization</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>stable isotopes analysis</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Stomach</topic><topic>Stomach content</topic><topic>Tissue</topic><topic>Tissues</topic><topic>trophic specialisation</topic><topic>Variance</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><topic>Vertebrates</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Naya, Daniel E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franco‐Trecu, Valentina</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><jtitle>Freshwater biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Naya, Daniel E.</au><au>Franco‐Trecu, Valentina</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An unbiased method to estimate individual specialisation from multi‐tissue isotopic data</atitle><jtitle>Freshwater biology</jtitle><date>2019-08</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1427</spage><epage>1436</epage><pages>1427-1436</pages><issn>0046-5070</issn><eissn>1365-2427</eissn><abstract>Individual specialisation could affect several ecological and evolutionary processes. Assessing isotopic data from different tissues of a single individual (multi‐tissue approach) represents a common method to estimate individual trophic specialisation (ITS). However, a neglected problem with this approach is that isotopic values of two tissues from a single individual are not statistically independent, and hence, an underestimation of the within‐individual component of variance should be theoretically expected. In this study, we evaluate this potential problem by comparing ITS estimations as currently calculated (uncorrected ITS) against ITS estimations based on a new method that considers the non‐independence problem (corrected ITS). We used unpublished δ15N and δ13C data for nine fish species, together with previously published δ15N and δ13C data for eight other vertebrate species, to estimate (and compare) components of variance and ITS values, using uncorrected and corrected isotopic data. In addition, for each species, we used a Monte Carlo resampling routine to test the null hypothesis that all individuals sample equally from the population diet distribution. We found that the use of uncorrected δ15N values provided an average ITS estimation which is, depending on the overlap among tissues turnover rates, 14%–35% (fish dataset) and 17%–40% (all species dataset) lower than estimations based on corrected values. Similarly, the use of uncorrected δ13C values provided an average ITS estimation which is 12%–29% (fish dataset) and 21%–45% (all species dataset) lower than corrected estimations. The implications of these results in an ecological context are of great significance. For instance, the fish dataset showed that while uncorrected estimations indicate that three (δ13C) or four (δ15N) species are trophic specialists at the individual level, a moderate correction in isotopic values indicate that none (δ13C) or only one (δ15N) species is a trophic specialist at that level. Noticeably, this last result is much more congruent with dietary data obtained from stomach content analysis. Given the several pros of the multi‐tissue approach, such as its reduced operative costs, we suggest not to abandon this method, but to cope with the non‐independence problem by using the correction proposed here or, at least, by selecting body tissues with a minimal overlap in their turnover rates.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/fwb.13316</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8311-9263</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0046-5070
ispartof Freshwater biology, 2019-08, Vol.64 (8), p.1427-1436
issn 0046-5070
1365-2427
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2253178570
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Content analysis
Data
Datasets
Diet
Ecological effects
Ecological monitoring
Fish
isotopic niche
niche specialisation
Null hypothesis
Resampling
Specialization
Species
stable isotopes analysis
Statistical methods
Stomach
Stomach content
Tissue
Tissues
trophic specialisation
Variance
Variance analysis
Vertebrates
title An unbiased method to estimate individual specialisation from multi‐tissue isotopic data
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T02%3A15%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20unbiased%20method%20to%20estimate%20individual%20specialisation%20from%20multi%E2%80%90tissue%20isotopic%20data&rft.jtitle=Freshwater%20biology&rft.au=Naya,%20Daniel%20E.&rft.date=2019-08&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1427&rft.epage=1436&rft.pages=1427-1436&rft.issn=0046-5070&rft.eissn=1365-2427&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/fwb.13316&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2253178570%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2253178570&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true