4.5 Article

Nitrogen stress causes unpredictable enrichments of 15N in two nectar-feeding bat species

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 207, 期 10, 页码 1741-1748

出版社

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.00929

关键词

nitrogen isotope; nitrogen stress; fractionation; mixing; Glossophaga soricina; Leptonycteris curasoae

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We estimated the effect of nitrogen stress on the nitrogen isotope enrichments in wing membrane and blood of two nectar-feeding bats (Glossophaga soricina and Leptonycteris curasoae) by offering a nitrogen-poor diet with a high delta(15)N and delta(13)C. Before the experiment, bats were sustained on a normal diet with a low delta(15)N and delta(13)C. Under this first food regime, the fractionation of nitrogen isotopes averaged 3.1parts per thousand delta(15)N for blood and 4.4parts per thousand delta(15)N for wing membrane, which was almost twice as high as the corresponding fractionation of carbon isotopes. After switching to the nitrogen-poor diet, the enrichment of heavy isotopes increased for both elements in all tissues under study. The recently published estimates of half-life of carbon isotopes indicated a low turnover rate of carbon in wing membrane and blood and an almost constant halflife over varying losses of body mass. The estimates of half-life of nitrogen were two to six times higher than those of carbon. We argue that this discrepancy was caused by the mixing of nitrogen isotopes from internal and external sources. The mixing effect was probably negligible for carbon as the amount of ingested carbon outweighed the amount of mobilized carbon from internal sources. A correlation between the estimated turnover rates of nitrogen and losses of body masses was probably obscured by the additional fractionation of nitrogen isotopes in catabolic animals. We conclude that the interpretation of nitrogen isotope data of free-ranging animals is difficult when the animal's diet is changing to a critical nitrogen content.

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

4.5
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