Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 14;16(1):e0236536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236536

Stable isotope (C, N, O, and H) study of a comprehensive set of feathers from two Setophaga citrina

Samiksha Deme 1,*, Laurence Y Yeung 1, Tao Sun 1, Cin-Ty A Lee 1
Editor: Huan Cui2
PMCID: PMC7808661  PMID: 33444336

Abstract

Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes were measured on a comprehensive sampling of feathers from two spring Hooded Warblers (Setophaga citrina) in Texas to evaluate isotopic variability between feathers and during molt. Isotopic homogeneity within each bird was found across all four isotopic systems, supporting the hypothesis that molt in these neotropical migrants is fully completed on the breeding grounds. This homogeneity suggests that the isotopic composition of a single feather is may be representative of the whole songbird. However, each bird was found to have one or two outlier feathers, which could signify regrowth of lost feathers after prebasic molt.

Introduction

The isotopic analysis of bird feathers has been used to infer patterns of diet, foraging, migration, and other ecological descriptors that characterize the life histories of individual organisms [14]. Carbon and nitrogen isotopes, in particular, are used to construct an understanding of the dietary niches [5]. For example, the 13C/12C ratios in feathers reflect the composition of vegetation in the area of feeding due to differences in plant photosynthetic pathways [6, 7]. In addition, 15N/14N ratios in feathers reveal information about a bird’s trophic level [8]. Oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in precipitation are strongly linked to local hydroclimate, so 18O/16O and D/H ratios in feathers have been used to reconstruct migratory pathways [911].

Most of the above studies have been performed on feathers sampled from live birds. To prevent unnecessary harm to the bird, isotopic analyses are usually done on single feathers. While there have been studies on the feathers of deceased birds, such as the use of museum specimens to examine the long-term evolution of stable-isotope composition of the Eastern Whip-poor-will, (Antrostomus vociferus), a complete set of feathers is rarely analyzed to study diet and migration [12].

Many birds are thought to undergo molt while on the breeding grounds, so it is commonly assumed that environmental and ecological factors are constant over the course of the molt [13]. If correct, single-feather analysis would be justified. However, natural variability between feathers, even on birds that undergo complete molt before migration, has not been fully evaluated. Furthermore, it has been suggested that some birds molt during post-breeding dispersal or even during the early stages of migration [13]. In such instances, a detailed understanding of the molt sequence is a necessary prerequisite for reconstructing a bird’s ecological behavior and migratory pattern from individual feathers [14]. A better understanding of molt strategy is also important for the study of other cyclical processes related to molt, such as migration and breeding [13, 14].

What is known about avian molt strategy is usually gleaned through observations or measurements of individual birds, in either natural or laboratory settings, or inferences from a species’ evolutionary history [13, 14]. This approach, however, requires numerous observations because birds photographed or captured in the field provide only instantaneous snapshots of molt, which must be combined in aggregate to reconstruct a species’ entire molt history. A complete set of data is rarely available.

Graves et al. (2018) [15] conducted an analysis of D/H ratios for 24-feather sets (9 primaries, 6 secondaries, 6 rectrices, and 3 patches of ventral contour feathers) from specimens of the black-throated blue warbler (Setophaga caerulescens). That study focused on the deuterium isotope composition in territorial male specimens to analyze variability generated during the complete annual prebasic molt. Results showed significant within-individual variations (i.e., δD values ranging from 12 to 60‰) across all pterolographic variables in the feather sets, as well as large interannual variability in both absolute δD values and their trends within feather classes.

Motivated in part by the Graves et al. (2018) [15] study, we use the stable isotope approach to reconstruct molt strategies and timing in two AHY (after hatch year) male Hooded Warblers (Setophaga citrina). In particular, we examined the isotopic variability between feathers to assess the robustness of analyzing individual feathers to infer a specimen’s ecological history. We conducted a comprehensive stable isotope analysis (i.e., their δ13C, δ15N, δ18O, and δD values) of feathers from two window-kill S. citrina specimens from April 2017 and March 2018. Hooded Warblers breed in the southeastern United States and further north along the eastern margin of the continent to southern New York [16]. They winter along the Atlantic coast of Central America and the Caribbean islands [16] (Fig 1). Like most songbirds, they are thought to complete molt on their breeding grounds in summer, allowing us to test the null hypothesis that Hooded Warbler feathers should show limited isotopic variability. This study provides a baseline for interpreting the isotopic compositions of their feathers.

Fig 1. Map of the migration grounds for S. Citrina.

Fig 1

Breeding takes place through June-July while nonbreeding takes place December-February. Migration takes place in Aug-Oct and Mar-May [16]. Square indicates the location of sample collection in Houston, Texas.

