The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Variation in δ15N and δ13C trophic fractionation: Implications for aquatic food web studies
Abstract
Use of stable isotope techniques to quantify food web relationships requires a priori estimates of the enrichment or depletion in δ 15 N and δ 13 C values between prey and predator (known as trophic fractionation; hereafter Δδ 15 N and Δδ 13 C). We conducted a broad‐scale analysis of Δδ 15 N and Δδ 13 C from aquatic systems, including three new field estimates. Carnivores had significantly higher Δδ 15 N values than herbivores. Furthermore, carnivores, invertebrates, and lab‐derived estimates were significantly more variable than their counterparts ( f‐test, p < 0.00001). Δδ 13 C was higher for carnivores than for herbivores (p = 0.001), while variances did not differ significantly. Excluding herbivores, the average Δδ 15 N and Δδ 13 C were 3.4‰ and 0.8‰, respectively. But even with unbiased fractionation estimates, there is variation in isotopic fractionation that contributes to error in quantitative isotope model outputs. We simulated the error variance in δ 15 N‐based estimates of trophic position and two‐source δ 13 C diet mixing models, explicitly considering the observed variation in Δδ 15 N and Δδ 13 C, along with the other potential error sources. The resultant error in trophic position and mixing model outputs was generally minor, provided that primary consumers were used as baseline indicators for estimating trophic position and that end member d13C values in dietary mixing models were sufficiently distinct.
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
Cited by
Trophic magnification factors: Considerations of ecology, ecosystems, and study design
Borgå, K., Kidd, K. A., Muir, D. C., Berglund, O., Conder, J. M., Gobas, F. A., Kucklick, J., Malm, O., & Powell, D. E. (2012) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.244 · Cited by 531
Søreide, J. E., Hop, H., Carroll, M. L., Falk-Petersen, S., & Hegseth, E. N. (2006) · Progress in Oceanography · doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2006.06.001 · Cited by 261
Muñoz, R., Currin, C., & Whitfield, P. (2011) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps09154 · Cited by 146
Foodweb structure in small streams: Do we need different models for the tropics?
Dudgeon, D., Cheung, F. K. W., & Mantel, S. K. (2010) · Journal of the North American Benthological Society · doi:10.1899/09-058.1 · Cited by 64
Armitage, A. R., & Fourqurean, J. W. (2009) · Estuaries and Coasts · doi:10.1007/s12237-009-9219-z · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Zanden, M. J. V., & Rasmussen, J. B.
- Venue
- Limnology and Oceanography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2061-2066
- ISSN
- 0024-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5590
- OpenAlex
- W2056153447
- Cited by
- 1,840
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Variation in δ15N and δ13C trophic fractionation: Implications for aquatic food web studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4319/lo.2001.46.8.2061
- The paper
- Zanden, M. J. V., & Rasmussen, J. B. (2001). Variation in δ15N and δ13C trophic fractionation: Implications for aquatic food web studies. Limnology and Oceanography. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2001.46.8.2061
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.