Differentiating wild from captive animals: an isotopic approach

BACKGROUND: Wildlife farming can be an important but complex tool for conservation. To achieve conservation benefits, wildlife farming should meet a variety of criteria, including traceability conditions to identify the animals’ origin. The traditional techniques for discriminating between wild and captive animals may be insufficient to prevent doubts or misdeclaration, especially when labels are not expected or mandatory. There is a pressing need to develop more accurate techniques to discriminate between wild and captive animals and their products. Stable isotope analysis has been used to identify animal provenance, and some studies have successfully demonstrated its potential to differentiate wild from captive animals. In this literature review, we examined an extensive collection of publications to develop an overall picture of the application of stable isotopes to distinguish between wild and captive animals focusing on evaluating the patterns and potential of this tool. SURVEY METHODOLOGY: We searched peer-reviewed publications in the Web of Science database and the references list from the main studies on the subject. We selected and analyzed 47 studies that used δ(13)C, δ(15)N, δ(2)H, δ(18)O, and δ(34)S in tissues from fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. We built a database from the isotope ratios and metadata extracted from the publications. RESULTS: Studies have been using stable isotopes in wild and captive animals worldwide, with a particular concentration in Europe, covering all main vertebrate groups. A total of 80.8% of the studies combined stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen, and 88.2% used at least one of those elements. Fish is the most studied group, while amphibians are the least. Muscle and inert organic structures were the most analyzed tissues (46.81% and 42.55%). δ(13)C and δ(15)N standard deviation and range were significantly higher in the wild than in captive animals, suggesting a more variable diet in the first group. δ(13)C tended to be higher in wild fishes and in captive mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. δ(15)N was higher in the wild terrestrial animals when controlling for diet. Only 5.7% of the studies failed to differentiate wild and captive animals using stable isotopes. CONCLUSIONS: This review reveals that SIA can help distinguish between wild and captive in different vertebrate groups, rearing conditions, and methodological designs. Some aspects should be carefully considered to use the methodology properly, such as the wild and captivity conditions, the tissue analyzed, and how homogeneous the samples are. Despite the increased use of SIA to distinguish wild from captive animals, some gaps remain since some taxonomic groups (e.g., amphibians), countries (e.g., Africa), and isotopes (e.g., δ(2)H, δ(18)O, and δ(34)S) have been little studied.