Methods

Body feathers and a complete set of flight feathers were sampled from two AHY male Hooded Warblers collected on April 2, 2017 and March 28, 2018. These specimens were window-kills on the campus of Rice University in Houston, Texas, USA (29.7° N, 95.4° W).

The following feather samples from each bird were collected and labeled (Fig 2): primaries P1-P9, secondaries S1-S9, right (RR) and left (LR) rectrices 1–6 (as seen from dorsal view), the primary, median, and greater coverts (PC, MC, and GC), and aggregate body feathers from the back, rump, throat, nape, breast, and belly. The feathers were cleaned in a solution of 2:1 diethyl ether:methanol and suspended in an ultrasonic bath for 2 three-minute cycles to ensure the removal of contaminants and organic detritus on the feathers’ surface, following the technique of Bontempo et al. (2014) [17]. Samples were allowed to air dry for 48 hours in glass tubes before sub-sampling for isotopic analysis.

Fig 2. Diagram of feathers analyzed.

Fig 2

Primary [P] and secondary [S] flight feathers are shown in red and blue respectively, along the right [RR] and left [RL] rectrices in green. The primary coverts [PC] are in yellow, the median coverts [MC] are in brown, and the greater coverts [GC] are in pink. The dorsal body feathers are also shown, with rump feathers shown in purple, back in orange, and throat in teal.

Feather sub-samples were analyzed for bulk isotope composition (i.e., 13C/12C, 15N/14N and 18O/16O and D/H ratios reported as δ13C, δ15N, δ18O and δD values, respectively) on a ThermoScientific Flash HT Plus-Delta V Plus Elemental Analyzer-isotope ratio mass spectrometry system (EA-IRMS) in the Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences at Rice University. For each analysis, new sections of the feathers were cut from the upper section of the feather, placed in a capsule, and weighed. In sub-sampling, we did not separate the rachis from the vane, so our measurements represent the bulk feather segment. Because we sampled the upper portion of the feather, no samples included the calamus.

We believe our bulk analysis of the upper segment of feathers is appropriate for the purposes of this study. Gordo (2020) [18] showed no isotopic gradient between the bottom and tip for passerine feathers, which allows for sampling to occur from anywhere along the feather. Bontempo et al. (2014) [17] found homogeneous isotopic values for the rachis and vane when the calamus was excluded from analysis. However, isotopic fractionation between the vane and the rachis has been observed. Gordo (2020) [18] showed that the rachis and vane were slightly different in δD values, but their isotopic compositions were highly correlated. In our study, we bulk sampled the feathers, resulting in relatively constant proportions of rachis to vane. This systematic sampling approach, combined with the fact that the rachis dominates the total feather mass, ensures that any isotopic variability between feathers in our study is not due to artifacts of biased sampling of vane or rachis material [13, 14, 18, 19].

For the analysis of δ15N values, 0.30 mg samples of each feather were put into a tin capsule and analyzed using EA-IRMS. The ammonium sulfate standards IAEA-N1 (δ15N = 0.4‰) and IAEA-N2 (δ15N = 20.3‰) were used for calibration. For the analysis of δ13C values, 0.20 mg samples were measured, and the standards IAEA-CH-7 (polyethylene; δ13C = -32.151‰) and IAEA-603 (calcite; δ13C = 2.46‰) were used for data calibration. For δ18O values, 0.10 mg of samples were measured along with the Caribou Hoof standard (CBS; δ18O = 3.8‰) and Kudu Horn Standard (KHS; δ18O = 20.3‰) for calibration.

For δD values, 0.20 mg samples were measured along with Caribou Hoof standard (δD = -137‰) and Kudu Hood Standard (δD = -35‰). Weighed sample feathers and the standards CBS and KHS (both keratin standards) were put in loosely wrapped tin capsules, which allowed for re-equilibration of exchangeable hydrogen with ambient air moisture [20, 21]. The equilibration took place from December to January (the next year) at a room temperature at ~23°C and a relative humidity of 40–50%. Under these conditions, complete isotopic equilibration should occur by the end of the 15 to 20-day period [22]. The hydrogen isotopic composition of lab air moisture appeared relatively stable during the winter based on the reproducibility of raw δD values for CBS between batches measured over an eight-week period (±4‰; 1σ). Because lab air-equilibrated keratin standards are also the isotopic anchors for calibration, the measured isotopic variations in the feathers are due to the non-exchangeable hydrogen isotope fraction.

