Oecologia

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Quantifying learning in biotracer studies

  • Christopher J. Brown
  • Michael T. Brett
  • Maria Fernanda Adame
  • Ben Stewart-Koster
  • Stuart E. Bunn
Methods

Abstract

Mixing models have become requisite tools for analyzing biotracer data, most commonly stable isotope ratios, to infer dietary contributions of multiple sources to a consumer. However, Bayesian mixing models will always return a result that defaults to their priors if the data poorly resolve the source contributions, and thus, their interpretation requires caution. We describe an application of information theory to quantify how much has been learned about a consumer’s diet from new biotracer data. We apply the approach to two example data sets. We find that variation in the isotope ratios of sources limits the precision of estimates for the consumer’s diet, even with a large number of consumer samples. Thus, the approach which we describe is a type of power analysis that uses a priori simulations to find an optimal sample size. Biotracer data are fundamentally limited in their ability to discriminate consumer diets. We suggest that other types of data, such as gut content analysis, must be used as prior information in model fitting, to improve model learning about the consumer’s diet. Information theory may also be used to identify optimal sampling protocols in situations where sampling of consumers is limited due to expense or ethical concerns.

Keywords

Diet Food web Nitrogen isotopes Carbon isotopes Bayesian Mixing model R package 

Notes

Acknowledgements

CJB was supported by a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE160101207) from the Australian Research Council. MF Adame is supported by the Advance Queensland Fellowship, Queensland Government, Australia. We are grateful for help received from E Boone and Brian Fry, and insightful suggestions from two reviewers.

Author contribution statement

CJB, MTB, MFA, BSK, and SEB conceived of and designed the study, CJB performed the analysis, CJB wrote the first draft, and all other authors provided editorial assistance.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4138_MOESM1_ESM.docx (125 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 219 kb)

References

  1. Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Boone EL, Merrick JR, Krachey MJ (2014) A Hellinger distance approach to MCMC diagnostics. J Stat Comput Simul 84:833–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brett MT (2014) Resource polygon geometry predicts bayesian stable isotope mixing model bias. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 514:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brett MT, Eisenlord ME, Galloway AWE (2016) Using multiple tracers and directly accounting for trophic modification improves dietary mixing-model performance. Ecosphere 7(8):e01440.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brett MT, Holtgrieve GW, Schindler DE (2018) An assessment of assumptions and uncertainty in deuterium-based estimates of terrestrial subsidies to aquatic consumers. Ecology (in press) Google Scholar
  6. Chiaradia A, Forero MG, McInnes JC, Ramírez F (2014) Searching for the true diet of marine predators: incorporating bayesian priors into stable isotope mixing models. PLoS ONE 9:e92665CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Conway-Cranos L, Kiffney P, Banas N et al (2015) Stable isotopes and oceanographic modeling reveal spatial and trophic connectivity among terrestrial, estuarine, and marine environments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 533:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egozcue J, Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Mateu-Figueras G, Barceló-Vidal C (2003) Isometric logratio transformations for compositional data analysis. Math Geol 35:279–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Field JC, Litvin SY, Carlisle A et al (2014) Stable isotope analysis of Humboldt squid prey: comment on miller et al.(2013). Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 500:281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fry B (2007) Stable isotope ecology. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Fry B (2013a) Alternative approaches for solving underdetermined isotope mixing problems. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 472:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fry B (2013b) Using stable CNS isotopes to evaluate estuarine fisheries condition and health. Isotopes Environ Health Stud 49:295–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Galloway AWE et al (2015) A fatty acid based Bayesian approach for inferring diet in aquatic consumers. PLoS ONE 10:e0129723CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Haddadchi A, Ryder DS, Evrard O, Olley J (2013) Sediment fingerprinting in fluvial systems: review of tracers, sediment sources and mixing models. Int J Sedim Res 28:560–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kailath T (1967) The divergence and Bhattacharyya distance measures in signal selection. IEEE Trans Commun Technol 15:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kullback S, Leibler RA (1951) On information and sufficiency. Ann Math Stat 22:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mapstone BD (1995) Scalable decision rules for environmental impact studies: effect size, type I, and type II errors. Ecol Appl 5:401–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Masello JF, Wikelski M, Voigt CC, Quillfeldt P (2013) Distribution patterns predict individual specialization in the diet of dolphin gulls. PLoS ONE 8:e67714CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. McCarthy MA, Masters P (2005) Profiting from prior information in Bayesian analyses of ecological data. J Appl Ecol 42:1012–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller TW, Bosley KL, Shibata J et al (2013) Contribution of prey to Humboldt squid Dosidicus gigas in the northern california current, revealed by stable isotope analyses. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 477:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore JW, Semmens BX (2008) Incorporating uncertainty and prior information into stable isotope mixing models. Ecol Lett 11:470–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Parnell A (2016) Simmr: a stable isotope mixing modelGoogle Scholar
  23. Parnell AC, Inger R, Bearhop S, Jackson AL (2010) Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too much variation. PLoS ONE 5:e9672CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Parnell AC, Phillips DL, Bearhop S et al (2013) Bayesian stable isotope mixing models. Environmetrics 24:387–399Google Scholar
  25. Phillips DL, Gregg JW (2003) Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too many sources. Oecologia 136:261–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Phillips DL, Inger R, Bearhop S et al (2014) Best practices for use of stable isotope mixing models in food-web studies. Can J Zool 92:823–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roos M, Martins TG, Held L, Rue H (2015) Sensitivity analysis for Bayesian hierarchical models. Bayesian Anal 10:321–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Samper-Villarreal J, Lovelock CE, Saunders MI et al (2016) Organic carbon in seagrass sediments is influenced by seagrass canopy complexity, turbidity, wave height, and water depth. Limnol Oceanogr 61:938–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Semmens BX, Ward EJ, Moore JW, Darimont CT (2009) Quantifying inter-and intra-population niche variability using hierarchical Bayesian stable isotope mixing models. PLoS ONE 4:e6187CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith JA, Mazumder D, Suthers IM, Taylor MD (2013) To fit or not to fit: evaluating stable isotope mixing models using simulated mixing polygons. Methods Ecol Evol 4:612–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stock BC, Semmens BX (2016) Unifying error structures in commonly used biotracer mixing models. Ecology 97:2562–2569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ward EJ, Semmens BX, Phillips DL et al (2011) A quantitative approach to combine sources in stable isotope mixing models. Ecosphere 2:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yeakel JD, Novak M, Guimaraes PR Jr et al (2011) Merging resource availability with isotope mixing models: the role of neutral interaction assumptions. PLoS ONE 6:e22015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Rivers InstituteGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations