Combining sources in stable isotope mixing models: alternative methods
Stable isotope mixing models are often used to quantify source contributions to a mixture. Examples include pollution source identification; trophic web studies; analysis of water sources for soils, plants; or water bodies, and many others. A common problem is having too many sources to allow a unique solution. We discuss two alternative procedures for addressing this problem. One option is a priori to combine sources with similar signatures so the number of sources is small enough to provide a unique solution. Aggregation should be considered only when isotopic signatures of clustered sources are not significantly different, and sources are related so the combined source group has some functional significance. For example, in a food web analysis, lumping several species within a trophic guild allows more interpretable results than lumping disparate food sources, even if they have similar isotopic signatures. One result of combining mixing model sources is increased uncertainty of the combined end-member isotopic signatures and consequently the source contribution estimates; this effect can be quantified using the IsoError model (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/models/isotopes/isoerror1_04.htm). As an alternative to lumping sources before a mixing analysis, the IsoSource mixing model (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/models/isosource/isosource.htm) can be used to find all feasible solutions of source contributions consistent with isotopic mass balance. While ranges of feasible contributions for each individual source can often be quite broad, contributions from functionally related groups of sources can be summed a posteriori, producing a range of solutions for the aggregate source that may be considerably narrower. A paleohuman dietary analysis example illustrates this method, which involves a terrestrial meat food source, a combination of three terrestrial plant foods, and a combination of three marine foods. In this case, a posteriori aggregation of sources allowed strong conclusions about temporal shifts in marine versus terrestrial diets that would not have otherwise been discerned.
KeywordsStable isotopes Mixing model
The information in this document has been funded in part by the US Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review, and approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. We thank Jon Benstead, Bob Ozretich, and two anonymous reviewers for constructive reviews. Table 1 and Figs. 1 and 3 are reprinted from Newsome et al. (2004) with permission from the publisher (Elsevier).
- Burford MA, Sellars MJ, Arnold SJ, Keys SJ, Crocos PJ, Preston NP (2004) Contribution of the natural biota associated with substrates to the nutritional requirements of the post-larval shrimp, Penaeus esculentus (Haswell), in high-density rearing systems. Aquaculture Res 35:508–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lathja K, Michener RH (eds) (1994) Stable isotopes in ecology and environmental science. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Phillips DL, Koch PL (2002) Incorporating concentration dependence in stable isotope mixing models. Oecologia 130:114–125Google Scholar
- Rosing MN, Ben-David M, Barry RP (1997) Analysis of stable isotope data: a K nearest-neighbors randomization test. J Wildl Manage 62:380–388Google Scholar
- Sturges WT, Hopper JF, Barrie LA, Schnell RC (1993) Stable lead isotope ratios in Alaskan Arctic aerosols. Atmos Environ 27A:2865–2871Google Scholar