The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diet tracing in ecology: Method comparison and selection
Open accessAbstract
Determining diet is a key prerequisite for understanding species interactions, food web structure and ecological dynamics. In recent years, there has been considerable development in both the methodology and application of novel and more traditional dietary tracing methods, yet there is no comprehensive synthesis that systematically and quantitatively compares the different approaches. Here we conceptualise diet tracing in ecology, provide recommendations for method selection, and illustrate the advantages of method integration. We summarise empirical evidence on how different methods quantify diet mixtures, by contrasting estimates of dietary proportions from multiple methods applied to the same consumer‐resource datasets, or from experimental studies with known diet compositions. Our data synthesis revealed an urgent need for more experiential comparisons among the dietary methods. The comparison of diet quantifications from field observations showed that different techniques aligned well in cases with less than six diet items, but diverged considerably when applied to more complex diet mixtures. Efforts are ongoing to further advance dietary estimation, including how reliably compound specific stable isotope analyses and fatty acid profiles can quantify more prey items than bulk stable isotope analyses. Similarly, DNA analyses, which can depict trophic interactions at a higher resolution than any other method, are generating new ways to better quantify diets and differentiate among life‐stages of prey. Such efforts, combined with more empirical testing of each dietary method and establishment of open data repositories for dietary data, promise to greatly advance community and ecosystem ecology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G. M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D. A., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11148 · Cited by 7,457 · cited 1×
“Because trophic relationships are key mediators of community dynamics and ecosystem functioning (Cardinale et al., 2012), our understanding of natural systems relies on rigorous estimates of animal feeding.”
BackgroundTrophic Downgrading of Planet Earth
Estes, J. A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., Bond, W. J., Carpenter, S. R., Essington, T. E., Holt, R. D., Jackson, J. B. C., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1205106 · Cited by 4,087 · cited 1×
“When compiled across whole communities, diet records provide powerful insights into the structure and function of entire ecosystems (Estes et al., 2011).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Nielsen, J. M., Clare, E. L., Hayden, B., Brett, M. T., & Kratina, P.
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-09-26
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 278-291
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2746877260
- Cited by
- 564
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 29.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diet tracing in ecology: Method comparison and selection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12869
- The paper
- Nielsen, J. M., Clare, E. L., Hayden, B., Brett, M. T., & Kratina, P. (2018). Diet tracing in ecology: Method comparison and selection. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12869
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.