MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2037112565 · doi:10.1242/jeb.027185

COHABITING MOTHS HEAR ROOM-MATE BATS

2008· article· en· W2037112565 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman echolocationBiologyInsectZoologyEcologyCavePredationRange (aeronautics)CreaturesEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bats aren't the only creatures that take refuge in caves. Some moth species make caves and abandoned mines their homes, even though the bat occupants may prey on them. James Fullard and an international team of colleagues from Canada, South Africa and Australia explain that one Australian noctuid moth,the granny's cloak moth (Speiredonia spectans), routinely shares its day roosts with bats (Miniopterus australis and Rhinolophus megaphyllus) that dine on insects. Fullard and his team suspected that the moths are able to evade the hungry bats because they hear the predator's echolocation calls, so they decided to test the insect's hearing(p.3808).First the team filmed the moths' and bats' activity in three abandoned Queensland mines to see how the moths respond to the predators and found that the insects avoid flying when the bats are airborne. Meanwhile the team rigged up ultrasound recording equipment and recorded and analysed the echolocation calls of three of the four bat species that occupied the mines.Having collected moths, the team returned to the lab and tested the insect's hearing by playing them echolocation call recordings and a range of sounds at various frequencies and volumes. They found that the moths have exquisitely sensitive hearing in the same frequency range as the echolocation calls of M. australis and R. megaphyllus. The insects could hear both bats' echolocation calls, but responded most strongly to R. megaphyllus. The team also found that the moths are deaf to the majority of the extremely high frequency calls from Hipposideros ater, a bat that does not cohabit with the insect, although the insects can pick up some of the bat's lower frequencies but only when the predator is probably too close to escape.Having found that granny's cloak moth listens out for the bats it cohabits with, the team suggest that the moths protect themselves by lying low and remaining perched when the bats are about. But why doesn't the moth cohabit with H. ater, which it cannot hear? Surely the silence would make the cave an attractive place to rest? Not according to Fullard and his colleagues. They suspect that the moth's relative deafness to the bat's high frequency calls makes it extremely vulnerable, allowing the bat to wipe out hapless moths that blunder into their roosts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicBat Biology and Ecology Studies→French-language works237,207→