Activity and diet of bats in conventional versus organic apple orchards in southern Michigan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organic farming practices have been suggested as a conservation strategy that can provide productive foraging sites for insectivorous bats in agricultural areas. We tested the hypothesis that the number and diversity of insects captured and the resulting activity and diet of bats would differ between organic and conventional apple orchards. During the summer of 2009 and 2010, we captured 131 Big Brown Bats (Eptesicus fuscus) and five Eastern Red Bats (Lasiurus borealis) by mist netting in four organic and four conventional orchards in Michigan. Acoustic monitoring revealed that most calls (59%) were produced by Big Brown Bats, followed by Hoary Bats (L. cinereus), Eastern Red Bats, and unidentified species of Myotis. Most insects (96%) captured in light traps were Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, and Trichoptera; fecal analysis indicated that Coleoptera dominated the diet of Big Brown Bats (79% by volume), followed by Diptera (14%). There were no significant differences between organic and conventional orchards in number of insects captured with light traps, bats captured with mist nets, acoustic recordings of bats, or proportion of Coleoptera and Diptera consumed by the bats. However, the taxonomic composition of captured insects and acoustic recordings was not homogenous among orchards in either group, suggesting that factors other than farming practices were more important in determining which insects and bats were found in the small orchards typical of southern Michigan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".