The floral bat lure dimethyl disulphide does not attract the palaeotropical Dawn bat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the neotropics, dimethyl disulphide (DMDS) is innately attractive to flower-visiting bats, and acts as a powerful bat lure in the scent bouquets of many bat-pollinated flowers. At first, DMDS appeared to be part of a general bat pollination syndrome. However, DMDS is absent in many bat-pollinated flowers of West Africa, and it is unclear whether palaeotropical flower-visiting bats are also attracted to it. Furthermore, DMDS was previously observed in neotropical, but not palaeotropical, populations of Ceiba pentandra (Malvaceae, Bombacoideae). We tested for an attraction to DMDS in the most common flower-visiting bat in Thailand, the dawn bat Eonycteris spelaea. We gave bats choices of Ceiba pentandra flowers, where one random flower was scented with DMDS. Rather than preferring the DMDS-treated flower, 21 of 22 bats chose an untreated flower, showing no attraction to DMDS. Alongside past evidence, this result suggests that the role of DMDS in bat pollination syndromes may result from an adaptive convergence that is limited to the neotropics. This hypothesis could be tested through comparative studies of (1) attraction across bats, (2) floral DMDS presence across bat-pollinated plants in Asia, and (3) floral DMDS measures across New and Old World populations of Ceiba pentandra.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".