4.6 Article

Interpretation of southern hemisphere humpback whale diet via stable isotopes; implications of tissue-specific analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283330

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the carbon and nitrogen isotopic values of blubber and skin tissues of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales, revealing significant differences between the two tissues. It highlights the need for method validation and standardization in the application of these approaches, advancing the methodological aspects of cetacean dietary analysis. This is of elevated importance in the context of rapidly changing ocean ecosystems.
Blubber and skin are commonly used tissues in stable isotope analysis for the purpose of investigating cetacean diet. Critical comparison of tissue-specific isotopic signals is, however, lacking resulting in uncertainty surrounding the representativeness and therefore utility of different tissues for accurate determination of recent foraging. This study used remotely biopsied blubber and skin tissues from southern hemisphere humpback whales for strategic comparison of delta C-13 and delta N-15 values. Samples were collected between 2008-2018 as part of long-term monitoring under the Humpback Whale Sentinel Program. Blubber tissues were lipid-extracted prior to analysis, whilst mathematical lipid-correction was performed on skin samples. Isotopic values from paired blubber and skin samples from the same individuals were compared to assess whether tissues could be used interchangeably for isotope analysis and dietary interpretation. Significant differences were observed for both delta C-13 and delta N-15, flagging previously undocumented methodological considerations, and the need for method validation and standardisation in application of these approaches. This study therefore advances methodological aspects of cetacean dietary analysis. This is of elevated importance in the context of rapidly changing ocean ecosystems.

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

4.6
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