δ15N, δ13C, δ18O, δD values are reported with respect to international standards air N215N), VPDB (δ13C) and VSMOW (δ18O and δD), and the analytical precisions are ±0.3‰, ±0.2‰, ±0.4‰, and ±5.0‰ respectively (1σ). Standards for all analyses were measured six times during each sample run. Some sample analyses were performed in duplicate or triplicate―depending on sample weight availability, particularly for any anomalous values (see below)―to evaluate external reproducibility.

Results

The isotopic compositions for the 2017 and 2018 birds are compared in Fig 3. The δ15N, δ13C, δ18O, and δD values (Fig 3) show limited variability within each bird except for anomalous values associated with one or two feathers of each bird. The 2017 sample contained just one reproducibly anomalous isotopic composition―the δ15N value of the back feathers―while the 2018 sample contained three reproducible isotopic anomalies: the δ13C and δ15N values of the RL2 feather (p < 0.0002 for both) and the δ18O value of the S3 feather (p = 0.004). Replicate analyses of these anomalous feathers (n = 2 or 3 depending on available sample weight) suggest that the anomalies are not analytical artifacts.

Fig 3. Comparison of the feather δ13C, δ15N, δ18O, and δD values between the 2017 and 2018 samples.

Fig 3

Statistical differences between the samples are shown in Table 1. The 2017 sample values are shown in blue, crossed circles while the 2018 samples are shown in red, full circles. Arrows below the x-axis show the proposed molt strategy from earliest feather molted to last feather molted for each section [13].

No statistically significant difference was observed between the mean δ13C values of the feathers between the birds (p = 0.23), but a statistically significant difference was observed between the birds in their mean δ15N values (p = 0.0004), mean δ18O values (p = 3 × 10−11) and mean δD values (p = 0.045). The mean δ15N, δ18O, and δD values of the 2018 bird were 0.8 ± 0.1‰ higher, 1.0 ± 0.1‰ lower, and 1.8 ± 0.6‰ higher (1 s.e.m.), respectively, than those of the 2017 bird.

We also evaluated whether isotopic signatures varied as a function of the hypothetical molt schedule proposed in Howell (2010) [13]. These hypothesized molt schedules, from the first to the last feather molted in the sequence, were P1 → P9, S1 → S7 and S1 → S9, RL1 → RL6, and RR1 → RR6. Both the secondary molt schedules S1 → S7 and S1→ S9 were evaluated because the molt schedule of S8 and S9 can occur after that of the other secondaries. A significant correlation, replicated between birds and across isotope systems, would be taken as support for these molt schedules. However, a lack of correlation does not necessarily rule them out; a less protracted molt or a complete molt in a single location would yield uncorrelated isotopic compositions for these feather sequences. Calculated correlation coefficients in each isotopic system are shown in Table 1. While some of the correlations are significant at the 95% confidence level on the 2017 bird (e.g., RR1 → RR6 for δ18O), no such correlations are seen for the 2018 bird. Similarly, high correlation coefficients in one sample for the for δ13C values of flight feathers and left rectrices were not seen in the other sample.

Table 1. Correlation coefficients (R2) for feather isotopic compositions involved in several proposed molt patterns.

P1 → P9 S1 → S9 S1 → S7 RL1 → RL6 RR1 → RR6
2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018
δ13C 0.0059 0.77 0.73 0.1805 0.62 0.0065 0.819 0.072 (0.65)* 0.24 0.51
δ15N 0.39 0.61 0.080 0.33 0.51 0.16 0.11 0.24 (0.87)* 0.046 0.51
δ18O 0.067 0.33 0.0075 0.020 0.23 0.054 0.0070 0.0099 0.91 0.63
δD 0.0074 0.13 0.36 0.34 0.58 0.13 0.081 0.12 0.49 0.18

Molt strategies were hypothesized by Howell (2010) [13] based off observations of S. citrina in the wild.

*Values in parentheses are computed without the outlier values.

Discussion

The molt pattern for S. citrina is hypothesized to be the primaries from P1 to P9 distally, the secondaries proximally from S1 to S7, the tertiaries distally from S7-S9, and the rectrices distally from the central RL/RR1 to RL/RR6 [13]. The location of the molt is thought to take place primarily during the months of June and August on the breeding grounds. The data show no reproducible pattern in the isotopic compositions of the feathers that resembles the proposed pattern of feather replacement. These inconsistent correlations with the molt sequences hypothesized above support the view that S. citrina undergoes complete molt at one location. Furthermore, no significant systematic isotopic fractionations within flight feathers and rectrices was found. We note, however, that body feathers on both birds have slightly higher δ18O and δD values compared to the flight feathers and rectrices (Fig 3). It is not clear if these systematic differences are related to slightly different isotopic fractionation during the growth of body feathers or slightly different molt locations for the body feathers (i.e., in the more southerly wintering grounds). Both possibilities should be explored in more detail with S. citrina samples from a known molt location. In any case, isotopic fingerprinting using single feathers of S. citrina should be robust if flight feathers or rectrices are used.

