The relationship between echolocation-call frequency and moth predation of a tropical bat fauna
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The allotonic frequency hypothesis proposes that the proportion of eared moths in the diet should be highest in bats whose echolocation calls are dominated by frequencies outside the optimum hearing range of moths i.e., <20 and >60 kHz. The hypothesis was tested on an ecologically diverse bat assemblage in northern tropical Australia that consisted of 23 species (5 families, 14 genera). Peak frequency of signals of bats within the echolocation assemblage ranged from 19.8 to 157 kHz but was greatest between 20 and 50 kHz. A strong positive relationship existed between peak call frequency and percentage of moths in the diet for a sample of 16 bats from the assemblage representing 13 genera (R2 = 0.54, p = 0.001). The relationship remained strong when the three species with low-intensity calls were excluded. When the two species with high duty cycle, constant-frequency signals were removed, the relationship was weaker but still significant. In contrast to previous research, eared moths constituted only 54% of moth captures in light traps at bat foraging grounds, and eared moths were significantly larger than non-eared individuals. These results show that the pattern of moth predation by tropical bats is similar to that already established for bat faunas in subtropical and temperate regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".