4.7 Article

Testing isosource: Stable isotope analysis of a tropical fishery with diverse organic matter sources

Journal

ECOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue 2, Pages 326-333

Publisher

ECOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1890/05-0721

Keywords

carbon; food webs; IsoSource; mangrove; Micronesia; mixing models; seagrasses; stable isotope analysis; sulfur

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We sampled consumers and organic matter sources (mangrove litter, freshwater swamp-forest litter, seagrasses, seagrass epiphytes, and marine particulate organic matter [MPOM]) from four estuaries on Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia for stable isotope (delta C-13 and delta S-34) analysis. Unique mixing solutions cannot be calculated in a dual-isotope, five-endmember scenario, so we tested IsoSource, a recently developed statistical procedure that calculates ranges in source contributions (i.e., minimum and maximum possible). ReNtively high minimum contributions indicate significant sources, while low maxima indicate otherwise. Litter from the two forest types was isotopically distinguishable but had low average minimum contributions (0-8% for mangrove litter and 0% for swamp-forest litter among estuaries). Minimum contribution of MPOM was also low, averaging 0-13% among estuaries. Instead, local marine sources dominated contributions to consumers. Minimum contributions of seagrasses averaged 8-47% among estuaries (range 0-88% among species). Minimum contributions of seagrass epiphytes averaged 5-27% among estuaries (range 0-69% among species). IsoSource enabled inclusion of five organic matter sources in our dual-isotope analysis, ranking trophic importance as follows: seagrasses > seagrass epiphytes > MPOM > mangrove forest > freshwater swamp-forest. IsoSource is thus a useful step toward understanding which of multiple organic matter sources support food webs; more detailed work is necessary to identify unique solutions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available