The mean δ13C values were not statistically different between birds. The similarity in δ13C values suggests that the birds consumed insects that fed on plants utilizing similar photosynthetic pathways (e.g., C4, C3, CAM) [4, 7]. To evaluate this hypothesis more quantitatively, we use diet enrichment factors. The diet of the hooded warbler is primarily insects, such as caterpillars, moths, flies, and other arthropods on breeding grounds [16]. While δ13C enrichment factors in S. citrina are not known, Mizutani et al. (1992) [23] showed that the average δ13C enrichments across 11 adult species of birds is 2.5–3.8‰. Chamberlain et al. (1997) [22] found a similar δ13C enrichment of 3–4‰ in black throated blue warblers compared to local C3 plants. Isotopic compositions in insects can vary depending on species and their diet, but because most of the insects in the hooded warbler diet are herbivorous, we estimate the mean 13C enrichment of the insects relative to local plants using the general fractionation for whole consumers, i.e., Δδ13C = 0.5 ± 0.13‰ [24]. Thus, the mean feather δ13C value of -25.0‰ suggests that the environment supporting S. citrina during molt had plants with mean δ13C values near -29‰, which is similar to the mean isotopic composition of C3 plants in temperate ecosystems (δ13C ~ -28.5‰) [25].

δ15N values in biological tissues are often interpreted to reflect the trophic levels of food sources; thus, the slight but significant differences between the two birds is noteworthy. Plant matter of the southern and eastern United States and Neotropics has an average δ15N value slightly less than zero, and Mizutani et al. (1992) [23] showed an average 15N enrichment factor of 3.7–5.6‰ for 11 adult bird species [26]. The average δ15N value of 2.8‰ and 3.6‰ for the 2017 and 2018 birds, respectively, is therefore consistent with the diets of both birds consisting primarily of herbivorous insects [27]. However, the higher δ15N values of the 2018 bird imply that it consumed more insects that were, on average, slightly higher in trophic level (i.e. non-herbivorous) than the insects consumed by the 2017 bird [28]. Nevertheless, the δ15N values for both samples are consistent with the known diet of S. citrina and could potentially be used to identify differences in diet between different birds. However, they cannot distinguish between temporal differences in molt.

Chamberlain et al. (1999) [22] and Hobson et al. (2004) [1] found that the deuterium isotopic composition of migratory bird species was 10–30‰ lower in feathers compared to local meteoric waters. The average feather δD values of -34 ± 6‰ and -32 ± 6‰ (1σ) for the 2017 and 2018 birds, respectively, therefore suggests that local meteoric waters during molt had δD values of 0 to -20‰. These values fall within the range of meteoric waters for the southeastern portion of the breeding grounds for S. citrina in the southeastern United States [29]. The full range of δD values in the feathers is consistent with waters extending into the northern region of the breeding range as well.

While the range of δD values for the full feather set showed some variability, excluding the body feathers shows relative homogeneity for the flight feathers. This contrasts with the findings of Graves et al. (2018) [15], which found δD variation within flight feathers for S. caerulescens. There are a few possible explanations for this discrepancy. One explanation could be methodology: Graves et al. (2018) [15] analyzed only the vane of the feathers, whereas both the vane and rachis were analyzed in this study. In addition, differences in the habitats, diets, and/or isotopic fractionation between the two species could also lead to detectable differences in isotopic trends. For example, while both species are insectivorous, S. caerulescens feeds over a wider diversity in structural height, from understory to lower canopy, whereas S. citrina primarily feeds in the understory. S. caerulescens also inhabit a wider altitude range (roughly 790–1,600 m in the summer months and close to sea level during wintering months) while S. citrina lives up to 1,100 m year-round; because δD values of precipitation decrease nonlinearly with altitude, the wider altitude range of S. caerulescens may also contribute to its larger isotopic variability [16, 30, 31].

