4.5 Article

Seasonal trophic linkages in Arctic marine invertebrates assessed via fatty acids and compound-specific stable isotopes

期刊

ECOSPHERE
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.1429

关键词

Alaska; Arctic; Beaufort Sea; fatty acids; seasonal; Special Feature: Biomarkers in Trophic Ecology; stable isotopes; zooplankton

类别

资金

  1. US Fish and Wildlife Service
  2. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation
  3. National Science Foundation [ARC-1023582]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate change is having profound impacts on Arctic ecosystems with important implications for coastal productivity and food web dynamics. We investigated seasonal variations in resource use of 16 invertebrate taxa in lagoon ecosystems along the Alaska Beaufort Sea coast using a combination of fatty acid (FA) biomarkers, bulk stable carbon isotope measurements of whole animals, and compound-specific stable carbon isotope measurements of total lipid extracts and individual FAs. Invertebrates were collected during full-ice cover (April), ice breakup (June), and open water (August) periods. Amphipods (Onisimus glacialis) had higher proportions of 18: 2n-6 and 18: 3n-3 FAs in April than in the other months. These elevated markers were accompanied by relatively low bulk and 18: 2n-6 delta C-13 values, indicating proportionally higher contributions from terrestrial/freshwater sources in April. A wider range of invertebrates examined during June and August showed increases in algae-specific markers and higher proportions of essential FAs (e.g., 22: 6n-3 [docosahexaenoic acid] and 20: 5n-3 [eicosapentaenoic acid]) later in the summer. There were also marked differences in FA characteristics among invertebrates that highlighted differential feeding modes. For example, proportions of bacterial FAs were generally higher in deposit-feeding invertebrates than in suspension feeders. These results highlight the current role of diverse carbon sources to Arctic coastal food webs, which may change with future warming.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据