ArticleScientific reports2020
Exploring source differences on diet-tissue discrimination factors in the analysis of stable isotope mixing models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predator-mediated trophic connectivity between reef and oceanic habitats in Palau.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Article
- Characterizing Particulate Organic Carbon Isotopes from Typical Emission Sources and Ambient Air in Beijing.ACS environmental Au · 2026Article
- The importance of method selection when estimating diet composition with quantitative fatty acid signature analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Living with voracious roommates: Factors that explain isotopic niche variation in a mixed colony of insectivorous bats.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Stable isotope mixing models are regularly used to provide probabilistic estimates of source contributions to dietary mixtures. Whilst Bayesian implementations of isotope mixing models have become prominent, the use of appropriate diet-tissue discrimination factors (DTDFs) remains as the least resolved aspect. The DTDFs are critical in providing accurate inferences from these models. Using both simulated and laboratory-based experimental data, this study provides conceptual and practical applications of isotope mixing models by exploring the role of DTDFs. The experimental study used Mozambique Tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus, a freshwater fish, to explore multi-tissue variations in isotopic incorporation patterns, and to evaluate isotope mixing model outputs based on the experiment- and literature-based DTDFs. Isotope incorporation patterns were variable for both muscle and fin tissues among the consumer groups that fed diet sources with different stable isotope values. Application of literature-based DTDFs in isotope mixing models consistently underestimated the dietary proportions of all single-source consumer groups. In contrast, application of diet-specific DTDFs provided better dietary estimates for single-source consumer groups. Variations in the proportional contributions of the individual sources were, nevertheless, observed for the mixed-source consumer group, which suggests that isotope assimilation of the individual food sources may have been influenced by other underlying physiological processes. This study provides evidence that stable isotope values from different diet sources exhibit large variations as they become incorporated into consumer tissues. This suggests that the application of isotope mixing models requires consideration of several aspects such as diet type and the associated biological processes that may influence DTDFs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.