MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546520224 · doi:10.1111/brv.12024

Altitudinal migration in bats: evidence, patterns, and drivers

2013· review· en· W1546520224 on OpenAlexafffund
Liam P. McGuire, W. Alice Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcologyBiologyTemperate climateTorporBird migrationCompetition (biology)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Altitudinal migrations are common in all major vertebrate and some invertebrate lineages. Such migrations have important implications for the basic and applied ecology of animals making these movements. The idea that bats make altitudinal migrations has been suggested for nearly a century. However, studies documenting the existence and causes of altitudinal bat migrations are scarce, and are frequently published in the 'grey' literature. For the first time, we comprehensively review the evidence supporting the existence of altitudinal bat migrations worldwide, describe basic patterns of migration in temperate and tropical regions, and articulate and propose tests of hypotheses potentially explaining these migrations. We compiled a list of 50 studies indicative of altitudinal bat migration in 61 species (five families) from 21 countries (four continents). The temporal and spatial patterns of these migrations grouped biogeographically. Temperate bats generally exhibit sex-biased migrations with females inhabiting lower elevations than males during reproductive periods. Although there is less information on tropical bat migration, few studies report sex-biased migration. We compiled hypotheses proposed in the bat and (more extensive) avian literature to provide a list of hypotheses potentially explaining altitudinal bat migrations. These hypotheses rely upon temporal availability of (and competition for) food resources, spatial distribution of geomorphological features suitable for hibernation, sex-related differences in the use of torpor, mating opportunities, and climatic factors that impose direct physiological challenges to survival or that restrict the ability to forage. A more thorough description of the migration patterns of most species will be required to distinguish effectively among these hypotheses. We identify research avenues that would broaden our understanding of bat migration patterns and provide critical information required for effective conservation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.243
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.090 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical SocietySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207