Foraging-habitat selection by bats at an urban–rural interface: comparison between a successful and a less successful species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared habitat use of two sympatric species of bat in a rural area undergoing suburban development. The two species are similar in diet and foraging-habitat use but differ in current roosting habitat, and exhibit contrasting regional population trends. Evening bat, Nycticeius humeralis (Rafinesque, 1818), populations are declining in central Indiana, whereas big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus (Beauvois, 1796), populations are increasing. We assessed habitat selection by 22 adult female bats using radiotelemetry and compositional analysis. Eptesicus fuscus used several roosts across the study area; all but one roosted in human-made structures. Nycticeius humeralis clustered roosts within a small group of woodlots; all roosted in tree cavities. Eptesicus fuscus foraged for longer periods of time and nonreproductive individuals of this species had larger foraging ranges than N. humeralis. Both species foraged primarily in agricultural and wooded areas. During foraging, N. humeralis showed greater foraging-site fidelity and a stronger selection for agricultural and wooded areas than E. fuscus. We suggest that N. humeralis in our study area is probably more sensitive to suburban development near their roosts than E. fuscus.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".