4.3 Article

Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in multiple tissues of wild and captive harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) off the California coast

期刊

MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 542-560

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00516.x

关键词

stable isotopes; harbor seal; Phoca vitulina; carbon; 13C; nitrogen; 15N; San Francisco Bay; Channel Islands; Tomales Bay; trophic discrimination

资金

  1. SeaGrant Rapid Response
  2. UC Marine Council-California Environmental Quality Initiative
  3. Ocean Packard Foundation
  4. UC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios (delta 13C and delta 15N) of serum, red blood cells (RBC), muscle, and blubber were measured in captive and wild northeast Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) at three coastal California sites (San Francisco Bay, Tomales Bay, and Channel Islands). Trophic discrimination factors (Delta(Tissue-Diet)) were calculated for captive seals and then applied in wild counterparts in each habitat to estimate trophic position and feeding behavior. Trophic discrimination factors for delta 15N of serum (+3.8 parts per thousand), lipid-extracted muscle (+1.6 parts per thousand), and lipid-blubber (+6.5 parts per thousand) are proposed to determine trophic position. An offset between RBC and serum of +0.3 parts per thousand for delta 13C and -0.6 parts per thousand for delta 15N was observed, which is consistent with previous research. Specifically, weaner seals (<1 yr) had large offsets, suggesting strong trophic position shifts during this life stage. Isotopic values indicated an average trophic position of 3.6 at both San Francisco Bay and Tomales Bay and 4.2 at Channel Islands. Isotopic means were strongly dependent on age class and also suggested that mean diet composition varies considerably between all locations. Together, these data indicate that isotopic composition of blood fractions can be an effective approach to estimate trophic position and dietary behavior in wild pinnipeds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据