Oxygen isotopic distribution along the otolith growth axis by secondary ion mass spectrometry: Applications for studying ontogenetic change in the depth inhabited by deep-sea fishes

Assimilation of nitrogen and carbon isotopes from fish diets to otoliths as measured by nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry

“…18,19 An ion probe technique, especially nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry (NanoSIMS), can detect isotopic variations at spatial resolutions of micrometers or even nanometers. [20][21][22] The use of NanoSIMS enabled this study to pinpoint the transient variations in otolith δ 15 N and δ 13 C composition when the fish shifted diets from natural foods to isotopically spiked foods. The results provide further insight into the metabolic routes of nitrogen and carbon isotopes from diets to otoliths.…”

Vertical habitat shift of viviparous and oviparous deep‐sea cusk eels revealed by otolith microstructure and stable‐isotope composition

“…Shiao et al . () analysed the δ 18 O oto profile for one B . maculatus by SIMS and found a dramatic increase in δ 18 O oto between 642 and 830 µm from the core, indicating a rapid habitat shift from the pelagic to the benthic environment.…”

“…Compared with the conventional drilling method, secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) can provide higher temporal and spatial resolution due to the small ion-beam size. Shiao et al (2014) analysed the 18 O oto profile for one B. maculatus by SIMS and found a dramatic increase in 18 O oto between 642 and 830 μm from the core, indicating a rapid habitat shift from the pelagic to the benthic environment. This transient change was too brief to be detected by the mechanical drilling and IRMS analysis.…”

A first look at oxygen isotope records from modern and Holocene‐aged gastropod (Stenomelania) shells from Lake Kutubu, Papua New Guinea

“…An argument has been made that for biogenic carbonates this sputtering results in both organic and non‐organic material being analysed for oxygen isotope ratios, resulting in lower oxygen isotope values compared to c‐IRMS by 0.5‰ (Helser et al , 2018) to 0.8‰ (Aubert et al , 2012). A few studies have analysed δ 18 O across shells using SIMS (Linzmeier et al , 2016; Vihtakari et al , 2016) but most of the studies that have directly compared c‐IRMS and SIMS have used the Cameca SIMS and have mainly focused on otoliths (Aubert et al , 2012; Shiao et al , 2014; Helser et al , 2018). Aubert et al (2012) compared SHRIMP measurements to those of micromilling c‐IRMS across the age increments of an ancient fish otolith (Micropogonias altipinnis).…”