Skip to main content
Log in

Quantifying learning in biotracer studies

  • Methods
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone EL, Merrick JR, Krachey MJ (2014) A Hellinger distance approach to MCMC diagnostics. J Stat Comput Simul 84:833–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett MT (2014) Resource polygon geometry predicts bayesian stable isotope mixing model bias. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 514:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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:e92665

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 533:15–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Egozcue J, Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Mateu-Figueras G, Barceló-Vidal C (2003) Isometric logratio transformations for compositional data analysis. Math Geol 35:279–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 500:281–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry B (2007) Stable isotope ecology. Springer Science & Business Media, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry B (2013a) Alternative approaches for solving underdetermined isotope mixing problems. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 472:1–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fry B (2013b) Using stable CNS isotopes to evaluate estuarine fisheries condition and health. Isotopes Environ Health Stud 49:295–304

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway AWE et al (2015) A fatty acid based Bayesian approach for inferring diet in aquatic consumers. PLoS ONE 10:e0129723

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 28:560–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kailath T (1967) The divergence and Bhattacharyya distance measures in signal selection. IEEE Trans Commun Technol 15:52–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kullback S, Leibler RA (1951) On information and sufficiency. Ann Math Stat 22:79–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mapstone BD (1995) Scalable decision rules for environmental impact studies: effect size, type I, and type II errors. Ecol Appl 5:401–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masello JF, Wikelski M, Voigt CC, Quillfeldt P (2013) Distribution patterns predict individual specialization in the diet of dolphin gulls. PLoS ONE 8:e67714

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy MA, Masters P (2005) Profiting from prior information in Bayesian analyses of ecological data. J Appl Ecol 42:1012–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 477:123–134

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moore JW, Semmens BX (2008) Incorporating uncertainty and prior information into stable isotope mixing models. Ecol Lett 11:470–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parnell A (2016) Simmr: a stable isotope mixing model

  • Parnell AC, Inger R, Bearhop S, Jackson AL (2010) Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too much variation. PLoS ONE 5:e9672

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parnell AC, Phillips DL, Bearhop S et al (2013) Bayesian stable isotope mixing models. Environmetrics 24:387–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips DL, Gregg JW (2003) Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too many sources. Oecologia 136:261–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 92:823–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos M, Martins TG, Held L, Rue H (2015) Sensitivity analysis for Bayesian hierarchical models. Bayesian Anal 10:321–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 61:938–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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:e6187

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 4:612–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock BC, Semmens BX (2016) Unifying error structures in commonly used biotracer mixing models. Ecology 97:2562–2569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward EJ, Semmens BX, Phillips DL et al (2011) A quantitative approach to combine sources in stable isotope mixing models. Ecosphere 2:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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:e22015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

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 information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher J. Brown.

Additional information

Communicated by Ola Olsson.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 219 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brown, C.J., Brett, M.T., Adame, M.F. et al. Quantifying learning in biotracer studies. Oecologia 187, 597–608 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4138-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4138-y

Keywords

Navigation