Why aquatic scientists should use sulfur stable isotope ratios (ẟ34S) more often
Article
Raoult, V, Phillips, AA, Nelson, J et al. (2024). Why aquatic scientists should use sulfur stable isotope ratios (ẟ34S) more often
. CHEMOSPHERE, 355 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141816
Raoult, V, Phillips, AA, Nelson, J et al. (2024). Why aquatic scientists should use sulfur stable isotope ratios (ẟ34S) more often
. CHEMOSPHERE, 355 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141816
Over 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.
