Why aquatic scientists should use sulfur stable isotope ratios (ẟ34S) more often

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.authorVincent Raoult
dc.contributor.authorAlexandra A. Phillips
dc.contributor.authorJames Nelson
dc.contributor.authorYuri Niella
dc.contributor.authorChristina Skinner
dc.contributor.authorMiranda Bell Tilcock
dc.contributor.authorPatrick J. Burke
dc.contributor.authorPaul Szpak
dc.contributor.authorW. Ryan James
dc.contributor.authorChris Harrod
dc.date.accessioned2026-05-06T16:07:42Z
dc.date.available2026-05-06T16:07:42Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractOver the last few decades, measurements of light stable isotope ratios have been increasingly used to answer questions across physiology, biology, ecology, and archaeology. The vast majority analyse carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) stable isotopes as the ‘default’ isotopes, omitting sulfur (δ34S) due to time, cost, or perceived lack of benefits and instrumentation capabilities. Using just carbon and nitrogen isotopic ratios can produce results that are inconclusive, uncertain, or in the worst cases, even misleading, especially for scientists that are new to the use and interpretation of stable isotope data. Using sulfur isotope values more regularly has the potential to mitigate these issues, especially given recent advancements that have lowered measurement barriers. Here we provide a review documenting case studies with real-world data, re-analysing different biological topics (i.e. niche, physiology, diet, movement and bioarchaeology) with and without sulfur isotopes to highlight the various strengths of this stable isotope for various applications. We also include a preliminary meta-analysis of the trophic discrimination factor (TDF) for sulfur isotopes, which suggest small (mean 0.4 ± 1.7 ‰ SD) but taxa- dependent mean trophic discrimination. Each case study demonstrates how the exclusion of sulfur comes at the detriment of the results, often leading to very different outputs, or missing valuable discoveries entirely. Given that studies relying on carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes currently underpin most of our understanding of various ecological processes, this has concerning implications. Collectively, these examples strongly suggest that researchers planning to use carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes for their research should incorporate sulfur where possible, and that the new ‘default’ isotope systems for aquatic science should now be carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur.
dc.description.sponsorshipANID Millennium Science Initiative NCN2021_056
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141816
dc.identifier.issn00456535
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioabierto.uantof.cl/handle/uantof/705
dc.language.isoen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceChemosphere
dc.titleWhy aquatic scientists should use sulfur stable isotope ratios (ẟ34S) more often
dc.typeArticle
oaire.citation.volume355
organization.identifier.rorUniversidad de Antofagasta
uantof.identificator.instituteInstituto de Ciencias Naturales Alexander von Humboldt
Archivos
Bloque original
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
1-s2.0-S0045653524007094-main.pdf
Tamaño:
4.89 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descargar
Bloque de licencias
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
No hay miniatura disponible
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
1.71 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed to upon submission
Descripción:
Descargar
Colecciones
Instituto de Ciencias Naturales Alexander von Humboldt