4.7 Article

Iron, copper and zinc isotopic fractionation up mammal trophic chains

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 374, 期 -, 页码 164-172

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.05.037

关键词

non-traditional isotopes; isotopic fractionation; trophic chain; paleoecology; paleodiet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a growing body of evidence that some non-traditional elements exhibit stable isotope compositions that are distinct in botanical and animal products, providing potential new tracers for diet reconstructions. Here, we present data for iron (Fe), copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) stable isotope compositions in plants and bones of herbivores and carnivores. The samples come from trophic chains located in the Western Cape area and in the Kruger National Park in South Africa. The Fe, Cu and Zn isotope systematics are similar in both parks. However, local Cu, and possibly Zn, isotopic values of soils influence that of plants and of higher trophic levels. Between plants and bones of herbivores, the Zn isotope compositions are Zn-66-enriched by about 0.8 parts per thousand whereas no significant trophic enrichment is observed for Fe and Cu. Between bones of herbivores and bones of carnivores, the Fe isotope compositions are Fe-56-depleted by about 0.6 parts per thousand, the Cu isotope compositions are Cu-65-enriched by about 1.0 parts per thousand, and the Zn isotope compositions are slightly Zn-66-depleted by about 0.2 parts per thousand. The isotopic distributions of the metals in the body partly explain the observed trophic isotopic systematics. However, it is also necessary to invoke differential intestinal metal absorption between herbivores and carnivores to account for the observed results. Further studies are necessary to fully understand how the Fe, Cu and Zn isotope values are regulated within the ecosystem's trophic levels, but the data already suggests significant potential as new paleodietary and paleoecological proxies. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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