The magnitude of metabolic fractionation of 18O remains unclear, due to the larger number of sources and sinks for oxygen compared to hydrogen relevant for feather growth [1]. However, the δ18O values of the feathers may provide information about the molt location through a correlation with δ18O values in meteoric water [1, 10], similar to how δD values of the feathers can provide information about the molt location [1]. However, laboratory studies of Japanese quails and house sparrows show that the slope of the relationship between drinking water and δD can vary by species [32, 33]. In this study, the relationship between δ18O and δD values for both samples neither followed the global meteoric water line (i.e., δD = 8*δ18O + 10) nor local meteoric water lines in the breeding or wintering regions, perhaps due in part to the narrow range of values observed (Fig 4) [29]. Nevertheless, this finding is in agreement with the similarly weak correspondence between feather δ18O and δD values and local meteoric water lines observed in previous studies [1, 10, 32]. Broadly, this observation implies that δ18O and δD values of these feathers may be more strongly related to diet (as with δ13C and δ15N values) than with local hydrology. Isotopic enrichment factors for δ18O and δD isotopes in the S. citrina diet would presumably play a significant role in the isotopic signatures of their feathers. We note that Wolf et al. (2012) [34] found the relationship between diet and δD and δ18O values of feathers was weak in feathers for the Japanese quail, indicating that further study on these isotope systems is needed.

Fig 4. Comparison of the δ18O vs. δD for the 2017 and 2018 feather sets and local meteoric waterlines.

Fig 4

The meteoric water lines included are the contiguous United States (solid, green), Southeastern United States (dotted, orange), Northeastern United States (short dash, black), and Central America (long dash, purple) [29, 35].

Finally, we note that despite the general isotopic homogeneity, there were a few outliers. In particular, δ13C and δ15N values of rectrices RL2 for the 2018 bird are highly anomalous despite their δ18O or δD values being within the range of the other feathers (Fig 3). Normal δ18O and δD values seem to suggest that these feathers were still molted on or near breeding grounds, but anomalous δ13C and δ15N values imply that these feathers grew under different circumstances than the others. One possibility is that these outlier feathers represent replacement feathers after feather damage or loss, although we did not observe any molt limits that might clearly support such a hypothesis.

Conclusion

Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen isotopic signatures of the feathers from two Hooded Warblers (S. citrina) show striking within-bird homogeneity, confirming the hypothesis that molt in these neotropical migrants is fully completed on the breeding grounds. The homogeneity within single birds also suggests that single-feather isotopic studies should be generally robust for isotopic fingerprinting within this species. However, further study should be performed on other birds that undergo molt during migration to confirm whether single feather analyses can be used. Finally, despite this homogeneity, there are occasional outlier feathers, which could signify regrowth of lost feathers. When undergoing feather analysis, the possibility of these anomalous feathers should be considered.

