Table 5 Summary table showing comparative results regarding the latitudinal gradient hypothesis of the study, depending on species.
Method | GCC | SIA | DNA-M | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable (metrics) | Species | E.enc | S.pil | E.enc | S.pil | E.enc | S.pil |
Diet characterization | SFD | S > N | S > N | – | – | – | – |
%ABD | |||||||
copepods | N > S | N > S | – | – | – | – | |
krill | S > N | S > N | – | – | – | – | |
others | NLD | NLD | – | – | – | – | |
%BIO | |||||||
copepods | NLD | N > S | – | – | – | – | |
krill | NLD | S > N | – | – | – | – | |
fish eggs/larvae | NLD | N > S | – | – | – | – | |
other prey | NLD | N > S | – | – | – | – | |
%FO | |||||||
copepods | NLD | N > S | – | – | NLD | NLD | |
krill | NLD | S > N | – | – | NLD | NLD | |
fish eggs/larvae | NLD | NLD | – | – | NLD | N > S | |
cnidarians | – | – | – | – | N > S | NLD | |
other prey | NLD | NLD | – | – | NLD | NLD | |
S (values) | |||||||
Prey diversity/niche width | [total] | S > N | S > N | – | – | S > N | S > N |
copepods | S > N | S > N | – | – | S > N | S > N | |
krill | S > N | S > N | – | – | S > N | S > N | |
fish eggs/larvae | S > N | S > N | – | – | S > N | NLD | |
other prey | S > N | S > N | – | – | S > N | S > N | |
diatoms | – | – | – | – | NLD | NLD | |
S (rarefaction curves)* | DNA > GCC | – | DNA > GCC | – | – | – | |
H and SEAB area | NLD | NLD | N > S | NLD | – | – | |
Diet similarity | \({\beta }_{w}\) | N < S | – | N < S | – | – | – |
Niche overlap | O and SEAB overlap | NLD | S > N | NLD | – | – | – |
