Skip to main content
Dryad logo

Reevaluating trophic discrimination factors (Δδ13C and Δδ15N) for diet reconstruction

Citation

Stephens, Ryan; Ouimette, Andrew; Hobbie, Erik; Rowe, Rebecca (2022), Reevaluating trophic discrimination factors (Δδ13C and Δδ15N) for diet reconstruction, Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.cnp5hqc69

Abstract

Stable isotope analysis is increasingly used to assess diet and trophic positions of animals. Such assessments require estimates of trophic discrimination factors (TDF — offset between the isotopic composition of diet and animal tissues), with imprecise applications of TDFs leading to biased conclusions in resource use. Because TDFs are unavailable for most species, ecologists often apply values from taxonomically similar species or use trophic step increases of about 1‰ for carbon (TDF-δ13C) and 3‰ for nitrogen (TDF-δ15N). Such practices may be inaccurate since TDFs vary greatly, even within a species. To better understand the factors that influence TDFs, we conducted a meta-analysis of TDF-δ13C and TDF-δ15N for mammals and quantified variation in relation to consumer type (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore) and diet source (C3-based, C4-based, marine-based, mixture). Additionally, to guide TDF choice, we used an isotopic dataset of small mammal tissues and diet items to assess how predicted dietary contributions vary with TDFs estimated using (1) taxonomic relatedness, (2) consumer type and diet source, or (3) values derived from wild animals eating natural diets. Our meta-analysis revealed that metabolic routing and interactions between consumer class, dietary source, and the protein versus energy content of diets best explained variation in TDF-δ13C values (-1.5 to 7.3‰), whereas consumer class best explained variation in TDF-δ15N values (-0.5 to 7.1‰). Our test of methods to estimate TDFs indicated that ecologists should avoid relying on taxonomic relatedness when selecting TDF-δ13C, as mixed-diet lab studies may cause misleading results for herbivores and omnivores. Additionally, field-derived estimates could help fill TDF gaps where diets within a consumer class are absent. Overall, we suggest that using standard TDF trophic step values should be abandoned, as feeding studies are often poor proxies for natural diets, particularly for herbivores and omnivores. Instead, we provide recommendations on how to select TDFs, along with a range of TDF-δ13C and TDF-δ15N values depending on diet source, consumer class, and tissue type. Use of these more refined recommendations and TDF values in isotopic assessments will improve estimates of diets and trophic interactions in natural systems, leading to a better understanding of ecological interactions and communities.

Methods

See manuscript for details on data collection.

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Award: 1016133

National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Award: 1019306

University of New Hampshire

Hubbard Brook LTER Project

National Science Foundation, Award: 1108074