Supporting information

S1 File. Values for δ13C, δ15N, δ18O, and δD for each bird sample by feather type.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Hobson KA, Bowen GJ, Wassenaar LI, Ferrand Y, Lormee H. Using stable hydrogen and oxygen isotope measurements of feathers to infer geographical origins of migrating European birds. Oecologia. 2004;141(3):477–88. 10.1007/s00442-004-1671-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hobson KA, Van Wilgenburg SL, Wassenaar LI, Powell RL, Still CJ, Craine JM. A multi-isotope (δ13C, δ15N, δ2H) feather isoscape to assign Afrotropical migrant birds to origins. Ecosphere. 2012;3(5). [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hobson KA, Wassenaar LI. Linking breeding and wintering grounds of neotropical migrant songbirds using stable hydrogen isotopic analysis of feathers. Oecologia. 1996;109(1):142–8. 10.1007/s004420050068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Peterson B, Fry B. Stable Isotopes In Ecosystem Studies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1987;18(1):293–320. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Perkins MJ, McDonald RA, van Veen FJ, Kelly SD, Rees G, Bearhop S. Application of nitrogen and carbon stable isotopes (delta(15)N and delta(13)C) to quantify food chain length and trophic structure. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e93281 10.1371/journal.pone.0093281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hobson KA, Clark RG. Assessing Avian Diets Using Stable Isotopes I: Turnover of13C in Tissues. The Condor. 1992;94(1):181–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Still CJ, Powell RL. Continental-Scale Distributions of Vegetation Stable Carbon Isotope Rations In: West JB, Bowen GJ, Dawson TE, Tu KP, editors. Isoscapes: Understanding movement, pattern, and process on Earth through isotope mapping: Springer; 2010. p. 179–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hobson KA. Stable-Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Ratios of Songbird Feathers Grown in Two Terrestrial Biomes: Implications for Evaluating Trophic Relationships and Breeding Origins. The Condor. 1999;101(4):799–805. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bowen GJ. Isoscapes: Spatial Pattern in Isotopic Biogeochemistry. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 2010;38(1):161–87 [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hobson KA, Koehler G. On the use of stable oxygen isotope (delta (18)O) measurements for tracking avian movements in North America. Ecology and Evolution. 2015;5(3):799–806. 10.1002/ece3.1383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hobson KA, Van Wilgenburg SL, Wassenaar LI, Larson K. Linking hydrogen (d2H) isotopes in feathers and precipitation: sources of variance and consequences for assignment to isoscapes. PLoS One. 2012;7(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.English PA, Green DJ, Nocera JJ. Stable Isotopes from Museum Specimens May Provide Evidence of Long-Term Change in the Trophic Ecology of a Migratory Aerial Insectivore. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2018;6. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Howell SNG. Molt in North American birds. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bridge ES. Mind The Gaps: What’s Missing in Our Understanding of Feather Molt. The Condor. 2011;113(1):1–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Graves GR, Newsome SD, Fogel ML. Stable hydrogen isotope variability within and among plumage tracts (δ2HF) of a migratory wood warbler. PLoS One. 2018. 10.1371/journal.pone.0193486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chiver I, J. OL, Stutchbury BJ. Hooded Warbler (Setophaga citrina), version 2.0 New York, USA: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 2011.
  • 17.Bontempo L, Ceppa F, Ziller L, Pedrini P, Hobson KA, Wassenaar LI, et al. Comparison of methods for stable isotope ratio (δ13C, δ15N, δ2H, δ18O) measurements of feathers. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2014;5(4):363–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gordo O. Stable hydrogen isotope measurements of songbird feathers: effects of intra-feather variability and sample processing. Journal of Ornithology. 2020;161(2):381–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Evans KL, Newton J, Gaston KJ, Sharp SP, McGowan A, Hatchwell BJ. Colonisation of urban environments is associated with reduced migratory behaviour, facilitating divergence from ancestral populations. Oikos. 2012;121:634–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Soto DX, Koehler G, Wassenaar LI, Hobson KA. Re-evaluation of the hydrogen stable isotopic composition of keratin calibration standards for wildlife and forensic science applications. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2017;31(14):1193–203. 10.1002/rcm.7893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wassenaar LI, Hobson KA. Comparative equilibration and online technique for determination of non-exchangeable hydrogen of keratins for use in animal migration studies. Isot Environ Health Stud. 2003;39:211–7. 10.1080/1025601031000096781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chamberlain CP, Blum JD, Holmes RT, Feng X, Sherry TW, Graves GR. The use of isotope tracers for identifying populations of migratory birds. Oecologia. 1997;109:132–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mizutani H, Fukuda M, Kabaya Y. ^(13)C and ^(15)N Enrichment Factors of Feathers of 11 Species of Adult Birds. Ecology. 1992;73(4):1391–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.McCutchan JH, Lewis WM, Kendall C, Mcgrath CC. Variation in trophic shift for stable isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur. Oikos. 2003;102:378–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kohn MJ. Carbon isotope compositions of terrestrial C3 plants as indicators of (paleo)ecology and (paleo)climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107(46):19691–5. 10.1073/pnas.1004933107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Amundson R, Austin AT, Schuur EAG, Yoo K, Matzek V, Kendall C, et al. Global patterns of the isotopic composition of soil and plant nitrogen. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 2003;17(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hyodo F. Use of stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in insect trophic ecology. Entomological Science. 2015;18(3):295–312. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kelly JF. Stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen in the study of avian and mammalian trophic ecology. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 2000;78(1):1–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kendall C, Coplen TB. Distribution of oxygen-18 and deuterium in river waters across the United States. Hydrological Processes. 2001;15(7):1363–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gat J. The isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in precipitation In: Fritz P, Fontes J, editors. Handbook of environmental isotope geochemistry. 1 Amerstdam (Netherlands): Elsevier; 1980. p. 21–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Holmes RT, A. KS, L. RN, Scott `ST, S. WM, Peter P, et al. Black-throated Blue Warbler (Setophaga caerulescens), version 3.0. Ithaca, New York, USA.: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 2017.
  • 32.Wolf N, Bowen GJ, Del Rio CM. The influence of drinking water on the deltaD and delta18O values of house sparrow plasma, blood and feathers. J Exp Biol. 2011;214(Pt 1):98–103. 10.1242/jeb.050211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wolf N, Newsome SD, Fogel ML, del Rio CM. The relationship between drinking water and the hydrogen and oxygen stable isotope values of tissues in Japanese Quail (Cortunix japonica). The Auk. 2013;130(2):323–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wolf N, Newsome SD, Fogel ML, del Rio CM. An experimental exploration of the incorporation of hydrogen isotopes from dietary sources into avian tissues. J Exp Biol. 2012;215(Pt 11):1915–22. 10.1242/jeb.065219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lachniet MS, Patterson WP. Oxygen isotope values of precipitation and surface waters in northern Central America (Belize and Guatemala) are dominated by temperature and amount effects. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 2009;284:435–46. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Huan Cui

