Variation in δ¹⁵N and δ¹³C stable isotope values in common dolphins (Delphinus spp.) worldwide, with particular emphasis on the eastern North Atlantic populations

Abstract

Stable isotopes are a useful tool to investigate population structure and trophic niche segregation. The trophic behaviour of worldwide populations of common dolphins was fruitfully analysed and revealed substantial differences, probably reflective of both adaptive strategies of the genus and dissimilarities in the structure of the ecosystems.

Effects of acidification, lipid removal and mathematical normalization on carbon and nitrogen stable isotope compositions in beaked whale (Ziphiidae) bone

“…As reported for other species, acidification had no effect on the δ 13 C values of beaked whale bones. The low level of inorganic carbon predicted for beaked whale bone samples, based on the carbonate proxy proposed by Jacob et al ., is the most likely cause for the lack of differences found between collagen (acidified) and whole bone (non‐acidified) samples.…”

Isotopic homogeneity throughout the skin in small cetaceans

“…The differences between the tissues here described highlight the need to take into account the isotopic differences existing among tissues when comparing results obtained on stable isotope ratios stemming from studies in which different tissues have been used . For example, two species may be incorrectly reported to feed at different trophic levels if different tissues are sampled (e.g.…”

An evaluation of whale skin differences and its suitability as a tissue for stable isotope analysis

“…Stable isotope ratios have been widely used to investigate the trophic ecology, habitat use, migration patterns and physiological events of marine mammal populations (e.g., Lesage et al 2001;Borrell et al 2006;Drago et al 2009;Vighi et al 2014;Pinela et al 2015). However, while the applicability of stable isotopes has been repeatedly tested and analyses of these isotopes are commonly performed, some authors highlighted the need to control factors that can lead to errors in the interpretation of the results (e.g., Barrow et al, 2008;Mill et al 2008, Ryan et al 2012Payo et al 2013;Yurkowsky et al 2014).…”