, Volume 654, Issue 1, pp 7–12 | Cite as

Reply to Hussey et al.: The requirement for accurate diet-tissue discrimination factors for interpreting stable isotopes in sharks

Opinion paper


We recently published data describing stable isotope turnover rates and urea effects on nitrogen isotope discrimination in elasmobranchs. Given a lack of experimental evidence for urea effects on tissue nitrogen isotope values, we concluded that published nitrogen discrimination factors for teleost fishes may be transferable to elasmobranchs. Hussey et al. (Hydrobiologia, 2010a) challenge this conclusion, citing evidence from recent estimates of diet-tissue discrimination factors in sharks (Hussey et al., Biochem Physiol A 155:445–453, 2010b) and a subsequent modeling analysis of dietary proportion estimates for captive sand tiger sharks using a range of discrimination factors. We agree that researchers should use discrimination factors based on the closest possible model species and thus should use estimates by Hussey et al. (2010b) in studies of large predatory sharks rather than values derived from teleosts. However, since our study showed no effects of urea retention on nitrogen isotope values, we argue that the broad body of literature on teleost discrimination factors currently offers useful information for isotope studies on the diverse assemblage of elasmobranch species with vastly different diets, growth rates, and lifestyles relative to the species examined in the Hussey et al. (2010b) study. Furthermore, we feel that the modeling exercise performed by Hussey et al. (2010a) is misleading since it is based on a subset of the same data used to generate their initial discrimination factor estimates and attempts to estimate diet among sources with similar isotope values. We feel that the modeling exercise highlights another topic relevant to this discussion: the importance of quantifying variability in isotope studies. Published studies have demonstrated variability in isotope discrimination factors across species, tissue types, diets, and metabolic rates. While accurate discrimination factors are important for use in dietary mixing models and trophic position estimates, incorporation of associated variability is critical in order to reveal uncertainty in these estimates. In the absence of relevant elasmobranch data, researchers should use teleost-based discrimination factors but also include estimates of uncertainty in such values. Recently developed isotope mixing models (MixSIR and SIAR) allow such uncertainty to be incorporated in dietary proportion estimates.


Nitrogen Elasmobranchs Trophic Urea 15



We thank Sarah Bean and Erik Hobbie for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.


  1. Barnes, C., C. J. Sweeting, S. Jennings, J. T. Barry & N. V. C. Polunin, 2007. Effect of temperature and ration size on carbon and nitrogen stable isotope trophic fractionation. Functional Ecology 21: 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, C., S. Jennings, N. V. C. Polunin & J. E. Lancaster, 2008. The importance of quantifying inherent variability when interpreting stable isotope field data. Oecologia 155: 227–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchheister, A. & R. J. Latour, 2010. Turnover and fractionation of carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes in tissues of a migratory coastal predator summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67: 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson, J. K., K. J. Goldman & C. G. Lowe, 2004. Metabolism, energetic demand, and endothermy. In Carrier, J. C., J. A. Musick & M. R. Heithaus (eds), Biology of Sharks and Their Relatives. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 203–224.Google Scholar
  5. Caut, S., E. Angulo & F. Courchamp, 2009. Variation in discrimination factors (Δ15N and Δ13C): the effect of diet isotopic values and applications for diet reconstruction. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortés, E., 1999. Standardized diet compositions and trophic levels of sharks. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 707–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fisk, A. T., S. A. Tittlemier, J. L. Pranschke & R. J. Norstrom, 2002. Using anthropogenic contaminants and stable isotopes to assess the feeding ecology of Greenland sharks. Ecology 83: 2162–2172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaye-Siessegger, J., U. Focken, H. J. Abel & K. Becker, 2003. Feeding level and diet quality influence trophic shift of C and N isotopes in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus (L.)). Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies 39: 125–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaye-Siessegger, J., U. Focken, S. Muetzel, H. Abel & K. Becker, 2004. Feeding level and individual metabolic rate affect δ13C and δ15N values in carp: implications for food web studies. Oecologia 138: 175–183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hove, J. R. & S. A. Moss, 1997. Effect of MS-222 on response to light and rate of metabolism of the little skate Raja erinacea. Marine Biology 128: 579–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hussey, N. E., M. A. MacNeil & A. T. Fisk, 2010a. The requirement for accurate diet-tissue discrimination factors for interpreting stable isotopes in sharks. Comment on: ‘Stable isotope dynamics in elasmobranch fishes’. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-010-0361-1.
  12. Hussey, N. E., J. Brush, I. D. McCarthy & A. T. Fisk, 2010b. δ15N and δ13C diet-tissue discrimination factors for large sharks under semi-controlled conditions. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 155: 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Logan, J. M. & M. E. Lutcavage, 2010. Stable isotope dynamics in elasmobranch fishes. Hydrobiologia 644: 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCutchan, J. H. Jr., W. M. Lewis Jr., C. Kendall & C. C. McGrath, 2003. Variation in trophic shift for stable isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. Oikos 102: 378–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Minagawa, M. & E. Wada, 1984. Stepwise enrichment of δ15N along food chains: further evidence and the relation between δ15N and animal age. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 48: 1135–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moore, J. W. & B. X. Semmens, 2008. Incorporating uncertainty and prior information into stable isotope mixing models. Ecology Letters 11: 470–480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Parnell, A. C., R. Inger, S. Bearhop & A. L. Jackson, 2010. Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too much variation. PLoS One 5: e9672.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Phillips, D. L. & J. W. Gregg, 2003. Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too many sources. Oecologia 136: 261–269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pinnegar, J. K. & N. V. C. Polunin, 1999. Differential fractionation of δ13C and δ15N among fish tissues: implications for the study of trophic interactions. Functional Ecology 13: 225–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Post, D. M., 2002. Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: models, methods, and assumptions. Ecology 83: 703–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sepulveda, C. A., J. B. Graham & D. Bernal, 2007. Aerobic metabolic rates of swimming juvenile mako sharks, Isurus oxyrinchus. Marine Biology 152: 1087–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sweeting, C. J., J. Barry, C. Barnes, N. V. C. Polunin & S. Jennings, 2007. Effects of body size and environment on diet-tissue δ15N fractionation in fishes. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 340: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tominaga, O., N. Uno & T. Seikai, 2003. Influence of diet shift from formulated feed to live mysids on the carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratio δ13C and δ15N in dorsal muscles of juvenile Japanese flounders, Paralichthys olivaceus. Aquaculture 218: 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Trueman, C. N., R. A. R. McGill & P. H. Guyard, 2005. The effect of growth rate on tissue-diet isotopic spacing in rapidly growing animals. An experimental study with Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 19: 3239–3247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Vander Zanden, M. J. & J. B. Rasmussen, 2001. Variation in δ15N and δ13C trophic fractionation: implications for aquatic food web studies. Limnology and Oceanography 46: 2061–2066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vanderklift, M. A. & S. Ponsard, 2003. Sources of variation in consumer-diet δ15N enrichment: a meta-analysis. Oecologia 136: 169–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wetherbee, B. M. & E. Cortés, 2004. Food consumption and feeding habits. In Carrier, J. C., J. A. Musick & M. R. Heithaus (eds), Biology of Sharks and Their Relatives. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 223–244.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Shore Field StationMassachusetts Division of Marine FisheriesNew BedfordUSA
  2. 2.Large Pelagics Research Center, Department of Natural Resources ConservationUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstGloucesterUSA

Personalised recommendations