30 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-20872

Stable isotope (C,N,O, and H) study of a comprehensive set of feathers from two Setophaga citrina

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deme,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 14 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Huan Cui, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

2.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Deme and co-authors look at the isotopic variability among feathers and body parts of Hooded Warblers to determine if there is consistent variability associated with the pattern of molting, suggesting that molting occurs not only on the breeding grounds. They find that—for the most part—all feathers record the same isotopic values, indicating that the molt is fully completed on the breeding grounds. As a consequence, single feathers can more confidently be used to isotopically finger-print the breeding locations.

This is a nice clean study, with a dataset that nicely answers the question put forward. The figures support the conclusions and the citations are appropriate. Overall, I think this manuscript can be published with only minor revisions. I should note that I am not an expert on bird ecology or migration patterns (though Hooded Warblers are some of my favorite warblers) nor am I an expert on isotopes in ecology. Nevertheless, I use light stable isotopes regularly in my research, particularly d13C, dD, and d18O as a way of understanding the natural environment.

I have three main suggestions for revisions. I think all of these will simply require some additional writing in the text, rather than any new laboratory analyses.

1. First, there needs to be more description about how the birds were stored prior to analysis. There appears to be some amount of relatively fast (ie, less than 2 weeks) H-isotope exchange between the keratin and water (Chamberlain et al., 1997). Chamberlain et al. (1997) conclude that only about 13% of the hydrogen is truly exchangeable; thus, the effect is likely to be small, but depends on the ambient water vapor dD and the dD values of the feathers when the warblers were collected. Given that there isn’t tremendous variability in dD between winter-time Central America, summertime along the Eastern Seaboard, and Houston air, I would further expect this effect to be small. Nevertheless, a simple calculation to show what the possible maximum effect of exchange would likely be (due to storage or delayed analysis) would help to clarify the meaning of the dD data.

2. The authors seem to somewhat “punt” and not actually dive into the d18O and dD data as much as one would like. First, it would be helpful to plot the feather dD against the feather d18O in order to clearly demonstrate that this relationship does not follow the global or really any meteoric water line. Second, the lack of a correspondence with an MWL doesn’t seem too surprising as Hobson et al. (2004) show that there is a poor correlation between feather d18O and local water d18O. Thus, it may be that only the dD is a tracer of local water. Here, though, I think the authors can again do a more thorough analysis than currently presented. Both Chamberlain et al. (1997) and Hobson et al. (2004) show that feather dD is depleted relative to meteoric water by about 10‰. In this study, that would suggest that the breeding ground meteoric water is in the range of -20 to -30‰. This does appear to be substantially higher than the dD values of meteoric waters in the Northeast and even down to the Potomac; it is, however, more in line with meteoric water dD values in the southeast (Kendall and Coplen, 2001). I don’t know what wintertime dD values are in Central America, but this can probably be approximated by searching waterisotopes.org (https://wateriso.utah.edu/waterisotopes/pages/spatial_db/SPATIAL_DB.html). I’d guess that something more specific can be said about the source of the water based upon the dD values even if no meteoric water line can be recovered from the feather d18O and dD.

3. The authors find that the d13C values are approximately -25‰ and suggest that there is an approximate enrichment of 3.5‰ from what the birds are eating, suggesting that the vegetation in the breeding grounds has a d13C of -28.5‰. However, my understanding is that these birds are insectivores, which likely additionally fractionate 13C (say 1 or 1.5‰), indicating that the base vegetation must be even lower in d13C (~ -29.5 or -30‰). This isn’t crazy low…instead, it might indicate that the breeding ground vegetation receives fairly high mean annual precipitation (> 1000 mm/year) (Kohn, 2010), perhaps further indicative that the breeding grounds are in the Southeast, or that the insects consumed by Hooded Warblers are targeting specific leaves that have lower d13C. Regardless, I’m not sure why the insect dietary fractionation of 13C can be excluded when calculating the original vegetation component.

In conclusion, I think the above comments will not be difficult to address, but will help to add some richness to the very nice dataset that is presented here.

Jeremy Rugenstein

Colorado State University

References cited in review:

Chamberlain, C.P., Blum, J.D., Holmes, R.T., Feng, X., Sherry, T.W., Graves, G.R., 1997. The use of isotope tracers for identifying populations of migratory birds. Oecologia 109, 132–141.

