4.3 Article

An evaluation of lipid extraction techniques for interpretation of carbon and nitrogen isotope values in bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) skin tissue

Journal

MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 85-103

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mms.12018

Keywords

lipid extraction; lipid normalization; marine mammal; stable isotope analysis

Funding

  1. Harbor Branch Protect Wild Dolphins Project
  2. National Marine Fisheries Service
  3. NOAA Northern Gulf Institute
  4. Florida State University graduate school via a University Research Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We studied the effects of two common chemical extraction techniques on bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) skin tissues with the intent to develop a mathematical lipid correction for dolphin skin C-13. One method employs a hot solvent mixture (chloroform and methanol) while the other method requires washing the samples with cold solvent followed by water. The water wash method resulted in significant alteration of tissue N-15. We found no correlation between change in sample mass and C/N or between change in sample mass and the change in C-13 (C-13) following lipid extraction. Although C-13 was positive following lipid extraction (mean = 1.6 parts per thousand and 1.2 parts per thousand, for the two methods), there was no correlation between C/N and C-13 for either method. Cumulatively, these results prevented us from applying a mathematical lipid normalization. Based on our findings and consideration of previously reported results, we suggest that applying these extraction techniques to dolphin skin with C/N<4.5 introduces greater uncertainty than is warranted. We recommend against lipid correction for dolphin skins with C/N<4.5, but stress that the resulting uncertainty in C-13 needs to be accounted for when implementing isotope mixing models to assess diet or organic matter sources.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available