4.2 Article

Isotopic fractionation and turnover in captive Garden Warblers (Sylvia borin):: implications for delineating dietary and migratory associations in wild passerines

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
卷 81, 期 9, 页码 1630-1635

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/Z03-140

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is currently a great deal of interest in using stable-isotope methods to investigate diet and migratory connections in wild passerines. To apply these methods successfully, it is important to understand how stable isotopes discriminate or change between diet and the tissue of interest and what the element-turnover rates are in metabolically active tissues. Of particular use are studies that sample birds non-destructively through the use of blood and feathers. We investigated patterns of isotopic discrimination between diet and blood and feathers of Garden Warblers (Sylvia borin) raised on an isotopically homogeneous diet (48% C; 5% N) and then switched to one of two experimental diets, mealworms (56.8% C, 8.3% N) and elderberries, Sambucus niger (47.4% C, 1.5% N). We established that the discrimination factors between diet and blood appropriate for stable carbon (delta(13)C) and nitrogen (delta(15)N) isotopes are +1.7parts per thousand and +2.4parts per thousand, respectively. For feathers, these values were +2.7parts per thousand and +4parts per thousand, respectively. Turnover of elemental nitrogen in whole blood was best approximated by an exponential-decay model with a half-life of 11.0 +/- 0.8 days (mean +/- SD). Corresponding turnover of carbon was estimated to range from 5.0 +/- 0.7 to 5.7 +/- 0.8 days. We conclude that this decoupling of nitrogen- and carbon-turnover rates can be explained by differences in metabolic routing of dietary macromolecules. Our results suggest that tracking frugivory in migratory passerines that switch diets between insects and fruits may be complicated if only a trophic-level estimate is made using delta(15)N measurements.

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

4.2
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