Hobson, K.A., Bowen, G.J., Wassenaar, L.I., Ferrand, Y., Lormee, H., 2004. Using stable hydrogen and oxygen isotope measurements of feathers to infer geographical origins of migrating European birds. Oecologia 141, 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1671-7

Kendall, C., Coplen, T.B., 2001. Distribution of oxygen-18 and deuterium in river waters across the United States. Hydrol. Process. 15, 1363–1393. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.217

Kohn, M.J., 2010. Carbon isotope compositions of terrestrial C3 plants as indicators of (paleo)ecology and (paleo)climate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 19691–19695. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004933107

Reviewer #2: Deme et al. investigate molt strategy and timing using two specimens of S. citrina from two different spring seasons, and several stable isotope systems. This is used to assess the robustness of using single feathers for reconstructing ecological behaviour and migratory patterns of birds. While it is a small data set, some differences and outliers need to be explored in more detail in further studies, and no reference material of local water, insects were included, the hypothesis is compelling and and the discussion is supported by the available results. However, I recommend revisions (see comments below) before publication. Also, I recommend emphasising that further analysis is needed, for example in your abstract; your title could also emphasis that this is a first tentative evaluation of a full set of feathers.

Comments:

Explain the used stable isotope systems and why they make sense for your study in more detail.

Consider including other studies of comprehensive sets of feathers and their results in context of your study. For example, the work by English et al. 2018 on museum specimens.

Line 57: Is it known why these birds died? Where they both male or female, or one of each? Would a sickness potentially cause changes to feeding behaviour and/or effect any of the used isotope systems?

Line 68: Analog to line 59, include the feather IDs used in Fig. 2 in brackets for those, who cannot print in colour.

Line 83: Too long, shorten. Also, how often were the international standards analysed? Include n.

Line 87: Why would you analyse your samples in duplicate or triplicate to evaluate external reproducibility? Should this not be evaluated using reference materials?

Line 97: Which one is it, n=2 or 3? If RL2 was replicated twice and S3 three times, then it would be better to write this as: … of the anomalous feathers RL2 and S3 (n= 2 and 3, respectively) suggest…

Line 106: Here and elsewhere, when giving mean values and the p-value, please include n.

Line 109: The error range of your mean values when comparing the 2017 vs 2018 bird, are app. equal (d15N) or even higher (dD) than the mean value – this error range seems to undermine the usefulness of a mean value. Perhaps reconsider what this range and the inferred difference between bird 2017 and 2018 means.

Line 119: It is interesting that r2 for d13C are more often in disagreement between bird 2017 and 2018; particularly S1 to P9, S1 to S7, and RL1 to RL6 show a high r2 for bird 2017, while the r2 values show no correlation for bird 2018. When you highlight one high correlation for d18O, RR1 to RR6 for bird 2017, consider evaluating Table 1 in more detail.

Line 140: Expand on your reasoning for this.

Line 165: What do you mean with ‘rare’ oxygen and hydrogen isotopes? It would be better to refer to, e.g., C-13 as less abundant.

Reference:

English Ph. A., Green D. J., and Nocera J.J., 2018. Stable Isotopes from Museum Specimens May Provide Evidence of Long-Term Change in the Trophic Ecology of a Migratory Aerial Insectivore. Front. Ecol. Evol., https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00014.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jeremy Rugenstein

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 14;16(1):e0236536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236536.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Dec 2020

We thank the reviewers for their comments on the paper and the time they took to edit this work. Specific responses are in the file "Response to Reviewers" document uploaded previously.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

Decision Letter 1

Huan Cui

26 Dec 2020

Stable isotope (C,N,O, and H) study of a comprehensive set of feathers from two Setophaga citrina

PONE-D-20-20872R1

Dear Dr. Deme,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Huan Cui, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for addressing my earlier comments. I found the meteoric water line comparison quite interesting, and it does seem like the variability in d18O is somewhat compressed relative to what one might expect if O and H isotopes were more directly reflecting meteoric waters.

Reviewer #2: I propose accepting this manuscript for publication, however, consider a few minor corrections:

L11: "...of a single feather may be representative..."

L54: "...by the work of Graves et al. (2018), ... and timing in two after hatch year (AHY) male ..."

L95: parallel to e.g. L84, use round brackets: "Primary (P) and secondary (S) flight feathers..."

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jeremy K C Rugenstein

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Huan Cui

30 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-20872R1

Stable isotope (C,N,O, and H) study of a comprehensive set of feathers from two Setophaga citrina

Dear Dr. Deme:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Huan Cui

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Values for δ13C, δ15N, δ18O, and δD for each bird sample by feather type.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES